There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive80
The question of RationalWiki's Twitter and Facebook[edit]
Who is the person who runs RW's Twitter (also known as X) and Facebook accounts? Our Facebook hasn't posted since 2019 and the subreddit is pretty much dead. Only the X account seems to be active. Should we create a RationalWiki Bluesky account instead? I've been using it and it's quite nice! Since Musk bought Twitter he's turned it to Nazi hellhole. Ψ (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Facebook is pretty fucked as well. Ψ (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Who the fuck is still posting for RationalWiki on X? Please delete the account and just leave that site to the fascists already. Spud (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm almost sure it's David Gerard. It'd support nuking the account too. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait there is already a RationalWiki account: https://bsky.app/profile/RationalWiki.mstdn.social.ap.brid.gy Not sure if it's legit or not. Ψ (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- David Gerard and User:Ace McWicked were two of the editors with access to the Facebook page as of 2015.[1] As of 2016 David Gerard ran the Twitter account.[2] I am currently running an unofficial RW Mastodon account that bridged to BlueSky.[3]
- The existence of the Twitter and Facebook accounts seems kind of moot to me, with Twitter drowned by Musk Nazis, and with Facebook drowned by AI slop. Neither are easily accessed without creating an account and logging in, so would seem to be increasingly closed echo chambers. Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Ψ That bluesky account is an activitypub bridge to the equivalent Mastodon account here. It's my understanding that David runs the Mastodon account. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Bongolian. Twitter and Facebook are get crappier by the day so I see little point in keeping the accounts open. (Of course it is arguably not my decision whether to close them or not since I don't run the accounts.)-Flandres (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Ψ That bluesky account is an activitypub bridge to the equivalent Mastodon account here. It's my understanding that David runs the Mastodon account. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait there is already a RationalWiki account: https://bsky.app/profile/RationalWiki.mstdn.social.ap.brid.gy Not sure if it's legit or not. Ψ (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm almost sure it's David Gerard. It'd support nuking the account too. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Who the fuck is still posting for RationalWiki on X? Please delete the account and just leave that site to the fascists already. Spud (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
That's me who created that BluesSky bridge and the associated Fediverse account at mstdn.social. Bongolian (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Can someone place the Mastodon and Bluesky account on the sidebar of this website? Ψ (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, Bongolian runs the account. Good to know! Anyway, I've added Mastodon to the sidebar. I'm not adding Bluesky because bridges aren't exactly reliable for that sort of thing (speaking from technical expertise/knowledge that bridges like that only last as long as someone wants to keep them running.) And yes, I'll agree with Pluto that I don't see a reason to push for removing the Facebook/Twitter, unless you have evidence that the accounts/spaces are being ran in a way contrary to the sites values, the mission (and no, having a shitty owner isn't enough for that imo, because at that point we can pretty much remove almost every social media link) or are pretty much entirely abandoned with the owner unreachable. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I argue strongly that RW must not quit either FB or X. If nothing else, we can avoid username squatting [and thus parody] by occupying it ourselves.
- Oh, Bongolian runs the account. Good to know! Anyway, I've added Mastodon to the sidebar. I'm not adding Bluesky because bridges aren't exactly reliable for that sort of thing (speaking from technical expertise/knowledge that bridges like that only last as long as someone wants to keep them running.) And yes, I'll agree with Pluto that I don't see a reason to push for removing the Facebook/Twitter, unless you have evidence that the accounts/spaces are being ran in a way contrary to the sites values, the mission (and no, having a shitty owner isn't enough for that imo, because at that point we can pretty much remove almost every social media link) or are pretty much entirely abandoned with the owner unreachable. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am going to ask what the hell we're trying to do with them, really. Neither mods nor board [to my knowledge] have actually discussed that. Don't get me wrong, I took a peek on the Mastadon and none of it was 'bad bad' but I do have issues which I'll leave to if/when a dedicated discussion arises about that [hint; I think we *do* need to discuss, poss put to mob etc this as part of the 'RW rejuvenation project' (which includes the 'Oregon Plan', cutting the final cords of the 'founding generation', getting a decent mobile version etc).]
- One thing I will suggest here is this; somebody looks into some serviceable free social media management software. If all our social media output can be done centrally, it means said centre can be done more regularly. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, the move to embrace social media was something the trustees wanted to do as far back as the time the name was changed to "rational media foundation", but the idea fizzled out and the focus turned back on the site itself, where it remains today.
