User talk:Kitsunelaine/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 February 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

On the value of foxgirls[edit]

y/n? — Unsigned, by: Kitsunelaine / talk / contribs

They seem alright. Either way, just thought I'd let you know that I'm not a brony or other type of MLP fan. And while some ethical theories would require me to feel sorry for 'appropriating the Holocaust' (and possibly other genocides too) for the sake of making my analogy, I think it was still a valid analogy. (talk) 19:49, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
yes, genocide is a perfectly rational way to describe discrimination for liking a fucking childrens show. "i like strawberry shortcake, this discrimination against me is literally comparable to genocide" Kitsunelaine (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
If you think that's what I did you've gotten a ridiculously wrong impression of the argument I was making. Here's a simple explanation: A relates to B the way C relates D. At no point is it implied that B is comparable with/describable as D. To make an analogous analogy that you might find less objectionable: someone can be sad over spilt milk and someone can be sad because they lost someone dear to them; that the latter is clearly worse doesn't make the former use of "being sad" an offensive appropriation(!) of a term that should be exclusive to the latter. (talk) 02:10, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
There is nowhere on the discussion topic of bronydom where a genocide comparison or analogy is necessary or warranted. It just reeks of persecution complex. The word shouldn't even be used. It's ridiculous. If you want to look like a complete fool, go ahead. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I was comparing the way terms might be used and how some people might take offense at terms applicable to very bad situation also being used for less bad situations. I hope I've explained it thoroughly enough for you now. (talk) 02:35, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
There is no comparison to be made. There is no reason for the term to be brought up. It's ridiculous and silly and that's why I laughed at it because it is worthy of being laughed at. I could have dipped into personal attacks, but all I did was reflect on how goddamn silly the comparison is. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll admit I am prone to being rather silly on occasion, though I have to wonder whether you still don't understand what the analogy was trying to convey. (talk) 02:49, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Someone thinking your argument is ridiculous, unnecessary and incredibly silly (to put it as mildly as I can) doesn't mean they don't understand it. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. (talk) 03:00, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
A reasonable response! I congratulate you, good sir or madam. It is refreshing to not have an argument drag on endlessly. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm sure I can find something to nitpick over if need be. Like your lack of a non-binary-gender option in that "good sir or madam". ;) (talk) 03:04, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
That's the hidden third option that you can take if you're extremely cool. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll take that third option then. ;) (talk) 03:10, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Also, I think you misspelled "artist" in your Twitter description. Just letting you know. ;) (talk) 12:12, 29 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Did you seek out my twitter yourself or did friends do it for you? Weird to post on my talk page two days in a row, a few days after the fact, and this is after of course having received harassment from another user here over the same issue. Kitsunelaine (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I was pointed to a particular Twitter post you made on my talkpage. I have no intention to harrass or otherwise bugger you. (talk) 02:10, 30 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Arisboch harassed me. I didn't catch it until now because he was caught in a blocker I have installed. It's amazing that he has the ballsack to complain on your page about twitter while using it to go after an individual for the sake of his personal grudge. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If you don't want people you don't like answering your posts, post them on Facebook only among some restricted group. Once you share anything on Twitter, the whole planet has access to it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the "You DESERVED to be harassed because you dared to be public" response. You got to the victim blaming part of the edgelord handbook. Never mind the fact that you took the initiative to seek them out and scream at me because of it. No, it's my fault, somehow.
I don't view my posts as harassment and wouldn't have known about your Twitter posts without the Link on the Saloon Bar (I can't be bothered to check for the Twitter account or whatever of people on RW, too much of a bother).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Then fucking learn what harassment is. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
We apparently disagree on what "harassment" is. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a whole wide internet out there, full of knowledge. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is, I did not possess you to make an account purely for the sake of screaming obscenities at me like a child who just learned to cuss, or misgender me on purpose like some kind of channer asshole. That's all on you. You have nobody to blame but yourself and if you want to be seen as a decent person, you need to apologize. Otherwise, please kindly fuck off, because I don't really want to talk to you. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't knew your gender then. Now I do. And BTW, you can't ban people from your talk page, it'd be against RW policy.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
It's on my fucking twitter profile, you goddamn moron. Also, I didn't block you. 02:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't saw the need to check your Twitter account. Too bothersome.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
But creating a twitter account for the explicit purposes of harassing me wasn't bothersome.
Yeah, sorry, but I don't believe you. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, but I don't believe you.- Kitsunelaine What, me worry? I just didn't saw the need to view your profile.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to keep up contact with me after I asked you to leave, please kindly go the extra mile to make sense. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Out of boredom. Or to remember, that your user talk page doesn't belong to you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The point is I don't want to talk to you anymore. Not that I can stop you from spewing your bile all over my talk page. But I guess basic reading comprehension is hard for you. Look. When you make an account somewhere else for the purpose to scream at a person (Which falls under the definition of "harassment", whether you like it or not), the odds are? That person does not think very kindly of you, and does not want to maintain any sort of contact whatsoever. Essentially I'm telling you to go back to jerking off to clopfic, and stop talking to me. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't jack off to clop. I'm not even a brony. I just don't agree with your and Dragondragon's attempts on converting the MLP article into a hit-piece (thwarted by the valiant RW mob :P :P :P).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You're not helping your case by resorting to channer nicknames for other members here. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I did come up with that nickname on my own, since Ryulong did write somewhere, that his name is means exactly that: it is made up from the Japanese (ryu) and Chinese words (long) for "dragon".
I don't like [48]chan. They don't share my views on many, many things and the chan structure is also not what I would call "user friedly". I like more wikis, conventional web fora or blogs (Wordpress kick ass and the other ones, who allow the use of multiple login-services (Google, Facebook, Twitter and so on), too).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Suuuuuuuuuure. Also, the "laine" in my name doesn't mean "wave". It's a joke. Because my name is Elaine. And Kitsune ends with E. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see. I just thought, that it's "laine" and not "Elaine" and "laine" is Estonian & Finnish for "wave". I love to look up name-etymologies.
My first name is of Turkish origin and entered the Russian language, about my surname I'm not quite sure (according to my father, his father changed his name and town, because his father was an lishenetsWikipedia... And btw, my real name is not Aris Boch, that's from Stargate).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well at least you have some taste, for liking Stargate. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"Thx". What'd you like, SG-1, Atlantis or Universe? I like SG-1 the best, although the end was severely half-assed, Atlantis has no end at all (although the series are OK, IMNSHO) and Universe even less.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't there a 4th one about an SG crew on an alien spaceship going through all sorts of time-wobbly stuff? (talk) 03:38, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
You mean Stargate Infinity? According to what I heard, it's complete bollocks. It was canceled after only 1 season, so the rumors may be true.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, wait, that was SGU's plot I was thinking of. Whubs. (talk) 03:46, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Atlantis is the best. SG-1 is the second-best. Universe falls short in last. If it got a third season, it would have been amazing. Cancelled before it's time. Season 2 was where it started getting really good. Still mad they didn't make the movies that were supposed to send them off. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, at least SG-1 did get a proper ending (a lil bit crummy, but I've seen worse (yes, I'm looking at you, Hideaki Anno!)). Atlantis would also deserve a proper ending, IMNSHO.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
End of Evangelion was a fucking masterpiece and I'll hear no else.

