User talk:Aneris/Archive1

Welcome

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Aneris! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Feel free to pull up a goat and stay awhile! Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverted Doxxing

Because your additions were shit. You repeated the same link several times under different names, for starters. The small extra section might be worth rescuing if you can editorialise with it somewhat less. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 00:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should have been reverted. Aleksandra96 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I indeed used the same sources twice, once for individuals and once for sites (following the pattern that was established there), but the citations are an odd reason to revert. At least I have added sources. If it is possible to add the same footnote several times, I'll fix it (unless someone knows how to do it and do it faster). Aneris (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘For me that's interesting to see, how social justice warriors always fight the facts and try, under the flimsiest of excuses to hide evidence they don't like. That's how the propaganda sausage gets made. Aneris (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You're probably sane

So now you're a sysop. See: RationalWiki:Sysop_guide Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome among the gods.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, that promotion, or curse, came rather unexpectedly fast. :D Aneris (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's a demotion. Promotion is the removal of user rights. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Fallacies

Thanks for the additions. Feel free to add any others you stumble across. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I do. I have one or two in mind that might be missing. Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You've been cooped!

Don't take this seriously. At all. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

AQD's Objection on "Sarkeesian's sex/race segregated classes"

"Anita Sarkeesian supports gender/sex and racial segregation" -- taken from above.

"saw a study where segregated classes showed a positive effect on learning" ≠ "supports segregation" 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:48, 6 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

She tweets it's a good thing, which can be reasonably inferred from "positive effect" and tweeting it. You're nitpicking, don't you? Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>mfw you accuse someone else of nitpicking Kitsunelaine (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You seriously can't tell the difference between a moral claim and someone remembering studies where X was the case (instead of -X)? This might be worse than I thought. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:37, 7 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Kitsune, the preview button is your friend. Don't be afraid to use it. Tielec01 (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, still getting used to wiki-ing. Agh, damnit, now you've made me have to put an edit back in. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I should still say thanks, though. Cheers. Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

A gracious response from a scholar and gentleman. Dank u wel meneer. ^{— Unsigned, by: Tielec01 / talk / contribs}

bro u 4got 2 tag what is dis nonsense Kitsunelaine (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You brute. Tielec01 (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That's why you love me. <3 Kitsunelaine (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Rational Wiki Comedy Gold

Chomsky, the GamerGate critic

I am still amazed at the awful standards everywhere near topics where social justice warriors are deeply invested. I was just poking into a September version of "GamerGate" to understand how it changed, where Chomsky's name caught my eye. The article stated then (and who knows how long): "Anita Sarkeesian's producer and co-writer Jonathan McIntosh revealed that he was aware of Gamergate's hateful and conservative streak from its outset. He posted Tweets where he quoted or paraphrased Noam Chomsky and watched as Gamergaters criticized him for it" and that's the "source". Chomsky! The man who, as do I, hates postmodernist ideolgoues like Jonathan McIntosh and his social justice warrior gang. He "revealed", ahahahaha. And the source? A tweet where Jon simply asserts it. He tweeted it. We believe it. That settles it. Fantastic. It received 106 likes, apparently one of his most favourited tweets. What these statements are he "tested" remains a mystery. Of course Chomsky is the very opposite of Social Justice Warriors, even if the nitwits won't believe it, since everyone not like them is "right wing". Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they just don't know of all the infights in the Left?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the truth! It's buuuuurns! Quick, flee! Flee to the comfort of Anita's Word! Anita must guide us to Nirvana through doublethink and lack of self-awareness!!! (inb4 DragonDragon comments two minutes after mine is posted showing off just how much of an obsessed stalker he is.) 65.78.150.19 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Relevant Chomsky Sarah (HH) 05:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A classic! ♥ Chomsky. Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How does it feel being on the inevitable wrong side of history?

For all your argumentative bollocks you've posited, it would really be better for all of us if you just admit that you and your cohorts are terrified because the years long campaign of your side to try and remove Anita Sarkeesian from the internet just keeps on fucking failing. She's partnered up with big businesses in Google and Intel, she's appeared in front of an audience of millions on The Colbert Report and been cheered loudly on that programme, and she's even gotten to testify in front of the United Nations, not to mention getting to do speeches all around the world to the many people who support what she has to say. Whereas what major organisations give a shit about you guys and any of the hate rhetoric you use? You're the most incompetent fucking set of so-called "critics" of her work that I've ever fucking seen. You can't get anything right, and all you've done is just make her more prominent in the world. Congratulations you fucking idiots. (slow clap) Jon91919 (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. GG has lifted a two-bit Youtuber up to an international Internet celebrity racking in the big bucks. How ironic. Streisand effect in action.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

✻ I'm not sure what brings me the honour to have you on my page! Care to explain what you want? I find the discussion about sexism in video games actually good to have. But Sarkeesian's take is of course postmodernist rubbish with a ridiculous methodology supported by a proto-fascist movement. You can look up "history" above (CTRL+F). SJW, in their feverish minds detached from reality often believe they look good, but of course it becomes apparent with every drama what kind of racist, sexists bigots 2.0 they truly are, now even with a show trial. Oh, and wasn't Anita Sarkeesian & Zoe Quinns UN appearance ridiculed afterwards where she claimed it was violence when people disagree with her? Didn't the report contain numerous errors and was later regretted? I suggest a reality check. Aneris ✻ (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's hilarious to hear from you about 'proto-fascists' while GG is in bed with Breitbart, attacking Yale students. Do you have a mirror at home? Because you're spewing more bullshit terminology (throwing around words like 'post-modernism' and going full 'NO, YOU ARE THE REAL RACIST/SEXITS') in your silly internet crusade than the SJWs you hate so much. Typhoon (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