- I'm also opposed to getting rid of the facebook and twitter presence, if, for nothing else, to prevent nefarious doppelgängers from co-opting the RMF. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Which is why I suggest looking into social media management software. So it can simply re-post content prepared for our Mastadon/Bluesky without anyone having to actually interact with the flaming turd which is X. And purely personally, I think the wider SuperWeb and it's clear enshittified/zombie'd state needs RW more than ever. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm also opposed to getting rid of the facebook and twitter presence, if, for nothing else, to prevent nefarious doppelgängers from co-opting the RMF. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Cory being transphobic again[edit]
I feel really petty immediately ATIMing this, but this has been an issue before, and this is so blatant and unprompted that I'm actually kind of shocked. In response to me making a post on the Bar expressing my fear for the future as a transgender person, Cory felt it acceptable to say this, and then this when I called him out on his unprompted transphobia. He then edited his comments to make them appear less overtly transphobic. I wouldn't ATIM this if Cory didn't have a history of transphobia, but I am fed up with it. --Ozzyboo (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly if I didn't have to go through community consensus first, I would jump straight to removing his tech and sysop rights.
Rockford the Roe boop my snoot 19:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am at least proposing we topic ban Cory from anything relating to LGBT issues. He has repeatedly shown himself to be ignorant and bigoted on queer issues. --Ozzyboo (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Cory fucked up big time. I stand behind the possibility of removing his tech and sysop rights. This rhetoric holds no place here. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I do not trust anyone that constantly shits out TERF and Truscum talking points to have the rights to rename users and edit the CSS of the wiki. A topic ban is not enough. Cory already has the keys to the castle.
Rockford the Roe boop my snoot 21:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- And you're missing the big picture.
- Trump just declared via executive order that all federal references to LGBTQ would now be LGB, and it's not likely he will stop there. Why did Trump get his way? I told you why. CorruptUser 21:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- In light of Cory literally doubling down on his transphobia, I'm going to say a sysoprevoke and techrevoke are in order. This is the third ATIM case that has been raised against Cory specifically due to his transphobia, and both of the times before nothing was done because people gave him the benefit of the doubt and hoped that he would learn his lesson. He hasn't. --Ozzyboo (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please be aware that sysoprevoke is meant for rights abuses or for users who blatantly lacked the maturity to be sysops (ie. luigifan). While I agree that Cory has screwed up pretty badly, sysoprevoke/tech right removal isn't the answer to this, as to my knowledge, Cory has pretty much entirely stuck to the Bar with his consistent foot-in-mouth disease on trans issues and hasn't abused his permissions to settle disputes (ie. misusing page locks to force content into mainspace) or anything like that. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- If sysoprevoke and techrevoke are too much, then maybe a block and a topic ban would do. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please be aware that sysoprevoke is meant for rights abuses or for users who blatantly lacked the maturity to be sysops (ie. luigifan). While I agree that Cory has screwed up pretty badly, sysoprevoke/tech right removal isn't the answer to this, as to my knowledge, Cory has pretty much entirely stuck to the Bar with his consistent foot-in-mouth disease on trans issues and hasn't abused his permissions to settle disputes (ie. misusing page locks to force content into mainspace) or anything like that. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- In light of Cory literally doubling down on his transphobia, I'm going to say a sysoprevoke and techrevoke are in order. This is the third ATIM case that has been raised against Cory specifically due to his transphobia, and both of the times before nothing was done because people gave him the benefit of the doubt and hoped that he would learn his lesson. He hasn't. --Ozzyboo (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am at least proposing we topic ban Cory from anything relating to LGBT issues. He has repeatedly shown himself to be ignorant and bigoted on queer issues. --Ozzyboo (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
At this point I'd support a topic ban since it's not the first time that Cory has been disruptive, but the arguments presented so far for stripping him of sysop/tech rights are extremely laughable. Cory has been a sysop for over a decade, and a tech for half of this time and, to my knowledge, he has never abused these tools. I honestly took a good laugh when I read a post claiming that he might start using them to push a transphobic agenda. Just say that you want to punish him for what he said and you would have a slightly better case against him. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with a topic ban, and I could be sold on a short block. Cory really needs to shut the fuck up about this kind of stuff.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 23:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)- This is like the 4th or 5th time he’s gotten in trouble for transphobic comments, and he still hasn’t learned his lesson.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 23:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)- I'd probably support a 3 weeks block. The problem is, Cory is not very active nowadays, so I doubt that it would mean a lot. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Mostly I've been busy with this whole "life" thing. My kid takes up most of my time. CorruptUser 00:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am against a topic block for now. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Mostly I've been busy with this whole "life" thing. My kid takes up most of my time. CorruptUser 00:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'd probably support a 3 weeks block. The problem is, Cory is not very active nowadays, so I doubt that it would mean a lot. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is like the 4th or 5th time he’s gotten in trouble for transphobic comments, and he still hasn’t learned his lesson.