Did you look up Joseph Mallozzi's blog? He posted what the next seasons of Atlantis and SGU probably would have been. At least, some of it. He didn't go too much into detail. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
By the time it got to the Origin-storyline I wasn't really watching the show anymore. Atlantis was alright, though the stuff with Dr. Weir at the end got kinda, well, weird. I also basically like all of Evangelion. Screw the haters! (talk) 03:57, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Agreed! DOWN WITH THE HATERS. Also down with the people that draw porn of the underage characters.
Also, Atlantis's seasons 4 and 5 were great. I'd suggest checking them out. Season 4 had the best opening three parter I've ever seen. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the only answer is more foxgirls forever. I'm curious about your username though, because it's bugging me to an unnatural degree that I can't figure out how to pronounce it properly. ArcticVixen (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's the words "Kitsune" and "Elaine" mashed together, for Kitsune is a Fox, and my name is Elaine, and therefore: Foxgirls. Ideally you'd say "Kitsune" normally up until the e and then go "Elaine", which would make it sound like "Kitsuney-layne". - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Haha, I had that as a guess, but I had a habit of reading it as KitsuneLaine, which seemed fine because foxgirls are the best thing and, coincidentally, Laine (lye-nay) is my last name, and it is the Finnish "wave" mentioned previously! So my brain was more than a little biased in all regards, I mean, my username can't be a giveaway as to what I personally like. ArcticVixen (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
What would've helped even more is if I actually read the rest of this page before I wrote something down and edited it 274 times. I blame the fact that I shouldn't be awake right now which is just a dishonest excuse for me being an idiot. ArcticVixen (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Down with fox girls[edit]

Long live salamander girls! ;D ;D ;D --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This is pure discrimination, and I will not stand for it. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Narwhal boys[edit]

Narwhal boys are the best. *narwhal noises* Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 01:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Boys are lame though - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"If you're not interested in talking about the article, don't jump into a discussion about the article. Buh-bye."[edit]

Try again -- that wasn't a discussion about the article that I jumped into. That was a threat about Ruylong's opinion about the show. A thread that I STARTED. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it was a discussion about the article. Conversations evolve. You are not the arbiter of what other people are talking about, and it isn't a good form to send a relatively productive discussion into territory where nothing gets done. If you want to discuss something separate from what other people are actively engaging in, start another section of the thread. Kitsunelaine (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it was not a thread about the article. A thread about the article would have been on the article's talk page. It was a thread I started on Ruylong's talk page in which I asked Ruylong about his hatred for Bronies. I said nothing about the article in the thread that I started. I'm sorry you have a problem with basic reading comprehension, but you are flat-out wrong. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Conversations evolve. I know it's tough for you to comprehend, but I was talking with Gooniepunk for quite a while and it's very clear to anyone paying attention that we had evolved to discussing the article at hand. Your post was an attempt at derailing a conversation you weren't a part of. If you wanted to say what you said, don't interject in a place where it doesn't belong. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
again, I know this may be hard for you but: If you actually read what I wrote, I said that I was not interested in talking about the article there. I was not interested, and so I bowed out of the conversation, and did not post further on Ruylong's talk page after that -- given that I summed up my thoughts and made my exit, I'm not sure how I can be said to have been "derailing" anything. But you keep thinking what you think, if that works for you.... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
When you get right down to it, AgingHippie, the conversation was not revolving around you. You weren't interested, but you posted anyway, with a meaningless comment that didn't further the discussion other people were engaging in. Don't do that. Get angry at me for brushing you off all you want, but when it's clear two other people are talking about one thing and you chime in to say you're not interested in it, you don't have grounds for complaining. Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. Also, this double-indentation thing you do is weird. Though I'm getting a bit used to having to correct mishaps from both myself and others every now and then. >.>"Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


In articles we like to use Template:Wpl to link to Wikipedia instead of the interwiki links, because otherwise they look like links to other RW pages. --Ymir (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, whoops! Sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know! - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert my edits again and expect a ban[edit]

Adding a few words to clarify what I meant is perfectly reasonable. Go play your word-twist semantic games somewhere else. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You can add them elsewhere in the coop case. You edits undermine a point I made later in the article, perhaps intentionally, and it has to be clear that you made them AFTER i called you out on it. Anything else is dishonest and sleazy. And if you do not, I will not undo you again, as you have requested me not to, but I will seek to make sure that this information is imparted, as it should be. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 14:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It's visible in the history section of the page anyway. The wiki doesn't forget and doesn't forgive.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I have already updated one of my posts to emphasize this fact in an inoffensive and unobtrusive manner. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 14:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Your argument technique thrives over spotting small omission or double meanings in people's post. I only added that I don't necessarily meant a permanent ban (just as I clarified a number of other minor points). Nothing of any consequence was changed. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This is after I had called out how ban happy your original posting was. That makes it consequential. The least you could have done was add any line that acknowledged this, even in one of your later postings as a response to me. "Sorry, I'll change the original post" is easy to say, and I'd be fine-- otherwise it looks like you're making edits just to spite me, even if you aren't. And please do note that the undoing was not done in bad faith, as I had previously undone one of my own edits to restore yours, which had accidentally been caught up at the same time. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 14:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And as a note, yes, I should have probably just made a note of it in one of my posts first off without undoing, but as much as I try not to show it, you are affecting my temper, and the fact that it is almost 4 am doesn't help. But I have the capability to recognize my mistakes, and so, I apologize. Anyway. I'm gonna have a Kitsunap. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 14:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What does the fox say?[edit]

Ask Cortana. Zero (talk - contributions) 06:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Demotion commotion with lotion by the ocean, or at least that's the notion[edit]

I'm very sorry to report that you've been made a janitor here now. As a consolation prize, here's your mop and bucket. Now go clean some toilets. Gooniepunk (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll bookmark it and consult it every time I seek to use the tools, as to avoid accidentally doing anything outside the rules. :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy[edit]

Vordrak is here. Watch out for him calling us pedophiles and trying to dox us. Typhoon (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool it[edit]

