Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

Essay talk:Contra Kotomi

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is my first actual writing on RW. Be harsh with my logic or my prose if they deserve it, but please forgive my wiki formatting if it's deficient. Actually, help me to improve that in the article.

Please criticize my argument on this talk page.

Arithmostoutheriou 14:11, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

So, in essence, you argue that anyone who posts on CP is an idiot and deserving of scorn, regardless of what they post and how they act? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with someone who paints with that large of a brush. Z3rotalk 14:15, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
"regardless of what they post and how they act?" No, I don't believe I said that at all. In particular, I exempted dissidents. What I criticize is going along with the program, and as Edge points out, it's certainly more applicable to the major players, who, I'll add, might be reasonably expected to express dissent if they're thinking it. And if (g)you are not even thinking dissent when on CP, then yes, I think (g)you do deserve the broad brush of scorn. Arithmostoutheriou 14:34, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
The arguement seemed to focus more on the deities of CP rather than the "mere mortals". But, look at someone like WesleyS. Is there a better definition of "head in the sand (or up his ass)"? --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 14:22, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
You may make that distinction, but the essay does not, hence my comment. I've always thought of the "mere mortals" as neither good nor bad. Imagine someone who wants to contribute to an encyclopedia, but is intimidated by Wikipedia. You can go to CP, and as long as you stay quite and just edit some out of the way articles, you are basically left alone. Are they good or bad? Neither, I would argue. Z3rotalk 14:28, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Fair enough. But are they still neither after they've been around long enough to have a good grasp of how things work there? I think if you've been around long enough to know what's what, and you stick around, that's no longer morally neutral. — Unsigned, by: Arithmostoutheriou / talk / contribs
(EC)I get what you're saying and I agree. To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 14:38, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
I would agree, if I viewed CP as "morally evil", but their activites do not fall under that heading. At best, they're just very, very stupid. Something like Andy's class is different, but that is not dependent on CP. Z3rotalk 14:56, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't view CP as equivalent to Andy's class, and I don't view Andy's class as equivalent to child molestation, and I don't view... Of course, you're right that CP is little worse than stupid and ridiculous, especially Andy's role in it. The point of my essay is not that any particular contributor to it is guilty of some great moral outrage on a par with real world harm. My point is that whatever "evil" (forgive my rhetorical excess here and in the essay) we put on Andy's shoulders, Ed's, Karajou's, or whoever's, Kotomi is deserving of like blame, not the free pass she tends to get.
To make that point, I used words like "crime," "sin," "immoral," etc., but of course I don't literally mean that I want them being brought up on charges.
Thank you for helping me sharpen my own understanding of what I mean with your criticism. Arithmostoutheriou 16:12, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't disagree that Kotomi is just as bad as Andy, Ed, etc, that's fine. The problem is that you argue that eveyone, regardless of what they do, is that bad by default, and that is the problem I have with you essay. Z3rotalk 16:19, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Everyone is bad by default? I'm not sure where you're getting that in my words, but I'll try to clarify here, and I'll edit the essay later if I need to make it more clear there.
1) Kotomi gets a pass here; she's seldom criticized as others on CP are.
2) She's aware of Andy's bad behavior, and has never openly opposed it.
3) She ought to oppose it.
4) Therefore, she deserves criticism and her reputation here is undeserved.
5) Moreover, she is hypocritical in demanding civility for herself but not for others.
Anything wrong with that? Arithmostoutheriou 16:33, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

(unindent in bad place)"If you're a long-time contributor to CP, you know what CP is, and you know what Andy is. No matter one's sincerely held political philosophy, anyone who has both an intellect and a shred of intellectual honesty and who places any value at all on civility in personal interaction should have nothing to do with Andy's vehicle for boosting his fragile ego by belittling people, exercising Doublethink, and generally being a complete prick. If you know the nature of the beast, and you continue to contribute to it, you're as guilty as he is." This is primarily where I get the "everyone is bad by default".