- We permabanned Lulzfan for saying insane shit on the bar. We have also banned other users (like RobSmith) for egregious conduct irrespective of their conduct as sysops, mods, or techs. Keep in mind this shit here isn't just some usual "Cory says dumbass thing." He responded with victim-blaming to a post by a trans person expressing existential anxiety over the future of the trans community. That's some next-level ghoulishness, and I think if it was someone even marginally less established than Cory is they would get their asses permabanned for that shit. Antares (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please use your main account, Carthage. CorruptUser 01:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I will say, I am disappointed in Cory's response here. It is, in the nicest terms possible, really silly and I know you can handle conflicts much more maturely than this. At a certain point, you have to understand that bigotry by definition does not come from a rational place and people will have bigoted attitudes against minorities regardless of what they do, as anti-LGBT laws have been in the west for at least hundreds of years. "Please use your main account" as if that actually dismisses the concerns being raised is a non-starter. I don't know if you're being more flippant due to the stress of having a family or because you're no longer a moderator or whatever but this is not acceptable and you know better. Come on man. Plutocow (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Antares IS her main account, she changed her username. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please use your main account, Carthage. CorruptUser 01:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Out of the proposed solutions here, I would support a topic ban-it goes straight to the heart of the problem...and let me be clear, Cory's antics are a problem at this point. This is similar to talking to a Jew in 1933 and saying "You should have denounced Trotsky more."--Flandres (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- That's not what topic bans are for; they are for when a user is disruptively editing pages in mainspace (or the associated mainspace talk pages) and do not prevent someone from bringing those things up on the Saloon Bar. Notably, when LT was topic banned from US history they were allowed to keep talking about it on the bar (even if it was all moot as the account was a ban evasion). Plutocow (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Haven't we instituted saloon specific topic bans before? I could swear we have...-Flandres (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think we did in the past.
- Meh, I'm tired. Want to just topic-ban me for a year or so and call it a night? It's going to be a long 4 years. CorruptUser 05:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not one to regularly take advice from trolls, but the '[simply shutting down] does nothing to dispute [typo - debate?] the issue' is a reasonable point. In my interactions in the past with Corrupt has shown them to be a reasonable person, and therefore I want to know how they have signed up to the shitty media narratives being pumped out by a lot of the media right now, with a side-order of why they seem to believe that trans/NB folks labour under some form of 'collective responsibility' which I strongly suspect they don't think say, Jews, black people or Catholics have and why the hell this view is incredibly dangerous. That if we simply shut down the debate nothing is achieved. In fact, the 'shutting down debate' may be counter-productive because they might find the only folks who are 'willing to discuss this' are the full-on 'phobes and the end result is that they genuinely go past 'the point of no return'. Do we want that? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- In what way should trans rights be subject to debate in a way that, for example, Jewish rights isn't? The normalization of transphobic narratives gives legitimacy to those narratives. It implies there is a debate to be had at all. If someone responded to a Jewish person concerned about antisemitism the way Cory did to Ozzyboo, they would be banned by now. Antares (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe Corrupt said that that trans people didn't have rights [if they had said that, well we wouldn't be having this discussion now]. It appears to me the debate is what these rights are, how far they run and how much onus should be put on orgs to accept/enforce them. The Big Public in nations like the UK/USA doesn't appear to have hit a general consensus on it yet, unlike with Jewish folks [and even then, we do still have debates on what counts as antisemitism or not, qv: Corbyn.] Let's be clear on this; even the 'trans community' doesn't have a general consensus on this - for example, how far self-id should be accepted and trans youth. That is in fact part of the issue; that the 'phobes in this world nutpick the most extreme/stupid 'pro trans argument', then assure us all that this is 'what they all think'. However, how the hell can we hope to shift folks views on stuff if nobody is willing to have the patience to discuss this with them? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree with the notion that shutting down transphobia that was shouted on the Saloon Bar is somehow a bad thing here. We need to ask ourselves whether we want to be a community where a transgender person expressing fear for the future of transgender rights gets hit with a face-full of freaking JK Rowling ass talking points. I don't think a 3-week warning shot block and a mandated "shut the fuck up about trans people in the Bar" is unreasonable to ask for.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 13:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC) - He explicitly said it was somehow the trans community's fault we're losing our rights, as if there was anything we could do to avoid it. This wasn't just about "how far trans rights run", it was about fucking victim blaming. Considering how Cory already has a history of transphobic remarks from what I read, as well as him stating his opinion as a response to a trans person dealing with existential dread due to horrible people taking away our rights, absolutely warrants something more than a slap on the wrist. Not to mention how he doubled down. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 16:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't even the first time I have personally raised an ATIM against Cory specifically for transgender issues. When that ATIM went nowhere, I bit my tongue and swallowed my pride because I assumed (incorrectly) that I had simply jumped the gun and that Cory would eventually come to his senses. It's been 2 years, and it hasn't gotten better. Call it petty, call it sensitive, whatever, but I am sick and tired of it. Cory should simply not be allowed to talk about transgender issues. He is incapable of engaging with it in a way that isn't blinded by ignorance and bigotry. He cannot help himself. Despite being mostly inactive, he chimed in with his transphobia not even an hour after I made the bar post. The fact that he has doubled down, and then immaturely attacked another user in this ATIM thread tells me that he is not willing to take any of this in stride. He is a grown adult, he is undoubtedly older than a lot of us, and he has the capacity to think for himself. He does not need to be coddled, he does not need to have his mind changed. If the massive tidal wave of transphobia in the past 4 years doesn't convince you that maybe transgender people aren't culpable in their own discrimination, nothing will. He has gotten more transphobic over time, not less. Transgender people cannot feel safe in an environment where a pattern of behavior like this is left unchallenged. --Ozzyboo (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree with the notion that shutting down transphobia that was shouted on the Saloon Bar is somehow a bad thing here. We need to ask ourselves whether we want to be a community where a transgender person expressing fear for the future of transgender rights gets hit with a face-full of freaking JK Rowling ass talking points. I don't think a 3-week warning shot block and a mandated "shut the fuck up about trans people in the Bar" is unreasonable to ask for.
- I don't believe Corrupt said that that trans people didn't have rights [if they had said that, well we wouldn't be having this discussion now]. It appears to me the debate is what these rights are, how far they run and how much onus should be put on orgs to accept/enforce them. The Big Public in nations like the UK/USA doesn't appear to have hit a general consensus on it yet, unlike with Jewish folks [and even then, we do still have debates on what counts as antisemitism or not, qv: Corbyn.] Let's be clear on this; even the 'trans community' doesn't have a general consensus on this - for example, how far self-id should be accepted and trans youth. That is in fact part of the issue; that the 'phobes in this world nutpick the most extreme/stupid 'pro trans argument', then assure us all that this is 'what they all think'. However, how the hell can we hope to shift folks views on stuff if nobody is willing to have the patience to discuss this with them? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- In what way should trans rights be subject to debate in a way that, for example, Jewish rights isn't? The normalization of transphobic narratives gives legitimacy to those narratives. It implies there is a debate to be had at all. If someone responded to a Jewish person concerned about antisemitism the way Cory did to Ozzyboo, they would be banned by now. Antares (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not one to regularly take advice from trolls, but the '[simply shutting down] does nothing to dispute [typo - debate?] the issue' is a reasonable point. In my interactions in the past with Corrupt has shown them to be a reasonable person, and therefore I want to know how they have signed up to the shitty media narratives being pumped out by a lot of the media right now, with a side-order of why they seem to believe that trans/NB folks labour under some form of 'collective responsibility' which I strongly suspect they don't think say, Jews, black people or Catholics have and why the hell this view is incredibly dangerous. That if we simply shut down the debate nothing is achieved. In fact, the 'shutting down debate' may be counter-productive because they might find the only folks who are 'willing to discuss this' are the full-on 'phobes and the end result is that they genuinely go past 'the point of no return'. Do we want that? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Haven't we instituted saloon specific topic bans before? I could swear we have...-Flandres (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- That's not what topic bans are for; they are for when a user is disruptively editing pages in mainspace (or the associated mainspace talk pages) and do not prevent someone from bringing those things up on the Saloon Bar. Notably, when LT was topic banned from US history they were allowed to keep talking about it on the bar (even if it was all moot as the account was a ban evasion). Plutocow (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Also, let me see if I understand this correctly: When Luigifan got cooped for derailing a thread to say stupid shit despite getting warned multiple times to change his behavior, almost everyone agrees that he should be permabanned, but when Cory gets ATIM'd for derailing a thread to say stupid shit despite getting warned multiple times to change his behavior, people start arguing he should only get a short ban + a temporary topic ban at most? Something isn't adding up here. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- (EC) Luigifan18 lost his mop years before being banned though. As far as I'm aware, we've never put anyone on sysoprevoke for any reason that wasn't abuse of the tools. We had a vote a few years ago in a coop involving Oxyaena and some people suggesting putting her on sysoprevoke too, but it didn't pass because she didn't abuse her sysop tools (I think I voted for putting her on sysoprevoke, but now I see I was wrong). That being said, it's not like we believe in customary law here, so if you guys want to vote for stripping Cory of sysop rights, you can do it. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- (EC) (EC) Sysoprevoke will never pass, so I'm going to suggest a topic ban and a block. --Ozzyboo (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- And NOT a temporary topic ban either, permanent topic ban. It is too egregious to be temporary. --Ozzyboo (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Don't forget Ozzy, that first ATIM was because you went to my talk page, asked me directly on my talk page, and when I didn't agree with you you went running here. Whatever, it looks like you'll get what you want, enjoy it for whatever it's worth.
- Since I'm not going to say much more on the topic, I'll say it and be done.
- If you don't clearly define the limits to your community, others will define them for you.
- Years ago, the pedophile groups NAMBLA and PIE attempted integrate with the Gay community. For a time, NAMBLA sponsored floats in the Pride parades, abusing the welcoming and inclusive policies that the Gay community had, for the insidious purpose of using the community as a shield. The Gay community got fed up, and made it absolutely clear that Pedophilia-advocacy would get you the boot, no questions asked. The result was that every year, the cries of "they're coming for the children!" became less and less meaningful. Then we got to the point where Obergefell happened, and want to know something amazing? For several years, a slight majority of Republicans supported same-sex marriage. It was clear that Obergefell was going to be safe, at least if it survived the next couple of years.
- Something similar needs to happen within the Trans community; the establishment of clear "that guy is NOT ONE OF US" boundaries. But that hasn't, and so whether from hate or from fear, others are able to say "that guy does represent you".
- When you don't set a clear demarcation between "Transwoman athlete" and "Opportunistic man", the anti-Trans groups can paint the entire Trans community as supporting opportunists. The recent female Olympic boxing controversy was a great example of this; the guy was pretty blatantly a bloke and its now confirmed he has a micropenis, but people who complained at the time were met with resistance from LGBTQ groups, and so it became all too easy to simply lump the entire community together with the opportunistic brutes.
- 1 out of every 7 female prisoners in federal prison are Trans. I'm sure a lot of them actually do have gender dysphoria, but it's pretty obvious that at least some of them are either opportunistic sex-pests that are abusing the system, or men who want to go to the less-dangerous prisons (not that the Right has ever really cared that much about prison conditions). Now, we have convicted rapists being housed with the women. There's a couple of very simple and obvious solutions; either require a certain level of transition, or exclude anyone convicted of a sex-crime. Are there Transwomen who commit rape? Of course, but just as there are pedophiles who are also Gay, keep them out of your community. Otherwise, you come across as the side that wants rapists in female prisons.
- There are many other issues, but what's important is that the rules must be defined in a reasonable manner, or the anti-Trans side will define them for you.
- Because that's what's happened!
- You're being defined as "the group that wants to pressure straight men into Gay sex", "the group that wants to transition small children", "the group that wants sex offenders in the bathroom", "the group that wants to transition small children", "the group that cancelled Firefly", all because when those people showed up and used you to hide behind, you haven't made it clear they are not part of your community.