IBelieveinNPOV is a new editor and seems to want to improve things. Whether of not you think their interpretation of things is correct, step away from biting them and assume good faith. Gooniepunk (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't automatically assume good faith when it comes to Gamergate. The movement thrives on bad faith editing (while faking good faith), so I am tackling this with kid gloves off. I don't think I've said anything objectionable yet, though I appreciate your warning and will try to ease on any potentially inflammatory language. I figured it was prudent to inform him that pushing no point of view on RationalWiki was not a good idea and went against what the site believes in. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I went to their talkpage and informed them of our SPOV. We'll see what comes of that. A lot of n00bs assume we are a neutral Wiki, especially if they came here from Wikipedia (as this one asserts). I try to be sensitive in informing them that, no, we aren't neutral. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is just a case where I have too much experience in Gamergate's bad faith gestures and the ways in which they try to mask them. Feigning "neutrality" is right up there. If he'd started out by editing anything else and only stumbled onto Gamergate later, I'd be more lenient. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Be careful. Don't let it consume you. Especially since people like myself were recently going to certain places and telling certain people (including frustrated former editors) that we finally toppled a major problem on this Wiki. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty careful. And on that matter, I don't appreciate that a user here apparently encouraged people from a hostile subreddit to "Bring up their issues with the Gamergate article" before the community had any chance to improve on it (And I don't think the community was even asked). I think that banning Ryulong has opened an unfortunate floodgate of bullshit, and the site is going to have to deal with that a lot going forward. Also, I sympathize with Ryulong's iron fist on the matter, considering he'd been a target of the mob and the mob has followed him everywhere, even if I do not seek to impose it myself. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong is the personification of a reaction formation; somebody who, outside of the politics of Gamergate, is otherwise every bit as terrible and toxic as the people he claimed to be opposing. I continue to maintain that we don't need that level of toxicity in our community, and the users here would do well to take the Ryulong saga as tale of caution as to what happens when you stare into the abyss too long. Gooniepunk (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I know it's a stressful job[edit]

But I just wanted to thank you for keeping an eye on the GamerGate article and its talkpage, and for debunking all the sea lions that rushed after Ryulong left RW. Typhoon (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to know that some appreciate me. ^_^ - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 09:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

  1. Assume good faith. I don't care if it's a racist or a creationist or even a GG'er. Anything else pushes you into an ideological echo chamber.
  2. Don't insult or dismiss people, please. Ryulong did this, and it wastes everyone's time. Either add a constructive response or nothing at all.

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

2015-12-11T11:30:41 Kitsunelaine (Talk | contribs | block) blocked (Talk) with an expiry time of 3141 seconds (about 1 hour)
This person has 0 mainspace entries and only talk page entries. If it's something you "disagree" with or find "crazy" the solution is very simple: don't reply. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I completely disagree on your first point, FCP (Gators thrive on bad faith, period), and I call into question your second, though not entirely disagreeing with it. You forced the site into having to deal with a crazy reactionary mob, and you've done nothing to stem the tide, instead forcing it onto the shoulders of other users. I think that's a ridiculous expectation for you to thrust on people. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
"You forced the site into having to deal with a crazy reactionary mob..." Could you elaborate, please, as that's a strong accusation. Context -- my only interest in the GG article is structural/grammatical, as I have little interest in online politics/movements or video games, so I do not follow the GG talkpage or edits to the article aside from wanting a popular article to be decently written, and I do not, at all, follow the topic outside of RW. In other words, what have you done, Fuzzy? What have you done? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
here u go - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. How could that have gone wrong? Who could've seen that? Jesus. FCP is a mod now, no? Christ. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep. If you've noticed raised tensions for me, that's why! For once, we pretty much have the same position! - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's your assumptions of bad faith that are the issue. Calling your opponents a "crazy reactionary mob" doesn't change their minds -- disproving their points does. Hence why I invited them -- to show if our points our shit, so that we can get rid of them or better ones. Yet probably 50% of our posts on that talk page aren't about direct refutations. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

They aren't interested in changing their minds, FCP. They're interested in forcing their narrative onto us. You have to be in order to still be in the game after this long. You invited a bunch of history revisionist trolls onto our site and you expect us to engage them in good faith. It's not a mere "assumption" of bad faith, as you declare it to be. It's got a long, proven and well-documented history. It's bad faith evangelism. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me if I have intruded where I'm not wanted, but I would like to say yes, I'm pro-GG, and I returned here of late in hopes of contributing positively here, and to that end, I will grant you the following: Breitbart is not perfect and has made some glaring errors on the GamerGate topic, there is a right leaning bias to GGers, though to what degree I cannot specify, and it's possible I could be wrong on my positions. If you would like to debate me on these topics, you have my word I will do so calmly and reasonably. Arcane (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
"Breitbart is not perfect" understatement of the century, mate. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
If you always assume your opponents are close-minded, why bother maintaining the article at all (they'll never read it)? Whether it's overoptimistic or not, if you believe in RW's goals, you must assume an open mind. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 04:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't always assume my opponents are close-minded. Just the pro-gamergaters. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of our ideological views, we're both humans prone to both error and glory at the end of the day, so I shall try to not assume my views are inherently any worse or better than your own, nor will I hold grudges or be smug about any of my positions. I'd also like to wish you a happy holidays. :) Arcane (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You support a movement hellbent on driving multiple women to suicide. Goodbye. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Mind providing a citation? This is genuinely news to me, and if I become aware of anyone expressing those sentiments, I would publicly denounce them. Arcane (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I mean all those gators telling Zoe et all to "kill themselves", all the death threats and rape threats that make up the core of your movement's actions? Every "controversy" you've seen is an excuse they're trying to come up with to justify all that. Also see:
To what end do you think Gamergate is harassing their targets for? To what end did you think all the swatting attempts, which could actually kill someone, were made?
Denouncing means shit all at this point, Arcane. The movement is built upon this. This is the biggest good faith thing I will ever say to you:If you genuinely care about any "ethical" problems, get out of gamergate. All the sane people did long ago. These people are not third party trolls, Arcane. They are the core of the movement. I also believe much of this was covered in our articles. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kitsu, you've missed my point entirely. If you're 100% sure no GGer will change, why write the GG article? And given how the movement has shrunk, it seems extremely dubious that no GGer will ever open their mind. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 06:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The article has benefits outside of those to GG. Gators will only change on their own terms, because the movement is built around a reactionary response to change. It's a choice they have to make, not one we can convince them to. The purpose of the page is to show how crazy the whole movement is to everyone else, and to maybe help those who are on the verge of realizing what kind of cult they signed up for. Again-- this is a choice they have to make. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
So if the article can help wavering potential Gators, why can't it help wavering current Gators? And, does it help your mission to treat current Gators as close minded, when you're asking people who accept some of GG to rationally consider the evidence? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 06:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Because those who are still in the movement after all this time are those who are clinging the hardest to it. It's like talking to extreme christian fundamentalists. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I came to be pro-GG for reasons other than this, but while The Zoe Post may have brought legitimate problems to light, the affair itself was a tawdry mudslinging contest to Quinn she did not deserve regarding her sexual history (what a woman does with her sex life is her business, I refuse to shame her on those grounds, and neither should anyone else), and anyone who told her to kill herself was (and if they have yet to recant and apologize) and still is a monster of the highest order. Eron Gjoni may have an arguable case of his constitutional rights being violated by Quinn's questionably legal gag order, but after reviewing those links, he's no angel either, I will readily concede that. As for GG, I'm sorry, but not all of us are monsters, and I prefer to focus on bringing the corrupt in the media to light like Gawker's shameful escapades and Kotaku's failure to make adequate disclosures, and I unilaterally condemn death threats aimed at anyone, and while they might congregate under the same banner I've chosen, I certainly do not associate with them, though their presence is a continual shame (however, given how leaderless GG is, kicking them out is nigh impossible). I've also spoken up for Randi Harper when she had the decency to stick up for Mercedes Carrera, praised Maddy Myers of The Mary Sue for creating a genuinely good game in Twine, and still defend Arthur Chu against false accusations of bomb threats for which no court has ever established any reasonable guilt, so while I must reject your plea to forsake GG unless more evidence of your claims becomes clearer than some scummy people under the same banner (I'm sure both sides have people most would like to not claim who have done terrible things), I will definitely keep in mind your feelings and respect your dissent, and I thank you for your honesty, Kitsunelaine, you do yourself honor by being so forthright. And as a final note, as a Christian, I choose to love my enemies, and you and all the women who received those threats and calls to suicide have my prayers on their continued life and safety, because none of you deserve harm. Arcane (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hate speech is not protected by law. That's why we have restraining orders in the first place. As my final word to you, I want you to ask yourself why exactly it is you still support Gamergate, when they have consistently revealed themselves to be the bad guys in the causes they supposedly fight for. You do not have to respond to this. This is just from me, to you. Do with it what you will. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'll respond in kind. I still support it because I disagree with you. I disagree that they're the "bad guys" in the causes they fight for. Fighting for Journalistic Ethics? Not bad. Fighting against censorship? Not bad. General egalitarian views? Not bad. I won't deny that Gamergate doesn't have a nasty side, it does. It's a large group of people with diverse views and strong opinions. It's a recipe for reactionary actions.
Why do you see Gamergate that way? Why do you lump those who fight for things that are not bad into those that harass and dox people? I could very easily do that with Anti-Gamergate people as well, but I don't. It's not worth it. Every side has its shitty people and it's not the onus of those that are not shitty to constantly apologize for those that are. However, people of Gamergate constantly apologize for it. I see it all the time, just on here from Arcane. We're not here in bad-faith. We're not trying to deceive. We were upfront from the beginning that we are pro-gamergate. I can also clearly state my political views at any time if you'd like. My top post on Reddit is about how the Daily Show influenced me politically, I even attended the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, if that tells you anything about my views.--Heliades (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Gamergates definition of ethics is "Pander to me or get out of the industry, and if you don't, I'll doxx you and harass you incessantly online until you do", which is an awful lot like being pro-censorship. This has a very long, incredibly well documented historical backing. Not very ethical, huh? These people are not the "nasty side" you are talking about. They are your ambassadors. Gamergate doesn't apologize. They just say "Not us!". Please refrain from engaging with me in the future. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 09:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

