Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon internet.svg

This Internet related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


You know[edit]

You know, a normal person like me (or "normie" in idiotspeak) would just use the common term in place of this one: asshole. Chair tater (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but this one has the benefit that forum mods won't ban you for swearing. Nog Bogmire (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Nyberg[edit]

Since the article is documenting Sarah Nyberg as the first example of an edgelord, then I'm not sure how it helps to obfuscate what past behavior she's referring to in the page's top quote. There's no dispute over whether or not she spent years promoting pedophilia. Sarah herself acknowledged what she said, that the logs came from her website, and that she has no defense for it. She archived the chatlogs herself, out of an IRC channel she hosted and moderated, publicly posted the logs on her own website, and encouraged readers to check them out. Years later they were then copy+pasted, screenshotted, and archived by one of her own site's admins (not 'hacked'). They also weren't leaked, as that would imply that they were private any any point, as opposed to being publicly advertised and shared by Sarah.

That's not including all the other comments she made on her other social media accounts in support of pedophilia. At no point did she dispute their authenticity, and neither did anyone else in her community. Several of her friends and members of the FFShrine irc channel have also written replies to her on Medium, to confirm that the logs are authentic and that she shared child porn, although none of them seem to believe that she was doing it to be edgy, and instead criticize her for trying to claim it was a multi-year joke.

Is Sarah Nyberg a trustworthy source on what Sarah Nyberg thinks, or not? Or is she only a trustworthy source past the age of 30, and only on certain social media websites? As GrammarCommie points out, she may be agenda-driven but that doesn't make her an unreliable source for her own actions, does it?

