Category talk:Anti-Gamergate slate

You think it will stop anything?

The issue isn't the content, it's the people interested in the content.

Not only that, giving them a box to put some f the content away in isn't the same as getting rid of every last one of them, whether you agree with them or not. If I had any ability to choose, I'd just perma-ban/block/demop everyone who's made an edit and a revert on the main page or made more than five edits on the talk page - without question - before making the GG quarantine wiki. And I mean everyone. Even if the Flying Spaghetti Monster proved his existance and edited the page or Zoe Quinn herself met the threshold, they'd get the boot.Keter (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think Goonie is being snarky and sarcastic. Praise "Bob". --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving all of the RW Gamergate content offsite is a fine idea. And of course it will stop "anything".--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic at all. It started as a hyperbole, but the more I think on it, the more I think it's the best possible solution. Gamergate has taken up enough of RationalWiki's community's time with the seemingly endless HCMs that come out of it and at the footsteps of those of us (like me) are don't care much about it in the first place. If we give it a separate space somewhere with its own rules and mission, it will eliminate a lot of the issues that have stemmed from hosting it. Furthermore, by doing so, users enamored with Gamergate as a topic will follow it there organically, thus getting rid of the need, as you propose, to desysop and block them. To me, this is the most ideal solution. In a way, it creates a "safe space" for the Gamergate folks and cuts out the tumor of Gamergate drama on RationalWiki. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd been opposed to getting rid of a thing simply because it is controversial, including GG. But this situation is many magnitudes worse than a big controversy. The topic attracts vicious people wishing to harm many of us. Once that is added to the never-ending controversy, then yes, I am willing to consider moving it off-site. But before finally deciding I'd like to entertain the views of more of my fellow editors.---Mona- (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As Mona said. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Forgive my usage of hyperbole, but by giving in to Gamergate threats and moving the pages off site, aren't we letting the terrorists win? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Being a drama magnet is not in and of itself grounds for getting rid of something, but it takes too many mental gyrations to claim the RW mission covers GG topics. Not feeding disruptive GG trolls != letting terrorists win, not by any stretch. Flux gate gamma (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

But the topic here isn't whether or not GG is on-mission. It's a direct response to threats made to this website and it's users. That's confusing the issue at hand. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO, covering GG topics was never on mission, and was never a good idea. The issue at hand is not necessarily the immediate motive for its banishment, but the overall benefit of purging GG from RW space. Flux gate gamma (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

GG is a reactionary crank movement focused on gaslighting people to believe in it, I think that's pretty on mission. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Calling it crankery is exactly the kind of stretch or gyration I'm talking about. Flux gate gamma (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not if you're experienced with Gamergate. Gamergate is as on-mission as the site debunking any anti-feminist, racist, sexist, bigoted and in general, reactionary views, and we have multiple articles dedicated to that. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I agree. N.B. "similar other stuff exists here" can be a distraction, and is not very convincing. Flux gate gamma (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more that "This disagrees with precedent and other stuff we've decided is on-mission", but I digress. A good day/morning/evening to you. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

But, if you purge gamergate from RW, what else goes? It is a slippery slope. Does the proposed slate include deleting the Anita Sarkeesian article? What about Social justice warriors? Both of those articles would/do potentially offend the GG asshats. This is why I'm ambivalent about this proposal. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That would probably include the article about Anita, since she's only here, cause she was a target for GG. The article about the social justice warrior goes beyond GG, so that probably not.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Anita's harassment predates the GG moniker by several years. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 09:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No-one would heard about here or in most other places outside of the fans of her YouTube channel without GG.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Anita's harassment started before she was even making videos. Proto-GG, but not GG. She was part of what begun to solidify that reactionary anti-feminist culture. Thus, she is important context to articles on social justice, feminism, the MRM, et al. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What the hell has that to do with the fact, that she gained any semblance of prominence beyond Youtube commentaries through GG?? Your reading comprehension SUCKS.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Your whole point against hers being a relevant article was that she wasn't noteworthy. I pointed out that she was. Your only response is ad-hom. I think that means I've won the argument. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You won shit, Comical Ali. There are tons of two-bit Youtubers like her. Without GG, no-one here would have given a fuck about her.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