I am largely out of touch with popular culture that is older than roughly the Carter administration (I am currently at this minute listening to a Bill Evans record from 1964 and reading a Larry Niven novel from 1974). If I try to satisfy my curiosity about the term "foxgirl," am I liable to end up frantically closing browser windows and praying the EffBeeEye doesn't start knocking on my door? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A foxgirl is basically a catgirl but with fox features instead of cat features.Though if you search it you might find things that are way too furry. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It's weeaboo stuff.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 07:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Guilty as charged. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
And that was not even meant by me as a disapproval of that kinda stuff, it's just so hard to find the gems in the shitpile (on a related note, almost all shonen can go piss up a rope).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 07:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
but foxgirls are uber kawaii, desu - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I think I actually know less than I did before asking. Way to go, RW. Way to go. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Have some (old) art of mine to make it clear. (I actually kinda wanna redraw it since I've improved a bit since then.) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Kitsune --Ymir (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring on indents[edit]

Come on man, you have to get over it. One extra line break isn't going to ruin your day. I promise not to add line breaks to your comments (even if I think they're appropriate!) if you promise not to remove them from mine. Truce? – Sarah (HH) 23:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

HuskyHarlot, I only edit where i see incorrect formatting. Stop acting persecuted when I do it to fucking everyone. And nobody else complains but you. That threat is weak tea, and your reasons are even weaker tea. The change in indent and the signature are enough to tell posts apart, and nobody else does what you do. Do not whine when other users correct your mistakes. I certainly do not. And when you start an edit war, do not try to hide it under new content. It's incredibly disingenuous of you. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Alright, can't say I didn't try. I'll keep inserting and you'll keep removing and everyone's time will be wasted. #unfortunate – Sarah (HH) 23:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck is wrong with both of you, Kitsu if HH asks you to stop then stop. HH, it's the most minor issue in the history of issues, suck it up. Tielec01 (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the good ol' south park style balance fallacy. Love it. Also, HH has been warned about this before. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm spending wasting time commenting on this, but: many people add newlines before a comment. I often do in more lengthy discussions, and I've seen other people do so as well (I don't have a list of usernames for ya). Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't seen evidence of this being used outside of when you're responding to a prior indent, not when you're on the same one. Regardless, HH is being way too over the top. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe ... I don't exactly keep track of this. At any rate, it hardly seems worth it fighting about, from any "side". This is on the same level as the great edit wars and debates as to whether the "into" in "Star Trek: into Darkness" ought to be capitalized or not. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm hardly fighting. HH is the one throwing around adhoms and menial threats. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, you could just leave it be ... (applies to both equally). Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I have, but not before I emailed a mod over continued problematic behavior from an editor, after the editor was already warned about it. Any further action from yours truly would mean nothing. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes the world is broken, and sometimes you can be right but not given credit for it :-) I've found that learning to deal with that is not always easy (in fact, it can be pretty damn hard), but a worth-while pursuit. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"it'll be you who's on the chopping block next"[edit]