- So what's happening now? The people who either defined you as such, or see you defined as such, are now part of the Trump administration, and he's doing a lot more and a lot faster than I thought he would. Trump has removed the TQ from LGBTQ on official documents. He's banned you from the military, a huge huge HUGE red flag. I don't know where it stops. Is he going to break with Republican tradition and make it illegal for trans people to own guns? Will Trans conversion therapy become an official position? And I don't think it's only going to stop at Trans issues. I would say I don't think Obergefell will end... but I thought the same about Roe. 3 of the 4 justices against Obergefell are still on the court (Alito, Thomas, Roberts), and the court currently has 3 more justices appointed by Trump (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barett). While Thomas seems to be the most likely to vacate for health or worse, Sotomayor is not the perfect picture of health either, and we could be looking at FIVE Trump justices, with 2 Bush and a Obama and a Biden justice.
- So yeah, it's kinda bad.
- I don't know what the world would look like right now if, 10 years ago, the LGBTQ community took a harder stance against the opportunists and had clearer lines, but I don't think Trump would be coming down this hard this fast. At the very least, he would've had slightly less of the popular vote. I don't know what'll happen over the next few years, but I think that much like it took some time for the Gay community's image to recover after NAMBLA, it's going to take time and while the best time to act was the past, the second best time is the present. CorruptUser 18:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Excellent diatribe!
Scream!! (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Some problems:
- 1) There are less trans people than gay people, so less of a base to organize groups from.
- 2) Trans people are more incentivized to integrate with wider society later into their life, to blend in and escape prejudice. This was widely promoted by doctors as integral to the "transsexual" experience until recently. These people won't be easy to reach for organizing together or for media comment.
- 3) As a result, there is no central "trans community spokesperson", and the most visible people are likelier to be the ones who came out most recently and thus have the least experience as a trans person.
- 4) Even if there was a central spokesperson, many media outlets are for various reasons biased against trans people, and would have little interest in emphasizing their denunciations. This was also visible when gay rights was a bigger topic, and could very well become the case again. (A recent paper suggested anti-gay attitudes were a predictor for anti-trans attitudes in many countries.)
- I think the solution to the prison topic is a winding one, maybe for a stopgap you look for pre-arrest evidence of trans status and if there isn't any there would be some special accommodation. I'm skeptical of this thing about Khelif and it's really a question of intersex athletes more than trans athletes, a related subject but not exactly the same. I think you did victim-blame by steering the conversation in this direction, there are ways to encourage better responses to this situation without doing so. Chillpilled (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- You may be right about a bit of victim blaming, I'm sorry chill. CorruptUser 19:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'll be honest with you, Cory, it's not the first time you've apologized for being an asshole. I am skeptical about your willingness to learn from past mistakes. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- (ec)That post is really bad. You're continuing to spread unverified claims that are a subject of a lawsuit, flat-out misgendering someone, and ignoring systemic factors like trans women always being systemically more likely to be sent to prison (as a result of many being forced into sex work and the drug trade to survive). There's no excuse for this, you failed to practice due diligence for these claims and are spreading blatant fearmongering about a disadvantaged minority group. Plutocow (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- You may be right about a bit of victim blaming, I'm sorry chill. CorruptUser 19:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- (ec)Bullshit. "Others will define the limits of your community" regardless of what you do. I have yet to see a trans person advocating for pedophilia, and yet the "pedophile" rhetoric always went in strong. There isn't any way to "clearly set the limit" when so many influential figures (Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, JK Rowling...), media corporations (Fox News, The Guardian, The New York Times...) and politicians (pretty much every Republican representative) are already doing this for us.
- I also think you underestimate how much homophobia is still an issue in the current day. Not to mention how issues related to gay and transgender rights shouldn't be treated as if they were the same thing. There's a reason why shit such as the LGB Alliance or the giant TERF movement in general exist.
- Saying there was "a bit" of victim blaming in an understatement. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 19:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- The thing which has fucked me off is your inability to actually engage with my [or anyone's] points, Corrupt.
- Excellent diatribe!
- - You never explained why 'the trans community' had to justify itself in this manner while say, Catholics aren't constantly expected to explain they don't support paedophile priests and the resulting massive coverup. Nor did you answer to my point that no minority's existence should be made conditional on constantly 'showing their loyalty' or something.