...You seem to be arguing that in a different reality, she wouldn't be noteworthy, thus she shouldn't be noteworthy here. This tactic is flawed, to say the least. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm arguing, that she is part of the GG articles and would have to be moved to an GG wiki hosted by the RMF, if there would be one.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I have presented clear reason that Anita predates GG and is relevant to many other articles that exist here as well, and you still haven't acknowledged that. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

'Cause it's hokum her being relevant without her involvement in GG. Without GG, she'd stayed some two-bit Youtuber uploading boring videos on Youtube on the topics of feminism, evil computer games and such stuff like thousands of others like her. On the wave of GG, she surfed right before the UNGA clown car. The article about her IS part of the GG mess. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Our article on her has existed since at least a year before Gamergate happened, bro. Also are you seriously implying she's a "professional victim", as gamergate would put it? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See above, "other stuff exists." Flux gate gamma (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The opportunity cost is just too high. Even if we were or could de-convert gamergaters, how much community effort's been consumed by the articles, revert wars, special edit filters, coop cases, etc. that could have been spent elsewhere? This isn't prop 8 or scientology - it's an internet slap-fight that RW's found itself in the middle of. – Sarah (HH) 03:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We'd still host it on RW proper under my proposal, though in a more abridged version on RationalWiki proper. Once it's ported over to the proposed side-project, however, it can be made far more in depth than anything missional to RationalWiki itself. Keep in mind, my proposal would not kill the GG content on RationalWiki, rather it would move it to a side-project that could operate with its own rules and standards, thus getting rid, for example, of some of the hypocrisy of us inviting dissent while not allowing Gamergaters, among other things. RationalWiki proper could still cover them under my proposal, but in reduced formats from how they are covered now. Gooniepunk (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's nonsensical or hypocritical for RationalWiki to distinguish between dissent on a topic and preventing gamergators from shitting all over the place. Those are two completely different things. There is a clear difference between healthy debate, which RationalWiki encourages, and providing a platform for hate groups and trolls. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And what the fuck it going on with the outdents? Jeez. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but what is needed to rectify the Gamergate situation is tighter controls on the community (i.e: not allowing IPs to edit, different standards and rules as to what is allowed, restricting information about users that the public-at-large can see). These things could be applied universally to RationalWiki, which would disrupt dissent on other articles across the board that have nothing to do with Gamergate, or we can give Gamergate its own, separate space with thosethings, which would allow RationalWiki proper to remain an open community and open website. Gooniepunk (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm torn by this proposal. At first glance it seems like pushing the problem to someone else, but still keeping it within the scope of the foundation. How the fook would that work? What goes and what stays? Who in their right mind would sign up to manage such a shitfest? It sounds like a massive waste of time to me, as does most of the other gamergate discussion. However I'm quite alarmed by recent threads suggesting there are assholes out there who are trolling about going RL and harassing editors and mods here, and recognize that this is potentially a very serious problem. I refuse to succumb to paranoia, though, and believe that the trolls are mostly composed of the hot air that their whole movement is composed of. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Tell that to Gamergate's victims. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I was definitely not trivializing the issue. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Kitsunelaine, I am not in all things a natural ally of yours, and it wasn't anti-GGers who caused me to come to have disgust and contempt for GGers. Tho not as extreme as what is happening here, their behavior on Twitter, some of which involved me, was obnoxious and utterly adolescent. Adolescents who have no adult supervision. These people are an ugly, angry and unhinged subculture we need to be rid of.---Mona- (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There are some subjects we see eye to eye on and some we don't. It's called being human. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Push this idiotic dramafest off RW so we can talk about stuff that matters here, e.g. Mona's BDS jihad and so on.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, I see you joined that site that's posting threats about members here, including me. You inquired as to who Queex really is, and whether there is really a plan to dox him. And, you didn't sound a peep in objection to the vicious plans being posted there. Why?---Mona- (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity and because me objecting to them doxxing anyone would be as effective as saying an avalanche not to roll over some hapless skiers.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