Anyone can post in a discussion. It's not up to you (or me) to tell who can or can't participate. This includes when you disagree with someone. I also don't appreciate threats or random accusations like "putting this site in danger". Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can also call someone else out for being an ignorant douchebag and warn them that if they continue, there will probably be consequences. They can also call out targeted douchebaggery. tl;dr: You have no argument. Also, it's not an "accusation". You were and are directly responsible, in part, for everything the site and it's users are now putting up with. You showed no remorse for this, and you mock the victims of your shit for taking action to prevent it and deprive it of oxygen. You are an insufferable moron, who's caused a lot of good people harm, and I really do hope you get banned some day. And if you continue the way you are, I'll have a damn fine coop case for it. I suggest you get your shit together before then, and realize what you did (and are doing) wrong. Take it as a threat if you like. But for me, this got personal long ago. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow ... You have some serious problems mate. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
That's all perfectly appalling, Kitsunelaine. CS has acknowledged he erred in his assessment of the GGers and recruiting them for their POV. If it weren't for the distinct, very nasty behavior of that cohort his impulse would have been okay. As to the rest of your specifics and utter nastiness, please stop it. You are behaving like those whom you oppose.---Mona- (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not even actually true. I didn't "recruit" anyone; the only thing I did to that effect was this post, which is part of a longer discussion and far more nuanced and more of a pledge to do my best to see people be treated fairly. I never made a big point out of this, because I thought it was a bit pedantic, but seeing how Kitsunelaine is going all foaming-mouthed over to the point where I worry we might have to call a doctor and/or stage an intervention, I feel its important to point out the distinction ... meh... Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not appalling when it's true. And his impulse is exactly that - an unreasoned impulse, in an area that required reasoned thought, research, and application. In short, his intentions have no relevance at all. Only his actions do. And why should Kitsunelaine stop her opinion? What she states is true. Truth always hurts. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Castaigne, you are one of the nastiest editors here, so it's not surprising you endorse nastiness in others. Intentions often do matter, and they do here. As one of the leading "victims" I do not share this gross abusiveness directed at Carpetsmoker; indeed, I find it extremely offensive. He's a valuable editor and I like him. We somewhat frequently disagree but he is reasonable and not abusive toward other editors.---Mona- (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Since I'm evidence-based and results-based, I don't care about intentions. Or opinions. Just facts.
Thus, I don't care whether you like him, I don't care whether you find it offensiveness, and I do not care what you think of me. I only care about what Carpetsmoker does, just as I only care about what you do, not what your opinion or likes or dislikes are. Hate me, if that's what gets you all hot and moist. But don't ask me or others to censor ourselves. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
You know what they say about stopped clocks, Mona. He's right. On the main point, anyway. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Carpetsmoker "acknowledged" that others errred in warning him he was engaging with psychopaths. He did not accept responsibility for his own arrogance over the fact that people were warning him who he was dealing with in no uncertain terms. His behavior is fucking appalling, and he continues to engage with these morons in their subreddits. He has shown NO remorse for his hand in these actions, only going as far as to say "Yes it was a bad idea but it's your fault I had a bad idea and not mine". He used the pain others were feeling as a medium to make a callout post in an effort to give those same others the middle finger. There isn't a genuinely remorseful bone in his body. He has then proceeded to mock me, a victim of his actions, for taking the route of dealing with this that would deprive it of oxygen the most, something that benefited us all. He has also continued a stern aggression directed towards me. Indeed, as you are also a victim, I find it appalling you would go out of your way to defend him. There needs to be consequences for his actions. Period. He continues to associate with these assholes even as we speak, and his "I just wanted to get the other side's viewpoint" is bogus, because he admitted to posting in Kiwifarms's thread about Ryulong, which was dedicated to causing him as much grief as possible and jerking off over his suffering, and also included his dox name in the thread title, as well as having discussed doxxing Ryu further, even before Carpetsmoker had posted in it. Carpetsmoker knew what these thugs were doing, what their MO was, and he still wanted RationalWiki to get in bed with them. He may not have posted again, but the fact that he posted even once, in face of everything that was being done there, is fucking telling.
Carpetsmoker is abhorrent, and deserves to be banned. You are simply suffering from stockholm syndrome, because you share similar ideals, and can't accept his fault. An equal amount of blame goes to Fuzzy for this, but he has shown genuine remorse and has worked to better the situation, even if his ideas about it have been dubious. There is a reason why he is not getting the same treatment from me. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Jesus on a crutch, Kistunlaine. I have Stockholm Syndrome?! Look, you are totally over the deep end -- waaaay deep; to the greatest depths of emotional frenzy. Nothing at that Reddit page from CS is unacceptable. I'm done here. ---Mona- (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. You are defending a person who has, in part, caused you this pain, who has shown no remorse for his actions, and who has sought to get in bed with people who were laser focused on causing others as much harm as possible. You also ignore everything else I said. And as I said: This is personal. Because there have been no consequences for his actions, in spite of the great harm they've caused both me and others. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
haha, are you talking about Mona's doxing at the Kiwi Farms? That's my fault too now, is it? rofl! That's so delusional it's funny! Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Holy misinterpretation, batman. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec 3x) Wow ... Such hate ... I am taken aback, amused, but also worried that someone can feel so much hate over so little. And all this ... just because I actually entered *into a discussion* with some people. I never even said that I agreed with them or anything close to that; I just wanted to hear them out... Just ... Wow ...
For the record, I will continue participating in /r/WikiInAction. Nothing wrong with that. Have a problem with it? Tough. The only reason I stopped at the Kiwi Farms is because they dox people; which is a shame, because I otherwise like that site, it's like RationalWiki (well, how it used to be anyway), except a forum and not a Wiki. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
You didn't "stop" at kiwi farms. You STARTED at Kiwi Farms, participating in a thread dedicated to both doxxing ryu and causing him as much harm as possible. This was obvious to literally fucking everyone. And you decided to make an account and post there. Doxxing causes real-world harm, Carpetsmoker. The people you have gotten in bed with seek to enable it. And you say it's "so little". This just goes to show how little empathy you have. Let's also not mention how WiA and your other fave subs love the idea of doxxing their enemies, only caring to stop when the admins slap their wrist, or that WiA was created for and dedicated to harassing a certain member before you mysteriously decided to coop him for them. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
You like the trolls. At Kiwi Farms.
Why the fuck would you voluntarily hang out with sociopaths? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Also holy fuck, I didn't even notice this. "The only thing bad with Kiwi Farms is that they doxx people". Jesus fuck, Carpetsmoker. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
"dedicated to both doxxing ryu and causing him as much harm as possible" is a gross misrepresentation of what the farms is about. Its mostly just about laughing at the crazies like, say, Ryulong, but also many groups what we have pages about on RW. It's really not that different from RationalWiki. You're also grossly misrepresenting what I posted there, which is hardly damning. I also didn't "start" anything there; there were many pages dedicated to Ryulong long before I came there (it's like the fifth result on google, which is how I ended up there). Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
"a gross misrepresentation of what the farms is about" are you fucking serious right now - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
also what's damning is the fact that you posted there at all but reading comprehension never was your strong suit - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
'Kay, since you've edited your point to expand it, I'll respond to the expansion, further chronicling your inability to read: You "Started" there in a chronological sense. You didn't "Stop" when you saw doxxing, you started in a thread with dox, dedicated to dox, and dedicated to harassing a doxxed person. It doesn't fucking matter what the content of your post is at that point. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