I agree with your five points except for point 3, unless you mean oppose as a sysop. A regular user cannot oppose Andy except to say their piece and get blocked. A sysop can shorten blocks, appeal justice, etc. PJR and Tim did these, and eventually they were disbarred (PJR still pending). I just disagree that a regular user, who doesn't care about Andy's crazy viewpoint, is necessarily bad because they don't actively oppose him. Maybe they just don't care. Z3rotalk 16:56, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Read my two quoted sentences starting with "if". I think my synopsis and original essay make clear that I'm not saying "Anyone who ever posts on CP = Andy". My Point 3 says "she", referring to the subject of the essay. I don't really give a crap about some random person who makes an edit or two a CP article on hamsters. I'm talking about someone who knows Andy's folly in all its glorious detail (again, she follows the talk pages), and should know better than to legitimize the project with her hours upon hours of participation with nary an objection to that which is objectionable. That's Kotomi, and that's why I'm arguing that she is complicit in Andy's badness and culpable for it. Arithmostoutheriou 17:42, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
I agree about Kotomi, but your two "if" sentences are basically any long-standing editor, including the "and you continue to contribute to it" statement. My objection is for the person who edits articles on hamsters (though as of recently, that is almost no one). The guy editing articles on hamsters is not by default bad; you are saying he is, even if you don't mean to. Z3rotalk 17:57, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't think your "but" clause is accurate, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree, so I'll leave it at this: If you know that CP and Andy are what they are, and yet you mix your labor with them without dissent, you're as bad as they are. Kotomi, for instance. I'll stand by that. Arithmostoutheriou 18:08, 11 March 2009 (EDT)


I agree with what you say, but why attack my WIGO? It was intended as a critique of their hypocrisy, and I threw in the JessicaT bit because a) people here like her and b) she doesn't block our members often. On my part, I agree that by not criticising the regime they are agreeing with it, and I've always wanted a Parthian Shot to end with that quote which said 'All that evil requires is not that good men say yes, but that they do not say no' or something like that. I think it came from Rome Total War, but I can't be sure. EddyP 15:51, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Edgerunner's quote is hilariously overdramatic. It's just a wiki - nobody's real-life rights are being violated. She writes articles about Japan, enforces the rules she's given and deals with people courteously. What's wrong with that?-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:56, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
It was originally said by Edmund Burke, and was originally ""When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Often misquoted as "'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Z3rotalk 16:00, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

===See Also===

HSmom.   .  So, that's the tune they play on their fascist banjos 17:09, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Agree[edit]

As much as she appears to be the best of a rotten bunch, you're also taking a very one-sided approach to this. If you read her talk page on here, you'll see she isn't (or wasn't) all that happy with things over there; same with the long appeal she penned when Bugler et al were running amok. (under her sysop page on here) However, she's probably seen what happened to long standing sysops like PJR when they spoke up, plus she's had TK on her case and now probably has decided that she'd rather look the other way and keep on working on the wiki, for what that's worth. --PsyGremlinWhut? 06:34, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
No. If she thought things were bad she should have left. There is no reasonable person who could possibly think that they can change CP. I very rarely take an absolutist stand on anything. But, with the first link the chain is forged. Unless you're a deep-cover parodist or one of the valiant few who fight against all of the insanity over there, then you are fully guilty. There are no degrees of guilt on this issue in my eyes. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 07:42, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
You do, of course, realise that this attitude of "all CPians are stupid/evil/whatever" is exactly the same as TK's/Karajou's of "All RWians are trolls/vandals". It's not all black and white - going that route puts you firmly in Andy territory. --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:06, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes, I will admit that I feel that way. How can someone at CP (excluding the deep-cover parodists and the masochists fighting the good fight) actually believe at this point that they can change CP? Jess even had her moment of possible redemption and she threw it away (her post of 13 December 2008 that is on her page here at RW). To stick with the black and white idea, do you think that there is any amount of "grey" editors that could lighten or darken (depending on who is assigned black/white) TK, Karajou, or (especially) Andy? I say that it is impossible. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 08:24, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Ok, so they're all guilty by association and let's face it, nobody is going to sway Andy - even TK and Karajou (remember his cleaning up of the Obama article?) However, this is where the grey area comes in. There are many users on there - Jessica, Wesley, CPalmer, RJJensen and probably a few others who seem to ignore Andy's nonsense and carry on with working on a wiki. Maybe they like it and find CP a handy place to work, because it is still so barren. You have to admit that whilst they are part and parcel of Andy's little crazy gang, you can hardly paint them with the same brush as Andy. (Of course, now they'll probably all do something over there to prove to me that they are all loyal little stoomtroopers). --PsyGremlinWhut? 09:05, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Then consider me unable to get it. How you can mindlessly categorize things and adjust NFL rosters (to use WesleyS) while standing ankle-deep in a cesspool is beyond me. Are you not still standing in the cesspool? --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 09:19, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Ah, but there lies the rub. To you, and me, and 99% of the sane population, it is a cesspool they are wading around in. However, to them it could be a field of lilies, albeit with a very scary scarecrow looming over them. We keep trying to project our mindset on them, without taking their mindset into account. Although I myself have no idea why I'm defending a bunch of Conservapedians. --PsyGremlinWhut? 09:34, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