CTRL+F Breitbart, mentioned above. And User:Aneris#GamerGate. Aneris ✻ (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahem, first of all: List_of_Gamergate_claims#The_UN_wants_to_ban_video_games_because_of_SJWs That covers your complaints about Anita's UN appearance I do believe. I'll only add that her role was simply to testify, but she did not have any role in actually writing the UN's report. Despite their "regret", this doesn't mean the UN's abandoning the plan to combat Cyber-Violence. Indeed, it appears that some updates are in the works: http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/publications/bb-wg-gender-report2015-highlights.pdf . And yeah, seconding Typhoon's accusing you of hypocrisy. You know Breitbart and Milo freely admit to using 8chan as a fucking source for their so-called "scoops"? You know, the one which has a board called Baphomet that just so happens to target for doxing and other harassment pretty much anyone who also happens to criticise GamerGate? The one that hypocritically goes after others for perceived sex abuse cases when it has ENTIRE FUCKING BOARDS dedicated to having pictures of children in explicitly sexual poses as well as anonymous people there salivating at how much they want to fuck kids? The side that actively relied on information from a confirmed terrorist when it came to smearing the @BlackLivesMatter activist Shaun King. Whereas what's Anita done exactly? Oh right, the oh-so-criminal offence of having her own YouTube video series where she analyses the art of video games from an academically recognised feminist perspective. The horror! The HORROR! Shit, her team has even explicitly said they do not want to ban video games, with Macintosh even saying on Twitter: "No-one wants to ban DOOM" not that makes a lick of difference to you conspiracy fuckwads. Just admit you're terrified because your campaign against her has backfired so spectacularly and your group amounts to little more than a fringe group in the low thousands and no credible media outlets give a fuck what you have to say. And yeah, you can be all "Oh! But I don't like Breitbart or 8chan either!" I don't give a fuck. If your side had any real integrity, you'd have formed an actual non-profit group with recognisable public figures and accountability so that you guys can stop the bullshit of "Oh, this act of hostility had nothing to GG it was totally 3rd party trolls!". Instead, you persist with your side's policy on remaining anonymous and showing next to zero signs of actual "ethics". Jon91919 (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

>Implying, that any kinda leaderless movement is unethical and that you can simply end the state of a leaderless movement being leaderless.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

✻ Maybe you (Jon91919) believe using the LBJ Method makes you seem clever. It doesn't. I restate again, CTRL+F, I've nothing to do with Breitbart, or 8chan, either. I'm also against paleo-libertarianism (i.e. right wing Breitbart style). Since I'm perpetually on a show trial with you ideologues, I've explained this in length on my User:Aneris page. Maybe you think nobody notices your trickery (which is common among SJWs): so you use an elastic set called "GamerGate". Everyone critical of your Saint Sarkeesian and the other martyrs of Social Justice is, accordingly, a "GamerGater". Next, those "GamerGaters" are those people who are also doxers, or who also hang out on unmoderated forums, such as the chan boards. And guess who also uses unmoderated forums? Paedophiles. I'm in awe! This is Monty Python witch hunt logic, and I'm not being polemical. It is identical "logic". SJWs are that stupid. In a nutshell, SJWs are wanting individuals, often sexists, racists and paedophiles themselves (numerous examples are known) who found out that by dressing themselves in the cloak of "social justice" they are suddenly unassailable, seem morally superior and "on the right side of history". What's worse, where the SJWs need to construe a connection around five corners for their slanderous tactics, using Insane Troll Logic, to smear their opponents; their very own thought and opinion leaders are revealed to be paedophiles, white supremacists and their apologists. There were half a dozen other cases, recently also Sarkeesian Twitch TV mod, plus similar cases in the A/S movement (with the child rape cover up, support on FTB). Or recently there was also HannibalTheVictor13 sex offender chap, also notable SJW in the social justice warrior commuunity on YouTube. What a mile of a difference whether you make an arbitrary association chain with some label magic, or whether your own opinion leaders you support are revealed to be such dubious characters. Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not gonna agree with Jon that you, specifically, are part of GG or associating with Nazis. But

1. The prominent talking heads for gamergate aren't just "on the same board" as Nazis. Many of them are literally espousing fascist talking points, or are full NeoNazis.
2. I'm not convinced you read that Medium piece, because while Sarah admits that she engaged in chan-style black humor as a kid, she absolutely did not admit to any kind of paedophilia, and what you are calling her "apologist" is someone saying that the alleged evidence for those claims is absent, not that it's "okay that Sarah did that". That's an extreme and rather unacceptable accusation to make without strong proof. And for fuck's sake, half of what you've posted to this site has been apologism for edgelord behavior, so don't start getting your handkerchief wrinkled over someone on the "other side" admitting they engaged in it too.
3. The accusations are not that Gamergate is guilty "because it associates with doxers and pedophiles". It's that Gamergate is guilty because you can go onto KiA and find thread after thread of them defending the doxing and pedophilia, cheering that it was performed, and attacking those who are trying to report it. Look at any of the conversations Gamergaters had about Foldablehuman, who was merely pointing at child porn, not accusing GG of being responsible for it.

You desperately need to examine what you are saying when you post about "SJWs" or "Gamergate", because while you may be on the money about some excesses of the progressive movement (Pharyngula, "doxing for justice", etc.), you frequently make poorly-evidenced accusations while displaying the exact same behavior you're deriding. You just spent a very long paragraph complaining about "guilt by association" by engaging in rampant guilt by association. Jon attacked quite a few strawmen by doing the association-guilt thing, no mistake, but Jesus tap-dancing Christ, you do yourself no favors by sinking past his level.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit I probably went overboard with some of my criticisms, and if I did I'm sorry. However, don't pretend that you have not been engaging in dismissing arguments purely because they sound "SJW"-like as well as the fact that you cast "SJWs" as one big organised group. Spoiler warning: they're really not. Sure, there may be some groups that are formed out of so-called "SJWs", but they aren't part of some grand evil organization out to oppress you (which of course brings up the irony of you bringing up Monty Python), they are simply individuals who advocate for some stuff that you happen to disagree with and who stand opposed to a whole load of the fucking bullshit that your side seems to stand for, like for example the really toxic attitudes that some of Anita's so-called "critics" have against her, and their actual attempts to try and silence her, be it through conspiracy theories about her hoodwinking the IRS, doxing her, hacking her Kickstarter and YouTube accounts, sending bomb threats, and of course harassing her with many, many tweets calling her pretty much every female gender-specific name there is as well as sending her graphic porn and violence images. As for the stuff about FemFreq's Twitch.tv mod, there's several reasons why that campaign was utter bullshit:

1. The Ralph Retort piece on the matter cites that truly unbiased and not-at-all toilet of the internet source Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and the Retort piece engages in a fuckload of baseless "guilt by association" and "guilty until proven innocent" bullshit. If this was a court of law, it would be fucking laughed out of there.
2. The hypocrisy of Anita's critics criticizing ANYTHING to do with paedophilia when a huge bulk of them STILL refuse to disassociate with and/or condemn 8chan's practices in that area. Even without the pictures that Dan Olson highlighted back in December of last year, you've got all the comments by users explicitly saying how much they want to and like fucking kids. But no, no condemnation by her critics there!
3. The vagueness of the actual crime committed. Okay, so we know that the crime has something to do with "sexual solicitation" of some child who, judging by the description of the charge, was apparently 15 at the time. After doing some research, I found that the age of consent in Kansas (where Valis77 is based), is 16 years old. For all we know, the "victim" in this case could have lied about her age, which isn't exactly an uncommon trap that many men have ended up inadvertently falling into. In any case, while again Valis77 undisputably committed a criminal act, his type of "paedophilia" is quite considerably WAY further down that scale than the sorts of people who exploit children through stuff like trafficking or indeed through the kinds of stuff on 8chan's boards. It's like comparing self-defence killing to serial murder.
4. On that note, the crime was in 2001, when Valis77 would have been 23. We have been given no information about what the exact relationship between Valis77 and the victim was.
5. Obviously, with the crime having seen him convicted in 2001, it stands to reason that the guy has served time for his actions. Is it not the right of former prisoners to be allowed to try and live their lives in society after they've served their time? Plus, Anita's critics haven't given us any details about whether the guy is on or has ever been on something like a court-ordered rehabilitation program, which you might expect for a crime of that nature.
6. Your side has been able to show that Valis77 committed a crime in 2001 and got convicted for it. Fan-freaking-tastic, now what about SINCE? Has he criminally re-offended SINCE then? If your side can't show this, then your outrage doesn't mean diddly shit, since every former prisoner has the right to try and rehabilitate themselves into society, and they should not be slandered with any claims of crimes that they have not actually committed since leaving prison.
7. Finally, the whole outrage about him being a mod for a Twitch.tv chatlog. Pardon my potential ignorance here, but what the hell kind of "power" does that REALLY entail? You view a bunch of screen-names in a chatlog, and if any of them happen to start acting like total fuckwits and breaking the chatlog rules then you hit a ban button blocking them from the chat. Oh, the POWAH! The UNLIMITED POWAH! (/sarcasm). What next, can we expect Valis77's super-secret laser-death-ray on the moon to destroy the Earth?! Or maybe he'll relay secret orders to his army of Storm Troopers to execute Order 66 and kill all the Jedi?!

But yeah, your claims really do not stack up. Jon91919 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@KrytenKoro, No problem with bringing the evidence, let me know what you need to know, and maybe I can point you to a source. I won't however google for you. Since this is all uphill and against entrenched ideologues in the secular movement, there are hardly good blog posts and articles to point to (there are still sources and evidence of course) That's the effect when the SJWs were well-connected. But the wind is slowly changing directions, however. The main difference is that SJWs are exactly as seen here: their first response is slandering and trying to shut you down by poisoning the well. Then they'll try to use other meta-discourse tactics, like blocking or poison sources and names by declaring them toxic somehow. This follows from their postmodernist conviction that information is not indepdenent of speakers and which they use as a weapon all the time. That's already the beginning of a huge mountain of rubbish these people believe in. I'm labelling these people SJWs, because they walk like a duck, quack like a duck and look like a duck. None of them objected to the characterisation. However, it's not true that criticism of postmodernism is automatically right wing or gamergate (as they believe). They're doing the Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy ad nauseam. Example: there are different traditions on the Left in disagreement over many matters (and historically so), yet critique of a fellow on the left does not make someone right wing, just because right wingers also criticize left wingers. That's the said Insane Troll Logic again, which the SJWs likewise use very often. There's a reason why Shetterly's book on SJWs has the subtitle "Do not engage". Aneris ✻ (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You've gone from misrepresenting Anita's speech at the UN (which I corrected in detail in the relevant article I linked) to engaging in "guilt by association" and "guilty until proven innocent" tactics with whatever connection Anita and Valis77 have (where I also showed you were full of shit in the counter-points I raised). You've not answered either of these points, or for that matter the hypocrisy of criticizing Anita or any so-called "SJWs" for supposed traits that your side are actually exhibiting many times over. And for a large part, it relates back to what I said before: You're all just incredibly bitter and jealous because your campaign just keeps on failing and people in game development and the media actually care about what Anita has to say, whereas your side doesn't have any real credible support at all. I'll continue to let you weep those tears of inadequacy. Jon91919 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

✻ You moved goalposts around, didn't you? What did I wrote about the UN report, you brought up, and what was false? Be specific. No goalpost moving. You expect me to address your SJW typical slander ("Hyperbolic comparisons ..."), which I won't do. Since your behavior is absolutely standard, including DARVO tactics, I already made a standard Othering section on my user page because this all well known. You champion a cause, I do not. You know: atheism isn't a religion and poking holes into Christianity isn't Satanism – except for the most pious believers. But SJWs see the world through their identity politics glasses and require that enemies are sorted into the categories, too. We know this, because it's always the same routine. Week after week, drama after drama, episode after episode. Even the "right side of history" claim (headline here) smells SJW. I watch this for two years now. This week? It's this autistic student journalist who was put onto a show trial at SkeptiCon, and accused of being "racist", despite that he was an ally of the cause. His fifteen twenty 75 minutes of fame were about being grilled by feverish witch hunters who even belittle his (obvious) autist social angst as "white tears" (video/reply/interview/Commentary). Typical. Down to the concepts and language. In other words, standard fare SJW racism. His crime was that he dared to mention freedom of speech – predictably an idea SJWs discard in favour of ideological “safe spaces”. Whoever is (even mildly) critical of them is always the Other, and even when it's disagreement itself (violence! harassment!). Hence, the section on my page exist.

✻ I also volleyed back your slander, exposed it as what it was and returned that on the contrary, it's a big lie, since SJW opinion leaders were frequently exposed as paedos and supremacists for which I brought examples. It's up to you whether you follow or support them, or whether you do not. Generally speaking, the "safe space" mentality plays a role in these things hence there is rarely criticism of peers, and when disputes somehow arise, they tend to rip the community apart. This, too, can be explained in essay-length. So the situation is not even remotely symmetrical. Other places are the polar opposite, and hence they'll prevail in the long run and why SJW safe spaces often look like a cult.

✻ I don't keep lists, but I know there were half a dozen or so people, probably more SJW leaders with a paedo or supremacist past. It's really a common feature, and well in line with their newfound belief system. I've seen a quiz where quotes from SJW are juxtaposes with stormfront, which I found quite entertaining. The only give-away was the ridiculous faux-academese and the word "problematic" the SJWs use, and which stormfront people apparently haven't adopted (they should, you'd make a great team, since they are naturally also identity politics fanatics who also talk skin colour and human races all the time). Again, all consistent. SJWs even have words like "whitesplaining" which stems from the ideological belief that humans have special ways of knowing, lived experiences, and which is related to the older postmodernist ideas of radical social constructivism and cognitive relativism. Somewhere above, you have Sarkeesian telling us that sex and race segregation is good (conanitve function makes this an appeal). Again, no surprise. It would be difficult to find anyone of import who says or tweets these things. But by sheer happenstance Anita Sarkeesian has somehow coincidentially the same views as all the other SJW under the sun. Case in point, that movement or zeitgeist exists with its own jargon and very specific, unorthodox (anti-science) views and behaviors. This is a side you can join. Critics are not a side, because your identity politics is bollocks. Aneris ✻ (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Blah blah blah TL:DR Sermon "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed by these SJWs who are totally like the Nazis!" Jon91919 (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Plus, you really cannot engage in accusing so-called "SJWs" of "Other"ing the people they disagree with, when that's precisely what you have been doing throughout your big screeds where pretty much anything you disagree with you slap on the negative label (and it IS a negative label, because that's exactly the connotation you give it) of such ideology being "SJW" like.