ugly, angry and unhinged subculture we need to be rid of That would indeed be lovely. This proposal won't do anything to achieve that, however - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I believe you participate at that kiwi site that is monitoring everything said here, do you not? I saw your user name here paired over there with an Eichman avi bearing the user name "Treblinkachu." Mr. Eichmann had nothing to say to all his pals discussing finding and harassing David Gerard's wife. Similarly, Eichman had no objections to posting what was mistakenly assumed to be my home address (it's my son's), and a picture of what is erroneously believed to be a home I once lived in. All with proposals to contact my neighbors and friends -- with addresses and names of neighbors (of my son's) posted -- to tell them I support pedophiles. You had nothing to say about any of that. Why is that Sarah?---Mona- (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@-Mona- Kiwi?? Eichmann?? You've got the wrong HuskyHarlot. Can you link me to this other one? – Sarah (HH) 08:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You are lying. You knew Arisboch the minute he arrived there. Greeted him, uh, very warmly, offering certain...services.---Mona- (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Why am I friendly with Arisboch, is he "pro GG?" I can't even recall he and I interacting here. And why all of a sudden are you and I sworn enemies? We had one exchange where I was critical of your judging a group by its worst actors but it wasn't heated or personal. This doesn't make sense and the cryptic responses aren't helping. – Sarah (HH) 19:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I ain't either pro-GG nor anti-GGG.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, google led me to the site/thread. 23 pages? I'm not reading that but I'm sorry if they've threatened you or your son. I have nothing against you, really. I don't even consider you anti-GG. You're against harassment, rape threats, etc. but so am I. For me, Gamergate comes down to the right to express "offensive" ideas. You seem somewhat radical so I'd wager you're more with me than against me on that point. Regardless, I wish you the best but please leave me out of this mess. – Sarah (HH) 19:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Are or are you not a communist?Keter (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Well Sarah, I took a look at that sewer for a day or two, but am not going back to check. I recall that Eichman avi creature claiming to also go by "Husky Harlot." That seems quite the coincidence but I am not going to go get the quote. That same account told Arisboch s/he wished to perform a carnal act on him out of great love. Anyway, only unhinged people would claim I support pedophiles. Having individuals here being targeted by those on a crusade about Sarah Nyberg, and planning to dox editors here and/or harasss them and their relatives, is unpleasant -- they are pathologically obsessed with this site, as if we represent the pinnacle of evil and spend what seems like their whole empty lives discussing every personality clash here. So, if I'm wrong about you Husky Harlot, given the great coincidence, I can't summon an apology. Those people are the matter stalkers are made of, focusing tons of time on regular people and places as if they are some huge and powerful nemesis. #sick #disturbing ---Mona- (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I searched the site for references to my username and found this post: /threads/random_text-txt.1439/page-79#post-1122342 (pre-pend the domain name.) The poster appears to be quoting my user page (it's in quotes) in a link to a discussion where they make fun of Ryulong for complaining about my user page. I think you've misinterpreted. Either way I have no intention of harassing you, I don't even dislike you. And I hardly have time to keep up with the posts here much less obsess about this site on another site - it's all too much. – Sarah (HH) 21:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"Gamergate comes down to the right to express "offensive" ideas." Unless GG itself finds such ideas offensive, at which point it's apparently fine to dox and harass the person holding those ideas. Petey Plane (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. I follow the KotakuInAction subreddit and they're pretty firmly anti-dox and pro-speech. For example: although a number of them have been banned from the anti-Gamergate subreddit they allow anti-Gamergate posters in KotakuInAction. I've seen them quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" a number of times, most recently in a thread critical of an ACLU blog post which ironically appeared to advocate the opposite position. – Sarah (HH) 21:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, the first google result from "Mona Gamergate Kiwi" is a false flag and no anti-GGer has ever been doxed on infinitychan. The mafia also didn't exist, only the government's persecution of independent Italian businessmen. Personally, i'm all for ethical journalism, but the complete duplicity (as shown by "I don't see that at all") of GG in its current state, and the harassment of non-believes, is why no one, outside of their echo-chambers, believes that ethical journalism is what they still stand for. Petey Plane (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That site existed before Gamergate and it will exist after Gamergate. It's no more "Gamergate" than RW is Gamergate, despite these discussions. What the chans do is what the chans have always done. I can't help it if some of them sympathize with Gamergate. White nationalists being pro universal healthcare doesn't make me against it. If you wan't to know what Gamergate's about visit the subreddit I mentioned earlier. 50K (relatively normal) Gamergaters. – Sarah (HH) 23:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-natural category, doesn't make it not RW's problem