One more thing: Maybe you should ask Ryulong how harassed he feels by Kiwi Farms, before taking their word for it. Or any of the other of RW's victims. Need I remind you they've already caused both Ryu and Goonie to have to leave. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I have repeatedly offered to help Ryulong and expressed my regret for how things turned out in the end—both on WiA and the Farms. If I am not mistaken, I even asked you once to help see Ryulong the problems with this behaviour. The only response I always got is "there is no problem with Ryulong, you are the problem"... well ... I'm not even sure what to respond to that... At any rate, if he doesn't like what's being said there, *then don't read it!*. It's really very easy. I have absolutely no idea how Goonie's leaving is now my fault. Why not just agree I kick children and eat babies and be done with it? Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Look at what you're defending. Look at what you're saying. "The only thing wrong with Kiwi Farms is that they doxx people". You subscribe to their mentality, the way they choose to solve problems. And then you say you aren't the problem. You say you've "expressed regret", yet you've done nothing to show this, and the only time I remember you doing so is when you pinned the blame on everyone else for telling you what you were doing was wrong. That's not regret; That's shifting the blame. The levels of disingenuous malice and denial here are insane. And indeed, in every time where you've expressed issues with Ryulong, there has been a massive amount of provoking from those with a grudge. That doesn't mean there hasn't been a problem with his abrasiveness, nor does it mean I haven't made an effort to try and mitigate it. Ryu's a friend, and I don't want him to be a pariah here, but you seem incredibly invested in him remaining to be one. I suggest you first look at your own actions, your own beliefs, before you criticize another, because right now, you do not have anything even remotely resembling a moral high ground, and Ryu has been dealing with this shit for years, so at least his abrasiveness is understandable, hell, even sympathetic. I would have hoped the site's experiences over the past few months has shown that, because Ryu has been dealing with the full frontal assault for years. This is what I mean when I say you lack empathy. You lack introspection. You externalize every issue, and think yourself infallible. This is by far the least of your problems, especially if you think Kiwi Farms has anything remotely considered good going for it. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It is also important to note that your actions have garnered you an immense ammount of bad faith, and they continue to do so. When you say you asked me once to help Ryu see the problems with his behaviour, the only place I could see it coming from was a very, very bad one, given your actions, and who you were in bed with at the time (And who you continue to associate with on reddit). At that point, it was like an abuser asking an outsider to side with them, because you have expressed a massive amount of interest not in fixing the problem or leveling with Ryulong, but furthering the aggression towards him (noting that you literally just brought him up as an example of Kiwi Farm's somehow justified targets). No shit I didn't side with you. You aren't coming from a genuine place. You never have. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Bad faith with who? Kitsunelaine the Foxgirl, David "lets subvert the moderator election process" Gerard, and Castaigne2 the crank. Boo hoo. Everyone sane recognizes everything you've said here as an association fallacy of biblical proportions. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
And just like that, you run away from the actual issue at hand, displaying a lot of things I was literally just talking about in the process. Good job. Do the world a favor, and grow up. Learn some basic human empathy. Try your hand at some introspection. Not everyone who has a problem with you is wrong. You're dismissing my argument out of hand because you think screaming that I'm doing a fallacy is some sort of rebuttal. It's not. Next time try actually addressing the substance of my argument and you might get somewhere. And no; pointing out that you got in bed with people dedicated to very bad behavior knowingly is not an association fallacy, especially when you brought some of that behavior back with you. When you say RationalWiki should entertain those types of people and make an effort to drive them here, and when you say the only thing wrong with Kiwi Farms is that it doxxes people, it is very telling of the sorts of things you subscribe to. You've done yourself no favors, and you haven't made any honest attempts to address my concerns, except to say "I did nothing wrong", which is very reminiscent of how you "apologized" and "expressed regret" over what your actions have caused.. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
All you've said so far boils down to an association fallacy. What *exactly* have I supposedly done, then, other than simply having a few discussions with these people, hm? You have said nothing of value so far, other than provide some mild comic relief. Also, to be clear, I regret nothing; I previously said (or at least intended to say) that I regret how things *turned out*, but that's not quite the same. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not going to be a crutch for your lack of reading skills, Carpetsmoker. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm beginning to suspect that Carpetsmoker views Ryulong and Goonie being gone as a smug victory for his side. Perhaps his antecedents need to be investigated a little more thoroughly. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Seriously. We're talking about people without any type of moral or ethical compass except for "lulz". I mean, these fuckers would pedo-rape or murder or whatever so long as it affected on their targets. ("TOP KEK! LOL!") And Carpetsmoker wants to hang out with these guys. Ok, then. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Birds of a feather, I guess. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, Fuzzy is just a kid out of high school. He doesn't know better; he's still idealistic. He'll learn as he hardens up. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, own up, Carpetsmoker. You're one of the two that invited these people in. You're one of the two that set up the current situation. I don't know why you think you can't be called on that. Do you truly abrogate all responsibilities that are the result of your actions? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have seen some shit at RationalWiki. This is the nastiest yet. The supreme irony is, Kitsunelaine and Castaigne, your nastiness just further fuels that which you seek to blame Carpetsmoker for. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm being honest. This was my attempt at leveling my issues and concerns at Carpetsmoker before they got bad enough to warrant a coop case. Sometimes things need to get nasty, because passiveness leads to nothing when there is an ongoing problem. And there is no "Being nice" to Carpetsmoker. He threw that possibility out of the window long ago, not me. I do not seek to be "nasty", per-se, but I seek to be forthcoming and blunt about what I see as a very big problem, that will only lead to further problems. And please, do not lump me in with Castaigne. Just because we agree on this one thing does not mean we agree on everything, nor does it mean I agree with how he seeks to handle it.
There are very good reasons as to why this is personal, and I have only explained them in private channels, for personal reasons. I have not explained these to Carpetsmoker, because he is not trustworthy in the least. As long as he shows no remorse, and as long as he is only interested in burning bridges further, I will continue to seek the deserved consequences for his actions. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Translation of "I have only explained them in private channels" -> "I have engaged in a campaign of backchannel character assassination because I don't like someone". Damn this sounds so much like Conservepedia. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Dude, it's not character assassination when it's true. If fact causes assassination, then it's best not to commit those facts, yes? --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you for real? More like "I want to see consequences for actions that have indirectly caused personal harm, of which I'm not going to talk about because of the omnipresent stalkers this site has garnered the attention of". Christ, dude. Talk about paranoia. I am not responsible for people disliking you. There are reasons as to why stuff like this has to be talked about privately, and a lot of them are due to the people you hang with off-site. Why do you think the SecretAgentOfTheMods account was created? Even the mods wanted some level of security from these people targeting them. Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Except for the minor detail that I did not cause "personal harm" and that almost everything I have said and done has been seriously misrepresented here. Our resident internet tough guy crank may call them "facts" with great bombastic arrogance, but that does not make it so. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Do I need to highlight "Indirectly" here? Or will you actually read what I say this time? You encouraged them. You still encourage them. And you left the rest of the site to clean up your mess at their own personal risk. And then you blamed them for it. You still blame them for it. And then you mock them for dealing with it in a way that deprives the issue of oxygen and prevents personal risk. Do you not see the problem with this behavior? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It's complete nonsense. Pretty much all of it. But you never gave me an opportunity to explain to you, and now it's too late as the hate has grown too large in your heart for it to be uprooted. The very short story is that I just wanted to find out what people were thinking of RW and wanted some backstory on Ryulong; I ended up on some places, and offered some counter-points to "RW is the left version of Conservapedia". Some people offered responses, and a discussion happened. *That* is what happened. You see all these things into that, but really, that is all that happened. I had a discussion with a Jehovah Witness last year. They came to my house, I offered them coffee. Same thing. Am I now "associating" with those people too? Am I now "indirectly" responsible for the nonsense that these people spread (including their lethal no blood transfusion dogma)? Nah; that would be silly. Just like your over-the-top accusations are silly. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
"I can't explain anything to you!" You never tried. You just threw out association fallacy, laughed in my face, and danced around any line of questioning I ever brought up. So, let's get things clear:
You, along with Fuzzy, invited these people to RW. You made everyone else have to deal with their shit while you sat by in the sidelines and watched. You argued that we should have to deal with every single one of them, while never dealing with them yourself. You got upset at the people who saw the situation for what it was-- untenable, and the only arguments I saw you participating in were concern trolling for the very people attacking this site and it's users.
Several people have warned you this was a terrible fucking idea, for a myriad of reasons, including the ones that led to the eventual outcome of this situation. And our predictions? They came to pass. The shit they did to this site and it's userbase was foreseeable to anyone paying attention. But, as you empathized with them for hating Ryulong's guts, and wanted a place to circlejerk about how "We're not all like that, you should hang out now that I've banned Ryulong for you"-- it was no fucking surprise that you indirectly(do I have to bold the word here too?) sicced the people trying to wreck him onto other users.