I very clearly linked you to the section in the article from this site I linked which took apart the bullshit you spouted about Anita's appearance in front of the UN. Here it is again, in that section that I contributed to, it points out that, while admittedly poorly phrased on Sarkeesian's part, when you look at the examples of ways that her so-called "critics" have used to accuse her "lying" as the ways they've utilized for their "she sucks" narrative, it absolutely fucking constitutes harassment. You bleat about how these so-called "proto-fascists" are wanting to curb your "free speech", and yet when you actually look at the kinds of "free speech" that Sarkeesian, Quinn, and other feminists want to root out, we see that what they want to actually root out is stuff that basically constitutes hate speech and most certainly constitutes terrorism, especially since we have examples of how "Cyber-Harassment/Violence/Bullying" does in fact impact on the real world, and it's morally and intellectually right that people who engage in such hate speech and terrorism should face accountability for their actions. Your side is the one that actually wants to protect this hateful, terroristic "free speech" on the other hand, which as noted in the article says a hell of a lot more about your side than it does about the people who want to root that kind of "freeze peach" out.

Oh yeah, and lest I forget? Your side is the one that comes up with completely fucking idiotic arguments about "Why are they focusing on sexism in video games when women are being oppressed in the Middle East?!" It's bullshit for a number of reasons:

1. As noted in the article, it's the fallacy of relative privation. As human beings, we are capable of focusing on more than one problem at once, and since stuff like Cyber-Harassment and horrific sexist abuse in the gaming industry are very real and harmful things, it's perfectly reasonable to devote time and resources trying to solve those issues.
2. Even if we grant that argument, it's still massively hypocritical since Anita's critics are getting all worked up about someone who's making a YouTube video series and talking to audiences of people who want to see her (the very definition of the notion of a "first world problem") while, for instance, there are women who are not even allowed to go to school in certain Middle East countries. But curiously enough, that kind of standard that Anita's critics hold to her is one that they do not apply to themselves. Which leads us to...
3. The fact that Anita's critics, which are prominently filled with GamerGaters and MRAs, quite evidently don't give a shit about the Middle East or other areas where women are suffering horrific sexist treatment, and are ironically and hypocritically using them as a shield

So please, don't pretend that this is some noble quest of yours. Every charge you may wish to lay onto "SJWs"? You're guilty of them yourself, especially when you libel Sarah Nyberg (even though the accusations against her baseless judging from the visits to the police and a lawyer she's gotten who say exactly as such, and there's no evidence she ever actually did anything to any children) and Anita Sarkeesian through your "guilt by association" and "guilty until proven innocent" tactics (ignoring the extensive rebuttal I posted on your page that showed that the campaign against her was utter bollocks), all the while essentially giving a free pass to 8chan. I've still yet to see any condemnation by you of the very real shit that was going down in that place. As we see with a so-called "critic" of Anita's like yourself, we see that cherry-picking, hypocrisy, and lying are the norm for those kinds of people. Quelle surprise! Jon91919 (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Commercial Break

✻ There's this bloke here who comes to my talk page, openes a section called “How does it feel being on the inevitable wrong side of history?”; demand that I “just admit that [I] and [my] cohorts are terrified”; and that I wanted to “remove Anita Sarkeesian from the internet” because – he's being serious – I dared to disagree with the claims made on her article on its talk page designed for that purpose. Stop the internet! We have a situation here! Did you know that the talk page of RationalWiki has historical significance? Apparently it has. He accused me that I wanted to remove someone “from the internet” because I argue on the talk page on the RationalWiki! Let that sink in for a moment.

✻ So we have this unhinged fellow with a bunch of supporters emerge here, and I tell them that I regard the “discussion about sexism in video games” as “actually good to have” and that regards “wrong side of history” that I believe that the Social Justice Warrior behaviours look proto-fascistic (meaning: likely won't look good in history). I say this because I don't find it normal to accuse people for having argments on talk pages, but that this otherwise eccentric behaviour is very typical for Social Justice Warriors and in accordance with their mad belief system. This is consistent. After all, Anita Sarkeesian, also part of the “social justice” movement, believes that disagreement was violence. Perhaps this attitude makes it understandable after all that her followers think they are on a historical mission and disagreement was siding with “confirmed terrorist” as user Jon91919 points out.

✻ When that is pointed out, they do what they always do: turn whatever was written into the next weapon. So we have a kind of faux symmetry going on, where it seems both sides were equal. But I have never accused people of extreme things for argueing on talk pages, and I explained early on that I have nothing to do with some side which is the feverish worldview they keep pushing on everything. Once again, critics aren't a side, but apologists are for they defend a set of claims or tenets. It is thus entirely fair to make statements about apologists and about their methods and tactics. This is the same whether they are Creationists or Social Justice Warriors. It could be that disputing postmodernist intersectionality identity politics became itself typical of other groups. But that's only the case because SJWs keep imposing their identity politics world-views onto the landscape. It is of course the case that when you disagreed with McCarthy that you were by default a communist, whether that was actually true or not – even if naturally communists opposed McCarthy, too.

✻ I already stated over and over again that I have nothing to do with Breitbart or chans (even though I sympathize for the most part with their Anons). That should be good enough. But you see: not for witchfinder SJWs as we know them. They must impose their categories because that's their arsenal of weapons they want to deploy. Once they capture someone with their elastic sets of labels, they can do some word magic and – presto – anyone is by Insane Troll Logic a supporter of terrorists, doxers or whatever is going on in some boards. And again, pointing out this observation is again turned into a weapon. This is a form of what's called “kafkatrapping”.

✻ Even when you ask them to “be specifc”, like what's wrong about my assertion that the UN report was seen with regret later, they can't process the information in an honest, straightforward way. This, too, is commonplace. Even when I was wrong about it – what exactly – causes this religious zeal? How is it important which exact phrase I use to describe this UN report? Again, it must be cranked up to eleven, sent over the cliff and made seem as if this was the Most Important Thing on the planet of historical significance. History has ended for a moment because the machines have stopped as SJWs explain to me where my wording was wrong.

✻ The best is actually the “guilty by association” part. Remember, that was their thing since day one. And here, and I described their behaviour as typical for SJWs. Which I believe is true. I wrote – repeatetly – that I have nothing to do with doxers and or chans and acutally argued in great length against doxing on the relevant article. Not that I have to prove anything.