Fellow edgelord Milo Yiannopoulos also made public comments in defense of pedophilia, resulting in his firing from Breitbart, so it would help to include his statements as well. --2601:8A:4081:FD80:7126:D8D3:660:8A93 (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, it is important to differentiate what is said for shock value, as is a common behavioral tend on "edgelord" forums, and what is said without jest. Can you provide such context? Can you lay out such context? Secondly, it is important to vet sources. a source labeled "" might not be the best source for reliable information on Wikipedia, as they very clearly have an agenda. This brings us to point three, chain of custody. Information without links establishing context and a firm chain of custody are not reliable. Can you demonstrate a clear chain of evidential custody? If so, why didn't you do so to start with? Fourthly, Yiannopoulos never stopped engaging in "edgelord" shit stirring, and in fact made quite a lucrative career off of it, so that comparison is false equivalence. And finally, and most importantly we must ask, "how does the disputed edit benefit the article as a whole?" The answer is of course, it doesn't. Its a clunky aside that simply yells at the reader that "X is a Bad Person!", and does not stay on topic. If I had to pick on of these points to die on a hill for, it would be the latter-most one. The article does not benefit from this edit's addition, nor does it suffer for its absence. Engage with my arguments or be done with this discussion, I don't give a fuck about obscure internet feuds. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Good points, but isn't the purpose of the article to document bad persons and their bad behavior? It seems out of place to try and protect just one of their reputations.
To answer your questions, yes the entire context of her past comments can be laid out. The entire chatlog history of the FFShrine chatroom is provided in my citation, but it includes a lot of links and sub-pages, so here are more direct citations. The first is the tumblr page from earlier, the 2nd is a download link of the entire chatroom's history created by Sarah's own former moderator (Roph). The first and third link also includes proof of his identity
Did she say it in jest? So far, every member of that chatroom that has come forward has said they were never under the impression that she was joking, but most weren't particularly offended at the time either. They mostly take issue with refusing to apologize for any for it, and for refusing to acknowledge the main issue- that she had sexually abused her younger cousin and sent photos of it to them. They're also all certain that the girl was real and an actual relative due to the large amount of other photos Sarah had shared.
Regarding the agenda of the source, I wouldn't consider their angry rants to be reliable, but I'm not sure if being disgusted by pedophilia is much of an "agenda". They go out of their way to debunk false rumors about Sarah, while providing direct citations for all of their claims, entirely consisting of direct logs and archives of what Sarah said, along with every other FFShrine member that has verified those logs. The only sources are Sarah herself, and the people she said those things to. And it's hard to see why her friends would suddenly have an agenda to all tell the same exact lie about her.
Regarding chain of custody, the page establishes that. Former FFShrine admin Roph provided a complete dump of the chatlogs, along with proof of his identity. Normally screenshots of internet posts wouldn't be reliable, but every featured screenshot matches what's in the logs, and what's been archived directly from the FFShrine webpage (where Sarah herself also shared the logs with anyone that visited the frontpage. The rest of the citations are directly archived versions of every instance of FFShrine members confirming the logs accuracy, along with citations proving *their* identities, AND direct archives of forum posts going back as far as 2007, all which are Sarah's peers openly discussing her pedophilia fixation. Sarah never disputes what she is quoted as saying, she only insists that everyone else was saying the same things (they weren't)
The chatlogs as posted directly on were also archived via InternetWayback machine and WebCite. But because Sarah is the site's owner, she was able to take them down. Fortunately other direct archives exist
In regards to Milo, his edgelord shit-stirring comment in support of pedophilia caused him to get fired from Brietbart, unlisted by CPac, and widely denounced by conservatives. His career is now (thankfully) a shadow of it's former self and he claims to be millions in debt. Far from being lucrative, his behavior seems to have killed his career- when was the last time you heard from him? But whether or not one makes money off of being offensive doesn't make their comments any less offensive
Anyway, to sum up, the page benefits from the background info, as it provides additional context to the vague opening quote. Otherwise the reader has no idea what sort of past behavior Sarah is referring to. It also directly disproves some of the claims she made in her medium article. Such as her being a teenager at the time, the earliest records took place when she was 20. --2601:8A:4081:FD80:7126:D8D3:660:8A93 (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
"Good points, but isn't the purpose of the article to document bad persons and their bad behavior?" If you had but shut your trap after this question, you might not look the fool. Let me both blunt and clear: no. The purpose of the article is to document, evaluate, and criticize a set of of behaviors, else it would be titled "Why we think X is bad." This isn't dramawiki, and if that's all you've got to sell (which I've repeatedly stated a lack of interest in buying), it is my humble opinion that you aren't a good match for this wiki. "Anyway, to sum up, the page benefits from the background info, as it provides additional context to the vague opening quote. Otherwise the reader has no idea what sort of past behavior Sarah is referring to." Again, no it does not, its merely you yelling "Nyberg is a pedo!" at the top of your lungs. It is neither framed as an elaboration, nor is an elaboration needed for what amounts to a "the term originates here" sentence. Your addition is clunky, hamfisted, breaks up word flow, and most importantly, is unneeded. The article isn't about Nyberg, the very brief mention her aside, but about a broader concept as a whole, of which Nyberg's medium article is a brief jumping off point. (Specifically, concerning the etymology of the term, so whether the article truthful or not doesn't really matter for the articles purposes.) Finally, to address "It seems out of place to try and protect just one of their reputations." Let me again be blunt. I do not care. Nyberg (side note, because I notice people with single issue edits do this a lot, but calling an article subject by their first name indicates a level of emotional attachment, be that positive or negative, while referring to them by their last name indicates a more distant and professional connection) isn't someone I give a fuck about. Hell, I'd forgotten she even existed until you starting up with your edits. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Who the fuck is Sarah Nyberg and what does she matter? Why are you coming here as a BON and pushing some obscure agenda that no-one cares about? Kauri0.o (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I googled 'edgelord', found this article as a top result, found it to be somewhat skimpy and added a line and source adding what I knew about the aforementioned internet spat. I'm not sure why GrammarCommie describes it as "yelling" at the top of one's lungs, as there's nothing hyperbolic about my addition. I accurately described her past behavior, and I didn't call her a current pedophile, but rather someone who had previously and publicly self-identified as one (for several years, across several social media platforms). Maybe she's gotten professional help since then, but we have no idea.
Anyway, if wording is clunky or breaks up the wordflow, it'd be fair to offer suggestions on how to better structure the sentence. Additionally, while it's true the article isn't about Sarah Nyberg, she's the main example of an edgelord the article features. The article may not be about Sarah exclusively, but the "very brief mention" of her is nearly half the article's wordcount. And without the elaboration, we have no idea what kind of behavior she is referring to in her medium article, because the quote is pretty much the only paragraph that makes reference to her self-described 'edgelord' behavior, the rest is focused on redefining the people criticizing her as being exclusively bigots or gamergate supporters (while whitewashing the large number of social justice activists and former allies who also condemned her abusive behavior). There are replies on that page (some of which came from former friends of hers) providing additional context and call her out for being unapologetic about what she did. We could use those as a citation, but I figured a more direct source would be preferred.
So why do we even need context on what her offensive behavior was? Probably because there's a huge spectrum of 'edgy' or offensive behavior, that's only offensive to a narrow demographic of irrational people. Did she say something in support of atheism? Did she mock a country, a sports team, the pope, 9/11 victims, a pop idol, or fanbase? Or did she say something bigoted, sexist, or in support of child abuse? Because it's only bigotry and child abuse that provoke a justified level of disdain from normal well-adjusted people. Anyway, as GrammarCommie points out, the purpose of the article "is to document, evaluate, and criticize a set of of behaviors". So I lent a hand in at least documenting the behavior that's only vaguely referenced in the article's opening quote and first citation. --2601:8A:4081:FD80:E1B0:AF7B:6D9A:1223 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've given a few weeks for others to mull it over. Can I assume we've reached consensus about the addition? 2601:8A:4081:FD80:EC65:EF8E:D1FF:D499 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
No. The disputed edits are still an unneeded aside. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a consensus that the proposed edits are completely unnecessary. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, any reason why the article benefits from obfuscation? I've demonstrated that the info is accurate, relevant, and fixes the vaguely-worded opening. If the chatlogs are relevant to serve as the article's anchor point and intro, then it's also relevant enough to link to as an obvious example. Again, if the wording is hamfisted, suggest a better way to word it. 2601:8A:4081:FD80:6101:466:DFCC:51D9 (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)