(undent)I don't believe that holds up. As I mentioned above, Jessica's comment of 13 December 2008 shows that she knows that she is not standing in a field of lilies. I take it as though she realizes that she is in the cesspool and getting hip-deep. And, I say that with her apotheosis of 1 January she has dove in head first and she doesn't even care anymore. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 09:41, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Too funny[edit]

In the midst of the block rampage -

(Block log); 09:44 . . JessicaT (Talk | contribs) unblocked AnnaM (Talk | contribs) (mistakenly included with blocking of troll)
(Block log); 09:42 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 159.134.96.101 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) (Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s): AndyJM)
(Block log); 09:40 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 159.134.96.0/22 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) (Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s): AndyJM)
(Block log); 09:39 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 83.71.103.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) (Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s): AndyJM)
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:JessicaT‎; 09:38 . . (+317) . . ETrundel (Talk | contribs) (Block log); 09:37 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 213.94.128.0/18 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) (Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s): Ireland, dialup)
(Block log); 09:36 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 159.134.0.0/19 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) (Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s): Ireland, dialup)
(Block log); 09:34 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 83.71.0.0/19 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) (Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s): Ireland, dialup)
(Block log); 09:33 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 86.41.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) (Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s): Ireland, dialup)
(Block log); 09:32 . . DeanS (Talk | contribs) blocked 86.41.249.40 (Talk) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) (Abusing multiple accounts: AndyJM, multiple users on 3/12/09)
(diff) (hist) . . m Washington Redskins‎; 09:31 . . (-20) . . WesleyS (Talk | contribs) (→Cornerbacks: free agent)
(Protection log); 09:29 . . TK (Talk | contribs) protected "User talk:AndyJM" ([create=sysop])
(Deletion log); 09:29 . . TK (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:AndyJM" (User/talkpage of infinitely blocked user/vandal: content was: 'page was empty')
(diff) (hist) . . m Chicago Bears‎; 09:28 . . (-25) . . WesleyS (Talk | contribs) (→Guards: cut)
(Block log); 09:28 . . JessicaT (Talk | contribs) blocked You (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Inappropriate or vulgar name)
(diff) (hist) . . Conservapedia talk:Commandments‎; 09:28 . . (-14) . . Deuce (Talk | contribs) (→Proper Citations: )
(Block log); 09:28 . . JessicaT (Talk | contribs) blocked Should (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Inappropriate or vulgar name)
(Block log); 09:28 . . JessicaT (Talk | contribs) blocked AnnaM (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Inappropriate or vulgar name)
(diff) (hist) . . Conservapedia talk:Commandments‎; 09:27 . . (+14) . . Deuce (Talk | contribs) (→Proper Citations: )
(Block log); 09:27 . . JessicaT (Talk | contribs) blocked Blockmy (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Inappropriate or vulgar name)
(Block log); 09:27 . . JessicaT (Talk | contribs) blocked IPaddress (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Inappropriate or vulgar name)