✻ So did Jon91919 really feel unfairly portrayed? That's the kicker. He doesn't. It's simply a game again. He actually DOES defend Sarah Nyberg, former fascist and paedophile. What I wrote about positive identification with their “team” again turned out to be true. If the situation WAS identical, he could simply say he disapproves and has nothing to do with these people. I actually gave him and everyone ample room to say they don't see themselves part of the “social justice” thing. But the situation is not symmetrical. Jon91919 can't help himself but must defend Sarah Nyberg, former fascist and paedophile, he wrote “You're guilty of them yourself, especially when you libel Sarah Nyberg”. Really? How so? Can anyone follow this reasoning? Some observers have noted the Orwellian nature of social justice: opposing paedophile and fascist individuals like Sarah Nyberg becomes supporting paedophile and fascist individuals.

✻ Besides, Sarah Nyberg has admitted to the charges as much as she couldn't deny. Of course, SJW bullies now made it so that we must take the accused by their word and whatever they say must be accepted uncritically, which is then even downplayed when it cannot be denied anymore. Authoritarians proper. The point is, such things aren't a matter of “sides”. Just because she also had to deal with trolls doesn't mean that her fascist and paedophile past is acceptabale, or that anyone who dares to criticize her is therefore one of those evil trolls. But that kind of thinking is just the logical conclusion of the Social Justice Warrior black & white ideology.

✻ My advice, have them demonstrate it themselves, and have people like Jon91919 defend paedophiles and former racists, point it out, as do I, and avoid their games where they turn everything into a weapon – even being against paedophile and facist apologists like Jon91919. Now you know what's coming next. And all because I dared to argue on a talk page about specific points. Get popcorn and brace yourself. Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's cut right to the chase, cause I'm getting a migraine from the weight of the stupid, already debunked bollocks in your above screed. Summarising your bullshit sermonizing about how evil "SJWs" are, and by extension how bad a person Anita Sarkeesian supposedly is. you seem to believe that she is out to censor games and to curb your freedom of speech. Now, please provide the exact quotes where Anita has advocated censoring games, and please explain what kind of "free speech" it is that you believe should be protected, and how that relates to Anita? Jon91919 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

✻ I don't believe Anita Sarkeesian is attacking freedom of speech, but Social Justice Warriors do. I am also not concerned with her banning video games, and neither am I concerned about video games as a whole or what devs make of it. She and by extension her followers do however bring nerd culture back to the 1980, where these people were seen as greasy creeps. The mainstream assumes video game icons such as Mario, see Item and Loot shops and so forth. And the loser nerds are kicked back into the basement again. I'm past the age to worry about that, but I can sympathize that some people don't like this. To me, Sarkeesian's criticism is merely wrong and a postmodernist ideologue. As such she's a visible candidate that makes this ideology acceptable, which is terrible for it trivializes real grievances and has fascistic undercurrents (she has them too, see Entartete Kunst). I wrote enough about my views on the ideology, and it should be apparant that I find it unconscionable to let it go unchallenged. Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm concluding this on this talk page by pointing out that I've updated my main userpage with some detailed arguments about how what Anita has said gets misrepresented, as well as the chief problems I have with her critics. If you want to continue this, use my talk page. Jon91919 (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"No problem with bringing the evidence, let me know what you need to know, and maybe I can point you to a source. I won't however google for you."

Honestly? Since the defining traits of this whole cultural back-and-forth have been photoshops, conspiracy-style mining of past jokes or misphrasings as devious plans, or disingenuously selective nutpicking, I've no desire to humor what counts for "evidence" in this whole huge fight. Every time it gets examined, it turns out to be bullshit. The link you've put up several times as evidence for Sarah admitting to paedophilia says no such thing (she does talk about being part of a chatroom where they made up darkly, darkly black humor shock stories, "obvious farcical posturing", to "outdo each other", but, shit, I have (heavily conservative) friends who do the same damn thing in private for a laugh. It's vastly different from an admission that it was ever anything more than a bad joke.) If there's something like an actual police report, or you've got a perpetrator saying something terrible in what is obviously not a tongue-in-cheek manner (like wossname, Sam Biddle(?) talking about bringing bullies back), that would be worth checking into for such a serious accusation; for the accusation of people being apologists, I'd have to see long-time members of the community actually apologizing for that behavior, not saying the person didn't do it in the first place. I think it's silly to humor any kind of quote mining or slapdash doxing attempts, though.

Or, and this is my own personal desire, people stop focusing on slinging mud all the time, and focus on actually solving problems--ending harassment, ending the corporations' pimping of journalism, games or no, calling out doxing as harassment, etc. Focus less on celebrating each time something bad happens to your ideological opponents, and focus more on celebrating when good things happen for humanity (which can still be your opponents losing the political battle, but, like, commit to your principles is all I'm asking).KrytenKoro (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

✻ I believe your points have been addressed in the comment under the “Commerical Break”. But let me help you with this. You are currently reading on my user talk page under a section called “How does it feel being on the inevitable wrong side of history?”, an accusation already, created by user Jon91919 who accuses me further – completely baseless – of trying to “remove Anita Sarkeesian from the internet” through harassment and more. His friends quickly joined in. What could possibly be the reason? Were it my articles on logical fallacies? Did my recent formulation of the “Chomsky Rule” upset them? Could it be that my proposal for “Evolution as Fact and Theory” somehow outraged them? Of course not. They are outraged because they are True Believers in the “social justice” ideology and aren't too fond that someone disagreed with them on Anita Sarkeesian's talk page.

✻ I have not destroyed anyone's work, or unfairly injected anything into the article at all. What they do is of coure as expected. As Right Wing Authoritarians proper, they think and act in predictable ways. The most important thing is causing chilling effects through what Chomsky called “flak”. If they make it a pain in the ass to even argue on the talk page, they'll discourage from it, and thereby protect their ideological beliefs.

✻ They are like Creationists, who always do the same things, and always try to pull the same stunts. It's a bit more sophisticated and leads you into postmodernist rhetorical games, but at the end of the day it's always the same schtick. It's mostly what is now sometimes called “Cry-Bully” behaviour, which you support. Since you attack me, too, and deny me the right to defend myself.