But instead of taking responsibility and working to clean up the fucking mess you partially caused, you blamed the very users who warned you, the very users who became victims because of your arrogance. You didn't do anything to help mitigate the situation, and instead, sat in the popcorn gallery, smug and condescending to anyone who you talked to about it.
You said you were sad "it turned out that way". That's like being sad "someone got offended". You may as well have said nothing, and spat on the effected people's face. It's weasel words-- you would make a great politician.
Furthermore: Since then, I have made an effort to stay out of your way to avoid causing any friction, but you seem to wish this friction to remain, with the way you seem to come to a lot of things I do and leave disparaging comments, entirely unprovoked.
One of these comments was mocking me for talking to the mods behind the scenes to help resolve the issues the site had been facing. Bear in mind: I'm one of the victims here. They've been trying to doxx me and harass me, stalking everything I have ever done online for a giant mocking party, which is especially burning since I've been on the internet since I was a young teenager, and young teenagers do stupid things. You knew this, unless you really haven't been reading everything I've been telling you. Yet, you still chose to mock me for handling this situation in a responsible manner, which would cause the least damage to me or anyone else. Not to mention, you're still concern trolling for our stalker friends-- talking about that mod account after the issue had been resolved in an effort to secure some misguided fucking justice for them.
The disrespect you have shown is palpable. It is fucking offensive. And as far as I can tell, you are unable to bring yourself to see it. You can't even entertain the possibility that you are behaving like a total prick. I may be being blunt and crass here, Carpetsmoker, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. It means I'm fed up with you dancing around everything and pretending you did nothing wrong while furthering aggression and continuing to concern troll for these assholes. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You wanted to know what others thought of RW? The threads at those locations made it very clear what they thought. There was no further need for explanation.
You wanted some backstory on Ryulong? The threads in their entireties were at those locations at well. There was no need to hobnob, to socialize - all you had to do was read.
I mean, really, what was your endgame here? Your goal? Did you think you were going to reason the madhouse to sanity, to do what countless others had already tried to do and fail? why did you think you were going to get different results from other people who had done the exact same thing? That's illogical in and of itself.
You call me a crank, but look at yourself. You thought that performing the same actions as others would bring different results. You didn't do your research - you, a computer programmer, didn't bother to look at the last few months of thread on WIA or read the whole (short) threads on Kiwi Farms. And then you're surprised at the outcome and that you are given so much disdain.
The only explanations I can come up with are malice or stupidity, and I know very well you're not stupid. And you still try to curry favor from WIA.
So do you have an actual alternate explanation other than malice or stupidity, or an actual endgame you were trying to accomplish, or what? Because I'd like to hear an explanation that makes some sort of logical sense. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This is nasty? Seriously? Wigan, you either need some serious experience on the internet or you need to take something like klonopin for that anxiety. It's either that or you're elderly like Mona is and thus prone to pearl-clutching.
Really, Kitsunelaine is just calling the shovel a spade and giving it straight without the diplomatic circumlocutions. Carpetsmoker's the one who's all for hobnobbing with the trolls and the gators; it's a wonder he doesn't take up with Ralph and Master Milo or go hang on Vox's blog in the name of "civility". The fact remains, Carpetsmoker was told these people were asshole nutters. He scoffed and dismissed the warnings as that of lunatics raving. He goes and invites them, and then is shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, to find that despite all their seeming civility, they're really asshole nutters! Just like he was told and just like there was evidence for! IMAGINE THAT! And now he's petulant that he's called on it, already doing one fake ragequit.
So tell me, really, what's so nasty about pointing out the facts of the matter? --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
So appropriate. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You actually watch that Adam Sandler crap? Godamighty. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This really is the last thing I have to say here (I mean it this time). Kistunlaine, if I had not already been exposed to Gamergaters before I arrived here, I wouldn't have known that what CS and FCP did would be a horrendous mistake. I would never have, in a million years, taken the word of people like you and Ryu about them, or about much else. The Kiwi Farm contingent is vicious. A ship of assholes. And Ryu is an unhinged, unreasonable person. He's a victim of those foul people, but he's also sick in a different way. That you cannot see this is among the reasons I would never have listened to a warning from you. ---Mona- (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You should have learned that I don't particularly care what you or Carpetsmoker think about Ryu by now. You're among the people that went out of their way to provoke him and rile him up. The people that sought to make him a pariah instead of trying to find a way to solve the issue that worked for both parties. Ryu and related drama aside (including stuff about free speech), I almost respect you. I don't hate you. I just selectively dislike you, and selectively like you. We have an, uh, tangled set of beliefs, but I think they intertwine more often than not. And I think it's sad that sometimes you are unable to see past our disagreements. You are more reasonable than our friend Carpetsmoker here, though I do not understand why you idolize him so.
Finally: while what you said may be the case for you and CS, as misguided and as many holes as it has (People do stupid things based on emotions and flawed data all the time so I don't completely blame you), none of it excuses how Carpetsmoker reacted afterwards, nor does it excuse how he continues to act.
And finally, though it shouldn't need to be said; as someone who still regularly interacts with Ryu, you are completely wrong about him. However, I appreciate that our differences on this topic are currently unresolveable, and the only thing I can ask is that somewhere down the line you try to reconsider what you think of him. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Castaigne do you ever relate successfully to people in real life? Even in this latest diatribe you resort to insults as your primary means of communication. In both of your incarnations at RW (there may be others I am not aware of) you try to cultivate this internet tough-guy image through the use of invective and insults. Nobody falls for it as I thought you might have realised by now. I would suggest, politely of course, that it is you who needs more life experience, be it of the internet or other nature, not me.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Relate successfully? Yes. I can get my meaning across quite well, thanks.
As for insults, if you think I'm being insulting, you are misguided. I haven't yet been insulting. When I get insulting, I go for the jugular. If you're using some variant of the tone argument, don't bother. I use the dialogue and invective I choose because it amuses me, not because it's guided out of animosity. Though I do have a low tolerance for stupidity.
Finally, I'm communicating on the internet the same way I always have since I began on Usenet. I see no reason to change my blunt speech, since politesse and courtesy are more often dismissed than acknowledged, and I don't feel a need to alter my tone or otherwise bend my knee to others in order not to upset their delicate sensibilities.
By the by, to toughen you up, I recommend reading The Rude Pundit. You will be educated quite well. --Castaigne2 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
ah, now I see you mistake and it is apparent throughout your posting record.... equating being blunt, rude and generally unpleasant with being tough. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
As opposed to your mistake of being an insufferable tone troll? Typhoon (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I had to Google that. The good news is that the number one return is RationalWiki.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Correction, Wigan. I don't consider myself tough at all. I'm a complete tender-hearted softie.
But I am unpleasant, combative, surly, and blunt. Yes, even in the physical world. Fancy that! --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Anyone else starting to think Kitsulaine and Castaigne2 are just GG false flag strawmen trolls or whatever that one coop account was accused of being?Keter (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you going to accuse me of faking my partial doxxing or harassment next? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Anyone else starting to think that Keter might be a concern troll? Typhoon (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That's been obvious for ages, he's just been hiding it a little lately. Nobody's paid him any mind because he's bad at it. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
A tone troll and a concern troll in the space of an hour. What a great day you are having.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I suspect it will get worse once more of our friendly neigbbourhood stalkers see this. But alas; issues need to be resolved, and concerns need to be aired. Can't let shit boil up inside you forever. Though i have zero interest in engaging them. Let it be known that I also do not 100% appreciate Typhoon's tone, even if he has a point somewhere. You didn't really say anthing that objectionable, Pier. Casta's brand of bluntness is jncompatible with mine, even if we agree on the main point. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 13:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It's almost as if Kits and Ryu sincerely conflate disagreement with them and trolling.Keter (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Then again, it's not like you're contributing to the discussion in any constructive way, Keter. Typhoon (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any need to. Kits is practically swinging off that rope by his neck like it's a playground swingset, and I'm one of the last people who'd tell him to stop freaking out.Keter (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Let me check contribs...yes, concern troll. Oh well *shrugs* Don't care. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So Kitsunelaine Knows About It[edit]