- - You, by your own admission only know one trans/NB person currently and have not discussed these things with them. Therefore, your evidence is utterly secondary/tertiary in nature. The fucking kicker here is that there are several trans people at RW which I believe probably would field questions honestly if you asked them. Guess what; I suspect if you actually had you would have if nothing else started to realise that like everything else in this world the trans/NB community is not a homogenous bloc and there's shades of opinion on all things. And even more bluntly, you would have realised that [for example] most trans folks are both aware of and loathe bad actors, similar to the neurodiverse folks loathe the fuckers who try to use 'autism'/'ADHD' as an excuse for doing shit.
- - You have completely ignored the point I made about media bias [rehashed in #4 above]. You seem intelligent enough, are aware of how things how can be warped [esp in the world which is 2025 USA where everything is partisan as hell]. If you know these things, why the hell do you apparently take all the transphobic stuff on face value? If you'd actually done some research, you would have realised a) requiring a 'certain level of transition' before shifting gender id legally is becoming 'the norm' and b) most trans folks accept this.
- - Now, the thing which made me actually a) continue to engage with you and b) defend you was the fact that despite the uncalled for hijacking of a thread with victim-blaming crap and and a generally unironic trotting out of the anti-trans shite being pumped out I thought you weren't that far gone and believed you'd swallowed the 'phobic hook innocently. I didn't discount all your points either; for example I did accept the point that too many 'activists' [and bad allies] are too quick to pile in to defend shit which after a short look would have shown it was a lot more iffy and discretion would be more advisable. But what's the fucking point in attempting this when it's kinda obvious none of this is going in? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I know we don't care for wikipedia much here but I thought I'd give an example of how those of us in the wiki community have handled similar in the past [4] Athaenara was what we in the en.wikipedia call a legacy admin having been at wikipedia for 16 years and being granted admin rights a year later, only for her to spout transphobic abuse against a prospective admin at Requests for Adminship (basically where ppl can vote for whether someone requesting adminship is trustworthy or not) in 2022, upon which she was immediately indefinitely blocked and de-sysoped by arbcom (this despite being a productive user/admin at the time outside of the transphobia). So if I this were treated like how wikipedia does than CorruptUser would probs be indef banned for transphobia and tech rights removed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Watching this from the sidelines for months now, and listening to people gripe over and over about this user, seeing this Chicken Coop case spiraling into essays, has me convinced this user has nothing of value to offer (not that I needed much persuasion) and it's pretty surprising anything he writes here is even being entertained any more. He was called out rightly so for making offensive posts, then responded with a lengthy screed that failed to address why people dislike his behavior so much; this should've been dismissed outright as what Scream has appropriately done, rather than responded to. This user has posted bad take after bad take, dropping the occasional downright offensively terrible ones such as the ones where he tried to suggest things like LGBT+ people have accomplished more than black people in the U.S. causing arguments to break out with this user showing no signs of backing off. People here need to come to terms that CorruptUser is a Problem User and something certainly needs to be done about it. At least Luigifan acknowledged he messed up, being granted temporary benefit of doubt only for him to continue messing up and then eventually getting banned. Why is CorruptUser granted this benefit for being even worse than Luigifan with conflict, I guess I haven't been paying attention enough. He needs to go or at least actually contribute to articles than argue and spread noxiousness on Saloon Bar and waste everyone's time here. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- First off, I'm not one for fake apologies. Yeah, I said things in the wrong manner, but I did mean them and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. I was trying to give you all a warning of what you needed to do, because the next 4 years are going to be rougher than I initially thought. If you want to get rid of me, eh, that's the cabal's right no matter my opinion.
- It's been an experience here. I've seen this wiki grow, and then decline due to infighting over several things, some of which I was on the sidelines but some I was in the middle of. If I learned anything, it was ironically to be less Libertarian when it came to "eh, let people argue" and would've pushed harder for topic bans against users that annoyed me, but conversely, well, here we are with me.
- I'll miss some of you. Others, not so much.