“	[...] Altemeyer describes the personality traits of high RWAs as submissiveness, fear, self-righteousness, hostility, lack of critical thinking, compartmentalized thinking, double standards, and feeling most empowered when in groups. He describes the lack of logic in their thinking; when they like the conclusion, how that conclusion was arrived at is irrelevant. When they like the behaver, the behavior is acceptable; when they dislike the behaver, the behavior is not. He then goes on to describe high Social Dominators These people want power, and they don’t much care how they get it. “The end justifies the means” is their guiding principle. And then, the double whammy: these two groups fit together beautifully [...]	”
—Altemeyer's Authoritarians book review, excerpt

✻ “Authoritarian” or “right wing authoritarian” is a technical term and not used nonchalantly by me. This is a set of personality traits (see right) that go together with certain beliefs and behaviours, which we commonly call authoritarian, like imposing rules or restricting freedoms for the “greater good” known to the wise authoritarian leaders. Authorities are also protected with fervour and can do no wrong (see also e.g. PZ Myers page). The ordinary Social Justice Warrior is thus part of a greater movement or “team” with individuals who act as authorities. Anita Sarkeesian is one of them, too.

✻ This is also where Sarah “Butts” Nyberg comes in. She is also one with a name on “Team Social Justice”. When her paedophile and fascist past came out, it was of course denied. The other people were evil liars! When it could no longer be denied, Sarah Nyberg wrote this medium article where she admitted it was true, but of course reframed it as being an “edgelord” and carefully avoided to mention the more serious bits from the same package. You also see the DARVO tactics mentioned earlier. Everytime a SJW has to admit something you can bet on that they turn their statement into another weapon. This is even true for Anita Sarkeesian's stolen fanart episode.

✻ But the problem for your Nyberg defense is two-fold: For one, you cannot accept selectively that something is true when it's part of a larger package, unless you claim the other things were somehow faked. Then you have to show that. All of it can be corroborated indepdently through archived pages. Another quick googling for you: example where one user in a forum is upset about Nyberg's views on paedophilia (seeing it as nothing wrong). Don't think I try to persuade you. I think you are a True Believer™ who is selectively denialist-level sceptical on one side, but accepts uncritically the other side. It's as extreme one sided just as your plea to me only to lay down the hatchet (comically so, asking me in a thread where I was accused).

✻ Your second problem is that your conservative friends who make edgy humour probably don't make “references to Hitler, Nazism, fascism, or other taboo topics which are deliberately intended to shock or offend readers”, and again, we are already asked to believe Nyberg that such comments weren't meant seriously. Of course authoritarians lap up everything eagerly and uncritically to protect their leaders. One sidedness. I have no reason to do that. Further, Social Justice Warriors aren't your conservative friends. Social Justice Warriors are people who witch-hunt someone for wearing a false T-shirt; who character assassinate people for smallest slights when they believe they can score SJ points with it. They ruin careers for a wrong tweet. There's no way ever that anyone (else) would get away with “edgelord” style commentary. In fact, it's otherwise used to smear GamerGate through the tenuous connection that they have a board on a chan forum, i.e. having an “edgelord” next door is already enough in these instance.

✻ What you ask me is completely ridiculous and too far detached from reality. Be nice, and I'm too. Don't accuse me of being in league with the worst by using Insane Troll Logic, or I'll show that you ARE in league with the worst, since SJWs are an ideological side (you're a True Believer of your team, but probably not a SJW, you still defend their actions and claims). Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"but of course reframed it as being an “edgelord” and carefully avoided to mention the more serious bits from the same package."

For fuck's sake, it's gotdamn chan culture. Not only is the entire point (and the reason that GG attacks her) that she --repudiated-- that life, and so it's nonsensical to imply that her Social Justice leanings, or any support for her as a person, are due to secretly embracing pedophilia, but you can literally go onto almost any thread on reddit or chan or whatever and see people satirically treating this stuff as ok. It's fucking -stupid- to satirically treat edgelording as ok, as Sarah once did, because due to Poe's Law you could be unintentionally normalizing the behavior in the minds of people who don't realize it's all satire, but that's what "go forth and sin no more" is all about. "Oh shit, that was really stupid wasn't it? Okay, I won't do it anymore and will in fact speak out against it when I see it."

"In fact, it's otherwise used to smear GamerGate through the tenuous connection that they have a board on a chan forum, i.e. having an “edgelord” next door is already enough in these instance."

...for the exact same reasons that Sarah says she regrets having ever engaged in that behavior. The edgelord behavior is also wrong, that doesn't mean it's a permanent stain on your soul if you grow out of it. I, personally, would be a lot more forgiving of Gamergate if they, just once, stood up for their alleged principles when it wasn't them on the short end of the stick. In fact, I've even gone onto Gamerghazi to yell at people for engaging in the exact same "our side right or wrong"-ism that devoured GG from the beginning. But, no, I'm not in lock-step with your opinion, so (as we see elsewhere in your post), clearly I'm on Team Shirtgate.

"our second problem is that your conservative friends who make edgy humour probably don't make “references to Hitler, Nazism, fascism, or other taboo topics which are deliberately intended to shock or offend readers”"

I think you don't know my gotdamn friends, and if I tell you they do a thing, you probably aren't an expert on their alleged not-doing-that-thingness. I've had friends make the exact "what's the best thing about twenty one-year-olds" joke, among others. I'm able to recognize the jokes are meant as a farce, even if I'm not willing to make the jokes myself.

"Don't accuse me of being in league with the worst by using Insane Troll Logic,"

This one's a funny accusation, because I have in fact defended you against what I saw as Ryulong or other's ad hominems, and have taken cares not to accuse you of anything you weren't doing in the very posts I replied to. But no, I don't agree with you on everything, so clearly I'm on team SJW. Fuck you.

"Social Justice Warriors are people who witch-hunt someone for wearing a false T-shirt; who character assassinate people for smallest slights when they believe they can score SJ points with it."

See? You're literally making up stereotypes that have nothing to do with anything that anyone actually said in the thread, and applying them to the people you're arguing with without any evidence that these editors actually engaged in the damn thing.

"What you ask me is completely ridiculous and too far detached from reality."

I'm asking you to stop going on a crusade about how much you hate the other editors on the wiki, and instead focus on how to fix all the problems you accuse your enemies of ignoring. Simultaneously, I'm asking you to fucking stay on topic in article discussions, instead of derailing each and every single one into "you disagree with me? Well you must be a fascist/communist/atheist/zealous SJW, the most horrid creature that ever lived and the reason why babies get cancer! I've kept copious notes on all the crimes that you, as an SJW, must surely have committed, and I'll bloviate about them now as justification for why my version of a Chomsky article is the only logically sound one!" It's the most ridiculous and blatant kind of ad hominem and strawman.

"It's mostly what is now sometimes called “Cry-Bully” behaviour, which you support. "

Seriously, what the fuck. I'm honestly shocked, I thought I was going a bit overboard with the "I've kept copious notes" bit, but you literally went and said it. Fuck, man. You're a caricature.