- WesleyS updates some NFL rosters. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 09:51, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Your quoted conversation[edit]

I don't think the conversation you've quoted is anywhere near a good reason to vilify her. Almost everyone has occasionally been ticked off by something and overreacted, and these things always look worse than they really are when dredged up and read over in the cold light of day. Plus, JasonH was deliberately trolling and trying to rile her and others. Frankly, your italicised commentary is far more vitriolic and objectionable than anything Jessica says.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 07:05, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

That Jason was trolling is entirely beside the point. Kotomi took umbrage at someone's rude response to her polite attempt to be helpful, yet has remained silent a thousand times when Andy has dished the same treatment to others. It is that hypocrisy, not any vitriol on her part, that I object to. Let her start calling out Andy in defense of others with the same zeal with which she defended herself, and I will retract the accusation of hypocrisy.
And by the way, I don't think I am being held out by anyone as a paragon or exemplar. Kotomi is, and she doesn't deserve it. Arithmostoutheriou 17:53, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
To be fair, as JasonH, I also harassed her on her talkpage and started randomly reverting back her edits claiming her Japanese was British English. I am still amazed that I got away with it for half an hour before someone intervened, maybe it wasn't unusual behaviour for Jinx. Good times.- User \pi 19:59, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

TokyoRose[edit]

(Note: the impetus for this is the TWIGO discussion regarding #15 of the supposedConservapedia/Wikipedia differences)
Jess has given up on her TokyoRose identity here now that she has been granted her CP apotheosis. Why is she afraid to contribute here? She does look at WIGO and TWIGO. I would very much welcome her comments on this essay. I think we all know what would happen to Jess at CP if TokyoRose started contributing here again. The simple fact is that we can't go over there for any kind of constructive conversation. If she aknowledges that the previous statement is true, then I say that that shows her guilt in remaining with CP. And, if she doesn't like what we stand for then she should engage us or ignore us. She doesn't seem to want to do either. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 08:42, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Block of Falco response[edit]

Jessica has noticed this page. So, what she seems to be saying is she's now a "block first, ask questions only when forced to" kinda person? You've changed, Jessica. You never agreed with these sorts of policies before. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 09:36, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

What malicious trolls we are, maligning her like that. We can only hope that she doesn't spot that TK, Iduan, conservative and CPalmer - as well as Andy's daughter - are also members of this site. Think of all that trolling potential, just waiting to be unleashed upon CP. The funny thing is that even as she was typing that TK was damaging CP further, getting rid of AndyJM like that. EddyP 09:42, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
This is exactly what I am getting at throughout this page. Especially, what is CPs position on the #15 difference between CP/WP? Should she not block herself for being TokyoRose? --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 09:44, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Shamelessly about me[edit]

I see that I got a mention on CP. Have I labeled Jessica as guilty by association? Yes. However, I'd like to remind her that it was her block of Falco1029 because of association with RW (thereby in violation of CP's #15 difference with WP) that started all of this. In the end, I can live with being a part of RW. Can she live with being a part of CP? She seemed to have had her doubts. I guess her apotheosis cured her of that.
Now, though, I am going to do something that is all too rare here and completely foreign to CP. Jessica, I apologize totally for everything that I have written here. Including this section and everything else regarding you. Someone has to do it. Someone has to take that first step. I'm sorry. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 21:51, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

I've had no interactions with Jessica, so I hope she doesn't take this personally..... But this doesn't really help your cause.... You sound like Ann Coulter. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 23:48, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't edit on CP, so she has nothing to worry about from me. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 16:59, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Who Cares?[edit]

I'm not defending or denouncing Kotomi's actions, but you seem to care a lot about what other people think about her. It seems like a waste of time to write a whole essay trying to convince people that they're being hypocritical in their judgments about someone else. You tend to come off as an immature person who happens to have a grudge.

Maybe you should take your righteous anger and turn it into something productive. — Unsigned, by: 72.130.180.193 / talk / contribs