This proposal is functionally a proxy for declaring the GG articles somehow off-mission, when they clearly tick a pile of the boxes:

2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. 

The only one it's lacking is pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.

So, we have material that's clearly on-mission and are the go-to articles on the subject. They aren't a natural category to hive off. This appears to be an ad-hoc mission change proposal, being discussed in an obscure new category talk page?

Secondarily, if it's still being run by RMF, it's still going to be RMF's problem. (thus, e.g., mine.)

Thirdly, these people are fucking rabid loons. (As Ryulong fucking told you repeatedly. It's nice to see that people are finally realising everything he was saying about them was completely correct and important to dealing with them all along, and perhaps you should go back and look and accept that perhaps, having long been their target, he knew what the fuck he was talking about.) There is no sensible or sane "stop" condition for them.

This proposal is incoherent and can't possibly achieve its goals - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I feel like it's important to highlight the last sentence of your penultimate paragraph. What exactly do people think this would accomplish if it were carried out? Gamergaters don't stop when they've found a target. Most stalkers don't. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No, but this particular group stops once they've bullied an outlet into dropping negative(i.e. accurate) coverage of them. It's pretty much their top priority: abuse voting and similar systems on the internet to push a positive representation of their ideology. Honestly, if that wasn't their primary MO, I'd be less inclined to give a shit about the occasional sealioning here, and let the whiners have their way. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 12:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If there's even an "abbreviated" article here it'll remain a target. The plan is incoherent - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

David, please. I already knew, well before I arrived at RW, that many GGers were "rabid loons." I had had direct interaction with Cernovich who is an utter asshole who harassed a woman on Twitter, swinging his lawyer status like a cock to terrify her into thinking he could turn her mild words into a suit for defamation or threats. (I told her to report him to the CA bar, and he back-pedaled, and then blocked me.) Many others here also grasp the vicious nature of many in the GG cohort while still finding Ryulong insufferable. That GGers are often revolting creatures does not translate into Ryu being reasonable, for he absolutely is not. Let's not conflate the issue, ok David? The issue is what this wiki should do about about the GG assholes.

Making a separate section that is just for GG-related stuff would free the vast majority of us. GG wouldn't be in our swimming pool. It would be a separate pond we wouldn't have to see in Recent Changes, or be concerned with at all if we so choose. I so choose.---Mona- (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If the issues consist of individuals breaking the rules, then why not punish the individuals? I didn't count the IPs closely, but it couldn't have been more than a half-dozen, which is hardly an insurmountable number of potential troublemakers. While I can't speak specifically to the rules broken, it was somewhat surprising to see multiple talk pages locked without warning. Maybe the individuals in question got warnings, I didn't see any accusations of rule breaking being tossed around on the talk pages in question. Most (again: most) of the talk page discussion was pretty civil, and there was a lot of progress being made by both sides in reaching a common understanding. If RW's existing rules aren't sufficient in producing accurate, informative articles then update the site rules. So that way every article can benefit. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As Mona said, again. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Mona too. Took me 2 seconds to google the dox thread in the kiwi form. If that is the result of making minor edits on a subject you only have a tangential interest in (and that is only tangentially related to the site's mission), it needs to be quarantined. I like the vote idea proposed below. Barring any brigading, i have a feeling most other users will want it gone too. The 3 or 4 pages connected to GG are not worth the drama.Petey Plane (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You're asserting this repeatedly without backing it. As one of the targets myself I don't see at all how this will actually work, and all sorts of ways it won't - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, of course they'd be targeting you. It never occurred to me that they'd be seeking out people who do serious maintenance on the site to harass. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