- Peace. CorruptUser 03:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. I don't want to keep this going, but I wanted to add something. As far as I can tell, no one wants to 'get rid of you'. In fact, people have shown you remarkable restraint and good faith countless times on this exact subject. People want you to educate yourself and stop repeating the same transphobic nonsense you have been repeating for years. You can LANCB over this, but this is not irreparable, and I think it reflects poorly on you that your reaction to finally getting any serious punishment for the offensive things you say is to vaguely imply you're going to LANCB instead of listening to the people around you when they tell you that this shit is unacceptable. --Ozzyboo (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: CorruptUser loses their tech rights, is blocked for pi months, and is topic banned from gender identity-related articles as well as discussing such issues in the Saloon Bar. |
---|
Revoke CorruptUser’s tech rights[edit]Yay[edit]
Nay[edit]
Ineligible[edit]
Goat[edit]
Sysoprevoke for CorruptUser[edit]Yay[edit]
Nay[edit]
Ineligible[edit]
Goat[edit]
[edit]Yay[edit]
Nay[edit]
Ineligible[edit]
Goat[edit]Topic ban CorruptUser from discussing transgender issues in the Saloon Bar[edit]Yay[edit]
Nay[edit]Goat[edit]@Karma, I kind of do want a discussion, but right now isn't the time, more of a "any last words" situation. If you want to discuss further, we can do so on my/your talk page. If not, eh. Either way, and not that my approval means much these days, you are one of the few decent sysops left around here. CorruptUser Ban CorruptUser from Saloon bar[edit]Yay[edit]
Nay[edit]
Goat[edit]
3.14 weeks ban for CorruptUser[edit]Yay[edit]
Nay[edit]Goat[edit]
3.14 months ban for CorruptUser[edit]Yay[edit]
Nay[edit]
Ineligible[edit]
Goat[edit]
Permaban CorruptUser[edit]Yay[edit]Nay[edit]
Ineligible[edit]
Goat[edit]
Rule Change for votes on Mods and Techs[edit]In the event of a Tech or Mod getting voted on, there should be a system in place to neuter them until the vote ends. E.g., if 4 or 5 of the Mods agree, the remaining Mod or Tech should be temporarily stripped of powers until the end of the vote, where they are either restored or kept removed. I'm sorry I established this precedent, though we've had to remove Tech powers in the past. CorruptUser 18:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
A CU Retrospective[edit]After I've had a couple days to calm down, most some personal drama in my meatspace life, I've actually been able to think. In retrospect, what I did was meanspirited. I'm sorry for that Ozzy. I'm not going to be sorry for my views on "keep the crazy out of your camp", that's how I feel about not just the Trans movement, but about most groups including my own (and my own demographic does have quite a bit of problematic elements). What I am apologizing for is dumping it on you at what was obviously not a good time. Whatever the case, I need a break for a bit. If anyone wants to ask me a few questions, you can do so on my talk page and I will answer them as honestly as I can. CorruptUser 18:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC) |
Edit Filter / Long term Defense Tools[edit]
Archive this. | ||
---|---|---|
Defense Suggestions[edit]Does this wiki need a dedicated edit filter notice? And any more tools we can introduce to engage in long-term defense against attacks such as VPN blocks? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
|
Extreme vandalism[edit]
I just saw some vandalism taking place in real-time, and it actually included the doxxing of an editor. What should be done to prevent this in the future? Perhaps your "edit filter" I keep reading about should be adapted behind the scenes to automatically revert and oversight any edits involving the names of those who have opted in for such a special safeguard? I can't oversight anything since I'm not an admin, but somebody here should do this regardless of the broader discussion worth having. Doxxing sucks big time. Elf (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- These two should be oversighted:
- https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pinkerite&diff=2725311&oldid=2725309
- https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pinkerite&diff=2725316&oldid=2723604
- Note that you should probably oversight this comment of mine as well once you're finished :) Elf (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- That isn't doxxing because their name is listed on their website which the link to on their userpage (though if said user wants those revisions deleted I'll allow it). Actual doxxing gets suppressed and if it gets bad enough I could get the filters to deal with it but regardless sysops are always watching the situation so the best advice here would be to not feed the troll. Plutocow (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Odd vandal activity right now[edit]
DFTT |
---|
There are some seemingly good faith edits mixed in with total BS. All of it in rapid fire. Can somebody put the site in temporary lockdown or something? EllyPo (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
|
User:EggmnRevengeStreak[edit]
DFTT |
---|
Hello. If you would kindly take the time to observe User:EggmnRevengeStreak's edit history, you will find a clear vandal that has damaged talk pages, user pages, and Mainspace articles. User:EggmnRevengeStreak has done this previously under an IP Address, and has only recently gained an account. Some sort of resolution/end of vandalization and spamming would be much appreciated. Just for clarity's sake, they are the "Pwned by the walrus vandal, praise Allah" vandal. – Regards, Avarice 02:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC) |
Ioe bidome[edit]
DFTT |
---|
What is the purpose of this page? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
|