"I think you are a True Believer™ who is selectively denialist-level sceptical on one side, but accepts uncritically the other side."

I think you get off on crying wolf about ad hominems and guilt by association while constantly spewing them out against even the people who agree with you on the issues, just not the implementation. But, y'know, fuck you.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I argued on talk pages to see where everyone's at. I once believed this was a fair way to go, instead of waltzing in as a total newbie and changing things around. Now I've actually seen how editing goes with two articles that are slightly more contentious: Result, deletes, and complete distortions, even hiding facts and cases reported in the media, just so that it looks as if the no platforming is used only against "bad people". That's called propaganda. That pluralism also includes people you disagree with? Don't dream on that outrageously radical view, which RW obviously doesn't endorse. This far removed from SPOV, or a scientifc, empirical based outlook. The people who once started with that obviously are no longer around anymore. I am fine with that, I made an honest attempt and learned what I wanted to know. Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you done nailing yourself to a cross? Typhoon (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fallacies

Thanks for adding more! Please add {{logfal}} at the bottom of fallacy pages, and adding the fallacy to one of the subcategories of Category:Fallacies. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kafkatrapping The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Memoryholed Content

• PacWalker deleted my "no platforming" article, despite that the technique has a name, a history, is often referred to as such and was well sourced. His redirect points to "right to audience" that contains completely different situations and subjects, is fallacious and where actual no platforming is merely an afterthought (at best).
• PacWalker also memoryholed [the standard social justice warrior definition of prejudice plus power, which is applied to all "all axis of oppression" in the intersectionality belief system, including "racism". Pointing that out plainly is also a thoughcrime, according to Ryulong (another SJW) even though his idol Anita Sarkeesian subscribes to this view as well, in parallel to her definition of sexism as prejudice plus power. Both cases of memoryholing are just typical instances of the ideology as described.
• PacWalker also tried to memoryhole this section.^{— Unsigned, by: Aneris / talk / contribs}

http://www.amazon.de/ACME-Hundepfeife-211-schwarz-Pfeifenband/dp/B006UROLDE —Ryulong (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If you remove Ryulong's post once more, I will block you. Eris (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sister Eris spammed my page with animated gifs, added a threat. Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Eris also removed three bullet points, added back in below:
  • Ryulóng posted 3 times the same (solely) link he posted already on top (dogwhislte item in a shop). This is itself a dogwhistle. My description was factual, sourced, and plainly described his social justice warrior ideology (the more unpleasant aspects of it, like no-platforming or the eccentric definition of prejudice plus power to which his idol Anita Sarkeesian adheres to). I'll remove further spamming like this from my talk page. We see here the typical SJW bully tactics. Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Four times the same link spam by Ryulóng. Correction. PacWalker did an undo. Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ryulóng posted the same link yet another time I missed. It's also above. That makes it four times then. Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Be thankful it's not pics of prolapsed anus' (ani?). Or something else that's distasteful if you are into that kind of thing. Tielec01 (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have the expertise there, not my kind of thing. Aneris ✻ (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't like to brag... Tielec01 (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I would never post anything like perhaps File:Sodomie masculine à l'aide d'un concombre inséré dans le rectum.jpg. I'm appalled that you would think that of me, Tielec01.—Ryulong (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What an unfortunate accident that gentleman had; he must have tripped up and fallen right onto his groceries. Tielec01 (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I hate when that happens when putting the groceries away naked.—Ryulong (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Also that is clearly a courgette, not a cucumber. Damn Commons admins.—Ryulong (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Years ago my roommate worked in an ER, and she'd come home with all sorts of tales of the things people had put "up there." Cucumbers were, indeed, popular. One fellow had his, er, manhood stuck in the vacuum cleaner. ---Mona- (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"The Faction"

Would you explain to me where did you discovered this hilariously dehumanizing term for people that disagree with you? Also, where do I sign up for it? Typhoon (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Totally dehumanizing! "social justice warriorism", regressive left, the faction. Simply look around a little. Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well, Google shows “regressive left” being used a lot by Maajid Nawaz, which is pretty much all I need to knwo to also know it's bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And Jerry Coyne, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Peter Boghossian ... Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bill Maher and, to an extent, Richard Dawkins, are no more credible than Nawaz. In other words, the universe of approving users would strongly suggest the concept is bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm more interested in "The Faction". I still don't know how to sign up for them. Do they give out free jackboots? Typhoon (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I too would like to sign up for any faction that oppresses you by not having shitty views about things. Please provide pamphlets and membership applications. Thanks in advance! ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This whole situation is looking like User:Parogar all over again... Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Can you make a list of what kind group I allegedly belong so I can work through the list one by one. Maybe when I take one each day, I'm done by the end of 2017. The Othering is old as dirt, and yet SJWs can't help but use it all the time as if this was your Maru Syndrome (but cry bloody murder when used back). Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You have it backwards. We want to be part of the secretive group that's apparently oppressing you. Sounds like they'd make good hummus. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok fine, I tell you. Which division you want to be? For the paedobear division, you have to ask Sarah "Butts" Nyberg who introduces you, if you are the right age, that is. If you like the other division, you can go here for more information. Test your knowledge in dogma with the humorous quiz guide called "Faction or Not?" so you know the subtle differences in terminology. You can also go peruse again the checklist in the collapsed box to brush up on the basics again. I hope that's useful! I am always trying to be helpful. Cheers. Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The police have already went through the logs and concluded that no crime was committed (no surprise, as this was blown out of proportion by GGers who got mad about 8chan being de-listed by Google for containing child porn), so I'd advise you to cease with the libel before you get banned. Also, that subreddit you linked mentions SJW's instead of 'the Faction'. Typhoon (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey no dogwhistle here, they are sleeping! And you talk nonsense again, this individual admitted to it. How often do I have to link to her own article? Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to link to it as often as possible until you yourself actually bother to read and understand it. Particularly this part you constantly and intentionally ignore:

“”It was clear to almost everyone that what was happening to me was the result of a malicious, hypocritical harassment engine. Obvious farcical posturing was spun as damning confessions of federal crimes. Things I pasted into a chat to mock were taken to be things I actually said. Outlandish lies I told nearly ten years ago to get a rise out of people (like the straight-faced statement that my computer was “seized by police”) were taken at face value despite being obviously and entirely unsupported by reality — it never happened, and it’s easily verifiable that it never did. Such facts would be easily discoverable by real journalists, but as it turns out, Breitbart is more interested in the politically motivated destruction of lives than it is in anything resembling journalism. If it puts anyone at ease, I retained a lawyer and proactively contacted the police. They saw right through the avalanche of bad faith reports, and under independent scrutiny, have stated they have no reason to believe any crime ever took place. All of this, no doubt, must come as dire news to the chorus of voices openly cheering for and pledging to organize my prison rape or murder. This was never about the law, and never about justice; if it was, I never would have had to worry. It has been, from the start, just another harassment campaign.