They were primarily obsessed with Ryo, and are posting his full name and several addresses. Second, they have it in for David. But they've expanded and are now following everything at this site as if we were a reality TV show, and obsessively dissecting all the commentary here. Somehow, that the GG article contains stuff about Sarah Nyberg means most of us "support pedophiles, " including me -- they want to call my neighbors and friends to tell them of my purported pedophile support. This is literally crazy; we have attracted the attention of kind of sickos who did the heinous stalking and threatening of some of the women the GGers hate. If we keep the GG articles here, it is unlikely this wretched mob is going to stop tracking the edits and seeing "pro-pedophile" and other hallucinated positions here. Get rid of it, and put it where only those who know the pathological behavior they might be attracting do the editing. Some of us want to opt out and edit in peace.---Mona- (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This is yet another example of the ideological purity shit that infests all of GG-dom. I mean, it's basically harassment with minimum reasons to the point of it all being made up at this point.Keter (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean I agree with you, but >implying it was ever anything else - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No, sadly to say but a lot of people targeted by GG (Horrifyingly enough, most of the people I'm referencing being men with 1 or 2 women) have been undergoing harassment campaigns before then. GG just gathered a good volume of those people into the same group. (Phil Fish, people in Athiesm+, Nyberg, Ryulong...) I'm honestly surprised CWC and Fast Eddie from TvTropes got added to the shitlist.Keter (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't TvTropes used as a breeding ground for a while? Man, that site has it's own list of problems. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

TvTropes' issues start at the fact Anime fans tend towards creepy and socially awkward people and end at Fast Eddie's literal phobia of criticism. The This Troper youtube series quoted articles and forum posts and three hours later you'd see it nuked, regardless of what the content was. I mean, 5P was a pretty Good thing for all it's flaws, but it became obvious that the host was just making vids to see if Fast Eddie would purge everything shown in HCM.Keter (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is kind of amazing because I know the site's refused to remove someone's real life page at their request because it was being used to stalk and harass them. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're talking about, but the adminship there are those sorts of assholes so I believe you on that.Keter (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"these people are fucking rabid loons. (As Ryulong fucking told you repeatedly. It's nice to see that people are finally realising everything he was saying about them was completely correct and important to dealing with them all along, and perhaps you should go back and look and accept that perhaps, having long been their target, he knew what the fuck he was talking about." -> No it's not.

My observation is that most people behaved fairly reasonable, and that some didn't. They may be wrong, but not "fucking rabid loons". You're making the classic Ryulong mistake: assuming that anyone who has some vague affiliation is the same. This is certainly not my experience with "GGers", both on RW and elsewhere.

Every demographic has its share of "fucking rabid loons". For some, it's 1%, others 10%, and maybe others as high as 80%; but I can't really think of a group where it's really 100% except for the "fucking rabid loon" demographic. The complete inability to realize this is a tell-tale sign that you're not even willing to listen what the other side has to say, or learn what exactly motivates them. I don't know exactly either in this case, but I don't go around dismissing them all as "fucking loons", and remember, being wrong is not the same as being a "fucking rabid loon".

As for missionality; I see very little "crank ideas", "authoritarianism", and "fundamentalism" involved. Just people disagreeing violently over mostly unimportant stuff; although I could be wrong. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"Hey, maybe these doxxing, harassing stalkers who will stop at nothing to destroy their targets have a point" - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not even close to what I said. It's yet another Kitsunelaine straw man™. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hyperbole, maybe, but strawman, nope. Given how little it took to have doxxing attempts and blatant threats happen towards this site and it's users, how can you even suggest that these people are the "minority" of gators? Oh wait, you frequent pro-gg subreddits and have drunk their kool-aid. Never mind. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) My observation is that most GG-ers I've seen on this site did not dox anyone. I will gladly be proven wrong by a count or some such. For example, Vodark for called out for his antics by fellow GG-ers, which sort of demonstrates my point they're not all "fucking rabid loons".