Really, Carpetsmoker. You didn't like what Kitsunelaine said to you, so you ran off to WIA to complain about it and garner support from the gators. What are you going to do next? Help Vordrak write his "articles"?
And yet, you want us to assume you operate in good faith. No, the evidence doesn't show that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Carpetsmoker has consistently shown at best the poorest imaginable judgement, then blamed others when it worked out really badly. One day he will work out that the correct answer is not "keep digging", but from the above evidence it won't be soon - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Astutely put. It's actually causing me to consider revising my opinion of his motivation from "malice" to "stupidity". I don't like to believe that someone can be that brain-dead, but... --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
FCP is posting there as well. What's wrong with that? It's not those vile doxers and harassers at the other place. As far as I know, the harassment of me or anyone else didn't occur at that site.---Mona- (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It's actually the same people at both locations, Mona, just using different names at each.
You would probably be surprised at the extent of the overlap between the two. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you evidence that that site is also the same people who doxed/harassed RW editors?---Mona- (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I do.
Before you ask, no, I will not be sharing it. While I don't have an issue with doxxing - it's perfectly legal, and thus from my viewpoint "ethical" - it's not appropriate information for this venue. Also, I don't like to share things I gather for my own private purposes. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If you won't "share" it it doesn't exist. Your online persona is a vile human being. You have no credibility, at all.---Mona- (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That's your privilege to think so, Mona. I'm certainly not going to share with you, Carpetsmoker, or FCP, no matter what the incentive. My reason is very simple - I don't trust any of you. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Fuck it; I won't be chased away from what is really a very innocent subreddit because there are a few people have conspirator ravings about it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
And I don't expect you to. I want you to remain there. I want you to keep digging that hole.
It's the only way some people learn. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently on this Castaigne is right. This was just posted there: Almost everyone here is from Kiwi Farms we just post under different names when we're playing the "concerned about ethics" angle. That changes my thinking.---Mona- (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no, Mona, I can't possibly be right. I'm a crank. And nasty. And not credible. Therefore, it's just factually impossible that I'm right.
You really need to pay more attention to the Carpetsmoker, Et Al narrative. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You are a crank. And a cretin. And depraved. But the evidence came in that you are factually correct in this instance. As I always say, I'm fact- and evidence-based. Not only wasn't the evidence there before, but you wouldn't provide it. You lack credibility for anyone to take your word for it.---Mona- (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Then you should ignore everything I say. You should also assume that I posted that comment on Reddit in some sort of false flag operation.
After all, if I am a crank, a cretin, and depraved, then in accordance with analytical thinking everything I do is done out of malice and everything that supports me must by default be forged, lies, or a false flag operation. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
"then in accordance with analytical thinking everything I do" Ha, human beings are hardly ever that consistent, Castaigne. (talk) 21:05, 20 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Oh, indeed, but Mona makes it too easy for me to poke at her. She doesn't even realize when I'm doing it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
"Then you should ignore everything I say." I ususally do -- I certainly do not take your word for any fact claims. "You should also assume" That does not follow, at all.
That all said, there is a good deal more going on here than we have all known. It may involve the mod election, in which Carpetsmoker rather surprisingly lost. Apparently, there was back channel activity to tank him. I know I voted him as #1, and another who also did. It would not justify running off to a nest of KFers to complain about people here, but it would explain why he's been imprudent and angry lately.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we need some at this wiki.---Mona- (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The election was fair. People are allowed to discuss things as privately or as publicly as they desire.
I was not surprised he lost. I was not surprised as to who won. Anyone who knew the candidates at all knew who would win, and neither Carpetsmoker, Ace, or Smerdis were going to come even close. There is not enough support for them on this wiki. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Christ, Casta, knock it off. You're not doing yourself any favours. Regardless, neither is Mona or Carpetsmoker for crying "CONSPIRACY" over someone with notoriously bad judgment and an astute lack of remorse or empathy not getting a mod position. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone even remotely surprised at this point? This is what gators do. Create socks to parade around while their real shit is poorly masked by the shadows. Even that sub was slapped on the wrist by reddit admins for doxxing, and moments later, a new sub suspiciously appears, as if in response. . . . - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
A general R.E to this thread: Tactics of a coward who's brought to task for what he's done to others. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, even if it was rather, ah... Colorful. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)