—[1]

Of course, you still engage in spinning this as an admission of crimes. Enough with the libel, Aneris. Typhoon (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no libel here, unless he comes right out and says "X is a pedophile." But, it is accurate to say that "at one time X claimed to be a pedophile." That's not actionable libel. We went all thru this last night re: the List of Gamergate claims article.---Mona- (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a stretch to call trolling to be 'claim'. She also 'claimed' that the police took her computer. Bottom line is that this is being blown out of proportion by Gamergators who are mad at 8chan being exposed as CP central. Typhoon (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

✻ A paedophile isn't the same as a sex offender. I have not claimed she was a sex offender. The sex offender was in the YouTube Social Justice Warrior community. That's another person. Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

GGers claimed it, as can be seen from all the screencaps in her medium article. They launched a harassment campaign by blowing this out of proportion and you are also helping it by maliciously spreading lies about her by calling her a pedophile when everyone, even the police and her lawyer saw that this shit was a manufactured controversy created by digging over many years old log of edgy teenage behavior that almost everyone goes through. The difference is that Sarah has shed this, while GG continues to wallow in all the CP at 8chan. Typhoon (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing in favor of focusing a great deal on the woman's younger, heinous statements. Who would want all the shit they said when they were 20 being wrapped around their neck much later, when they are different people? Nevertheless, she did say the things in the old chat logs, and to accurately quote those is not libel. (I tend to think it should be included, possibly as a footnote, along with the context she has given about where she was then in her life.)---Mona- (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Your (Typhoon, or someone else here, sorry if I mix up names) logic is like this: a teen is upset with the SJW in games and tweets to gamergate. Who also tweets to the hashtag? People who post on some chan. Who also posts on some chan? Doxers and paedos. Therefore, crude monty python witch-hunter logic: the teen must be a paedo and doxer! Aha! This is what you (or someone else here, can't rememer who said what) keep pushing. Everyone's equal as the most extreme case for as much as tweeting to a hashtag, or reading the one or two articles that have a different view on the matters. But now there is this Sarah Butts person, who admitted to "edgelord" posting, aka Nazi, fascist shock posts and admitted these FFShrine is her stuff (aka the paedo statements). But you find this totally unfair that she doesn't get away with this. How come? I try to wrap my mind around that. SJWs are absolutely the most merciless, most brutal bunch that brutally abuse and character assassinate everyone. But someone of your own team is found out to be a nazi poster (at the very very least), not the first one, I might add, and it's totes fine? That's just bizarre. I have no problem whatsoever to point out that Milo is a troll with a twisted political ideology (which is almost as inane as SJWism). I found him entertaining in the interview with Joe Rogan, but cannot take him seriously. My curse is, and I admit that, that I know too much SJW shenanigans. I've seen too many of them pants down, lying straight face through their teeth to a point where I don't believe anything and if they claim they had orange juice for breakfast. (btw Mona, good comment on the chomsky rule, I haven't written the commentary beneath, but took it over as part of the merge, I only wrote the rule part; also there is no Sarah Butts article, I don't intent to make one, she is just very important for Typhoon because of this heavily polarized situation here giving in to reason looks like defeat to trolls. My advice would be to take a step back altogether.) Aneris ✻ (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not the logic. The logic is that FoldableHuman published an expose on the child porn at 8chan, and the gamergate community attacked him for it, while simultaneously defending 8chan across their bandwidth. KiA had many, many threads about how FoldableHuman was a monster while 8chan was justified. That's what the Gamergate article actually says. If you're reading it as a claim that Gamergate actually engages in child porn, you should probably raise that as a concern on the talk page and suggest a different way to phrase the sentence. But you are seriously engaging a strawman here.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A sandbox suggestion

So I was doing some reading of the coop and came up with an idea that might interest you. You were talking about documenting/noting down various things you didn't like on your talk page but then other people would come and alter your talk page in ways you didn't want (pls note I make no claims about wether this was or wasn't happening, I have't looked at it to see). So because talk pages are sort of community property you were unable to undo the alterations without causing trouble. So this is my idea; you can put your notes into your personal sandbox (like this one that I have abandoned) I think sandboxes can be kept however you want so no one will mess with what ever you put there (I could be wrong about that). Just a thought. SolPyre (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good suggestions. I could make a sandbox one, too. I have started something like that with an article collection (which was also immediately edited by a usual suspect). Let's see how it goes. :) Thanks! Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing

Log entry 20195415. Minutes later. User Mona objects to that I add collapses around the giant walls of texts and reverted it, calls it "ridiculous". I call it "kafkaesque". Have observed collapse boxes numerous times. I feel she should keep doing these bizarre things. Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's an abuse of the collapse feature. What if everybody did that? If you feel your page is too long why not archive the top half?---Mona- (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Chill Mona. Collapsing things that you find tedious and won't respond to is sometimes okay. We all know Aneris is a bit tendentious, and collapsing a couple sections won't deceive anyone. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

But the page was littered with collapses. Way, way too many. The thing to do is archive, no?---Mona- (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. All must convert to the love of LiquidThreads. 104.5.9.13 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Enough

Stop inserting your stupid boogeyman you call "SJWs" into every article you touch. Typhoon (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Where did I do this? Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just returned the Racism page to a previously more readable and concise state. Before that you scribbled all over it first by inserting your pet issue that is the "SJW" movement and then finished it by vomiting dictionary links all over it. Typhoon (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I wrote nowhere about "SJWs", so you lied again. I expanded the definitions there, brought the standsard ones, and expanded this one listed there: "Racism requires prejudice plus power, and thus racial minorities cannot be racist". I even took the exact wording. You produce anti-knowledge. First, you obscure that there is a standard common definition of racism which every child knows. Then you downplay or hide the other different definitions, including this "prejudice plus power" one, while also muddling that it is systematically different from the ones listed afterwards the keyword is "Racism includes", i.e. additional parameters, instead of "Racism requires". Your "reason" is BS, and I could test it out by removing your "problem" and add the section in a plain way without bothering with the list format (which I found). You would edit that too, and I know this, because you did this several times now. So, why are you doing it? Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

From your summary when you first edited the page: "added the social justice usage of racism, which is now quite common!". It's obvious which group you meant by that. Typhoon (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

So you lied then. What is your problem then? Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

At times like this I wish I believed in hell. The one I'd devise for you and Ryulong is that you be forced to spend eternity locked in a room together with no capacity to stop hearing and seeing each other, and with nothing to do but argue in an Internet forum used by only the two of you.---Mona- (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)