As a footnote, presenting an argument as a "hyperbole" is pretty much the definition of a straw man (well, one of them anyway), and your association fallacy just just stupid (everything I say can now be easily handwaved away for "frequenting" one "pro-gg" subreddit where I have said absolutely nothing in support of GG; just posting there a bit is enough, apparently). Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Carpetsmoker, I don't honestly give a fuck what you have to say, given the fact that you are approaching this topic with bad faith, disingenuous bullshit, and are a Gamergate sympathizer yourself. And if you even have to question why someone would brush you aside for associating with them, maybe you need to rethink your life choices. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That's indeed a good refutation to my point that most GGers did not dox anyone. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And not every KKK member lynches people, either, but are you going to expect us to give them the time of day too? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't responded to my point; instead we get this sort of stuff that doesn't really matter. How many pro-GG editors has RW seen? How many have doxed anyone? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's almost like they hide under psuedonyms and sockpuppets. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Carpetsmoker: one of the reasons Kitsunelaine and, indeed, I may have some difficulty with your efforts here is that you're currently engaged in your civil and friendly outreach efforts (not an intrinsically bad thing) on the site discussed elsewhere on this page, in the actual thread that is literally in the process of doxing RW editors and their families. I urge you to apply your judgement and consider that perhaps vicious doxers may not work out as being the perfect pool of prospective RW community members, and that if you were to claim the best of faith this wouldn't look like very good evidence of such. And perhaps it's a failing of polite and civil discourse on my part to express my profoundly negative opinion of these people and anyone who goes out of their way to associate with them, but perhaps polite and civil discourse is not actually the appropriate response to them - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone being doxed, and certainly haven't seen "literally in the process of doxing RW editors and their families", but that may be an oversights on my part (I also stopped engaging a week and a half ago, reverting to casually keeping an eye on things as I have before). Please enlighten me. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I see now that you seem to be referring to the Kiwi farms site. To say that I am "currently engaged" there is simply not true. My last post there is a quick comment on Dec 14th, and any other serious posts there are well over two weeks ago—long before anyone was doxed. I haven't even kept up on the posts since mid-December and only came back there (to read) due to this comment. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Update2: I forgot to make these points earlier as it was pre-coffee: You go so far to state that "perhaps polite and civil discourse is not actually the appropriate response". So what's left then? Just {ignore,ban,use_fallacies} just because of a vague association with one site or the other? Really? All that you've done is state (without any backing) that all of these people are "fucking rabid loons" or (somewhere else) "sociopaths", when I reply stating that, in my experience, this is not actually the case, an association fallacy—and a pretty damn bad one at that­—is the response, but not an actual refutation of the point that was made. I could be wrong, but if I am, you haven't even tried to show me. No one has. This, in general, seems to be the standard response on many things GG-related, and one of the prime reasons that for me, the jury is still out on GG. If you all had actually spent time on trying to engage in polite and civil discourse (instead of a long list of straw men, red herrings, association fallacies, etc) I might have been convinced of at least some of your points.

Also, Kiwi Farms isn't really pro-GG. Sure, there are some pro-GG people there, but as far as I can see they are few and far in-between. There was a poll on GG a while ago and most people voted either "neutral" or "anti-GG" IIRC. There are also plenty of threads making fun of GG idiots (and there sure are plenty). They just like to laugh at "lolcows"; I don't quite see the fun in that, but to each their own. I don't approve of their doxing, by the way, but it's not like I have anything to do with that, or even approved it in any way. My point is, the doxing that's going on there is not GG motivated. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You go so far to state that "perhaps polite and civil discourse is not actually the appropriate response". So what's left then?- Carpetsmoker

Well, I don't know, Carpetsmoker, what is left when you're dealing with people who will never stop until you kneel in obedience to them? You're basically saying to have polite and civil discourse with the MRA+Nrx equivalent of Creationists and Westboro Baptists. It is already known from experience that dealing with such is futile. You're not going to convince Roosh V that women have any value past the age of 21, so why even bother?

Now, if you want to, say, go argue the virtues of liberalism or something on Free Republic, you are free to engage in your quixotic pursuit all you want. But please don't expect the rest of us to join you.

Also, Kiwi Farms isn't really pro-GG.- Carpetsmoker

Nah, they just claim to be a "nicer" version of 4/8chan. The Daily Stormer also claims to be a "nicer" version of Stormfront, but I don't hang with them either.

I don't approve of their doxing, by the way, but it's not like I have anything to do with that, or even approved it in any way.- Carpetsmoker

If you don't want have anything to do with it or approve or it, either a) force them to stop or b) disavow and dissociate.

My point is, the doxing that's going on there is not GG motivated.- Carpetsmoker

So they say publicly. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It may not be obvious in however my tone is perceived, but none of that is meant personally, by the way. I just think you are operating off of incorrect premises. For instance, when dealing with KiA subs (such as WikiInAction), remember that the overall premise they are operating from is "Gamergate cannot be wrong; it can only BE WRONGED." Wrong premises lead to incorrect conclusions. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit, Fox Wave is trying to out-strawman Dlagon. Impressive, you may have even succeeded.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Fuck off, Arisboch. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

After you, my dear, after you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Kistunelaine, you totally straw-manned what Carpetsmoker said. He's right that not all GGers are "rabid loons." That said, the ones who've gone after me on Twitter (and somehow they decided I had tweeted 2 things that merited an accusation at Reddit -- where I hardly ever participate -- that I am an "SJW"), and also attacked one of my female Twitter friends (a Muslim & feminist), are awful people. They aren't all like that, but the significant number who are are exceptionally vicious. In nearly all circumstances we should be accepting of users with opposing views, and that would include for GG articles. But unless we are going to ban all pro-GG users -- to end both the ugly attention from outside and the constant disruption on the inside -- we have to move the whole topic. Finally, I do think GG is missional. My support for the move is entirely due to the freakish nature of so many pro-GGers.---Mona- (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The site would be justified in banning every pro-GG member, because we do not exist to give a platform to hate groups bent on destroying people who disagree with them. And you can't pretend that gamergate and it's sympathizers don't encourage this and benefit from it. Also, I told Arisboch to fuck off because he's an insufferable asshole. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"you can't pretend that gamergate and it's sympathizers don't encourage this and benefit from it" -> So? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Carpetsmoker, you can't pretend that this is irrelevant to all the bad faith shit going on here. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"The site would be justified in banning every pro-GG member" As determined by whom? No. We even tolerate antisemites and racists unless and until they vandalize pages or edit war etc. They can talk on the talk pages, but are unlikely to succeed in many edits. I do not want any ideological litmus tests at this wiki. I support preventive banning for reasonably anticipated behavior, but not umbrella bans of viewpoints.---Mona- (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand just how intertwined this behavior is to the gamergate mindset. Don't worry. You'll get it eventually. You're on the right track, you're just a couple pages behind me. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"REPENT SINNER YOU WILL SEE THE LIGHT!!!"--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to deal with this in the most traditional RationalWiki manner

That is, a vote. Or just let it be and let the bickering continue, both would count as "the most traditional RationalWiki manner". |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{THE TRASHY STROLLING IS AN EYESORE!} 16:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Eventually, yes. But let's hash it out, first. And I think a vote before the holidays would be a bad idea. Some editors are or will be on vacation; I believe Carpetsmoker is.---Mona- (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And somewhere with more visibility than here. There is possibly a more obscure possible corner of the wiki to start a discussion about how to ignore the mission, but "category talk" is a pretty good try - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

How about after the holidays at the Saloon Bar?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, how about the Saloon starting next Monday?---Mona- (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be still just a few days away from New Years Eve and New Year. Better on the 4th of January or something like that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok.---Mona- (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, and in my personal defense, this was meant as more of a political platform than a community discussion. It didn't even start out that way, to be honest. Originally, it started out as a hyperbole, but the more I thought on it and the more people talked about it, the more it turned into a community discussion about actual community shit and took off from there. I had been planning to actually start a forum about it once I actually worked out details. In any case, I say let's shelf this 'till after the hollandaise, 'cuz then I'll actually maybe have a foraml proposal with details worked out that we can argue over. Gooniepunk (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. And Goonie, you are doing a fine job of exercising the minimal but still necessary leadership and moderating the site needs in its mods.---Mona- (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)