User talk:KnightOfTL;DR

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive Navigation
Current 1

Pokémon![edit]

Man I haven't played those in ages; I played the crap out of Red/Blue but haven't kept up in a long time. Are they still any good? My 3DS has sadly been collecting dust and I've been curious if I should grab a used copy of one of the newer ones. Cow...Hammertime! 20:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The latest game I feel you should pick up is Platinum. While others may disagree with me, I really, really did not like Pokemon Black and White. While many laud it for giving the game a plot, the plot (to me as a writer) is really poorly executed, often scanning like a bad anime to me with false 'deepness' and inexplicable importance on the part of the player (villians explaining themselves to the hero for no reason, the hero being an important kid right off the bat and singled out for being SO COOL even before getting a single gym badge, where in other games you had to do badass things like storming Team Rocket and taming the Red Gyrados all on your own and THEN people notice you), very obvious roadblocks, half of all of the NPCs repeating the arc ideas of the game on repeat far worse than any other game in the series (Many people missed this; you need to just talk to everyone you meet, and many people don't have the patience; every other NPC says a variation of 'different people have different ideas and all ideas are OK!') and the main villians' motivations can be incomprehensible to the extreme. To the point of contradicting themselves even a single encounter or even a single statement before, as if you have short-term memory loss and they can get away with just not making sense and saying things that sound cool instead. The battle system in Black and White is OK, but I don't like how they revamped the experience system; it means you have to run around grinding these heavy-experience pokemon, and the gains scale so you MUST move on in the area instead of exploring in order to get more experience. Half of the map isn't available until postgame, at which point there's no reason to go to the leftover towns because there are no gyms, story, or interesting world-building things there save perhaps stronger trainers to train for postgame rematches on... or prep yourself for the competitive metagame. Once again, this is just my perspective; I've been shouted down and called a NOSTALGIAFAG because I didn't like the new game so much (never mind I have objective criticisms of older gens; they weren't perfect either) and people seem to be immune to thinking critically about pokemon. I guess it's the IF I DON'T LIKE IT I AM A TRAITOR TO MY CHILDHOOD thing. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRcritical thinking is the key to success! 21:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! That does help! Though one of my most hated things in RPGs/adventure games is going to town and talking to NPCs. The most I'll ever do in town is steal crap from everyone's houses if they ever have good stuff. Otherwise they might as well just be signposts. I guess I've just gotten jaded over the years of playing every Zelda game and way too many formulaic RPGs where people in town almost never have anything interesting to say. </tangent>
Anywho, those game mechanics in Black/White sound much more geared to people who want to play multiplayer and I just have zero interest in doing that. I think I'll have to pick up a copy of Platinum, since there's a good chance I'll be having a couple of 15 hour plane rides and RPGs are amazing for long flights. Cow...Hammertime! 22:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
They are, because the competitive metagame is very much more popular in Japan than it is here: more wi fi hotspots per square mile, more networks, more people passing by with it in their pocket, etc. So a lot of the game is set up to help you into the metagame as fast as possible, including in-game battle arenas that pump your pokemon temporarily to level 50 or 100 so you can practice a simulated metagame without other people. Not to say that's an invalid thing to do, but when a game drifts in genre a bit away from the reason you bought it in the first place, it's never a nice surprise. Platinum contains a liiiitle JRPG silliness (the reception of Platinum was probably what caused them to ramp it up to 11 in B/W) but overall it's much better and improves on the two first releases in that generation, Diamond and Pearl. If you want to get your retro on, you can get HeartGold/SoulSilver, which are updated remakes of Gold and Silver versions and quite well done. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 23:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Welp I might just have to get a few of them then, because I really have no idea if I'll like the old-school ones or the new ones. Thanks again! Cow...Hammertime! 14:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll second the stuff about black and white. I always enjoyed both aspects of pokemon, but prefer to keep them separate. When I play the games themselves, I expect to be able to relax and enjoy their childlike innocence. Maybe the games were a little naive, maybe they're unrealistic and even a bit crazy when you consider how their world works, but sometimes it's nice to just put all that aside and have fun.
From what I can tell, even with the in-game focus, they still haven't made the competitive aspect work well without significant rules in play. It was never remotely balanced in the first place, and required strong community action to make things enjoyable. I was even a part of that process for a short time, though it's now been years since I've even played competitively online. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed it, but it's painful thinking about all the hours I spent theorizing, playing the metagame, and even just teambuilding. Do you play online at all, tl;dr? Q0 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I used to, but I was ridiculously bad at it. I haven't since Pokemon Diamond and Pearl came out, and something tells me the metagame just got horrible with the addition of the new B/W pokemon. Why? Power creep. There are several mons that are just designed in B/W to allure to the metagame crowd: even more than in previous gens. There will always be the Dragonite archetype (very powerful, late evolution, requires a lot of experience, rare capture) but Hydreigon is just ridiculous. And that's not counting the zwillion new legendary mons introduced in recent generations. I always hated fighting Legendaries on Smogon. Blah. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 21:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It was always a tough decision on legendaries. I remember during Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald when Celebi was broken in a thousand different ways, but the consensus was that removing it from play would make things even worse. The biggest difficulty though was that a lot of the Smogon guys simply just loved using their dragon pokemon (going back to Dragonite), and wouldn't admit that in the important stats, the dragons were almost as powerful as the 'real' legendary/uber pokemon they were more than willing to ban, like Mewtwo, Groudon, Rayquaza, etc. It didn't help that the Dragon typing was becoming more broken as time went on. I stopped playing and discussing pokemon on Smogon mid-Diamond/Pearl, at the point where instead of worrying about how the game was becoming completely about your ability to handle Draco Meteor and Outrage, they were trying to push Lati@s out there as well. As far as the other legendaries in play went, it was really hard to find anything to say about Suicune/Jirachi/Celebi/etc when they were among the few out there that could stand up to the Garchomps and Salamences in strength. I did feel a bit vindicated when I heard from a friend they eventually banned both of those dragons, though.
But that's all boring stuff that's in the past. As much as I was into the competitive side, my heart will always lie with the cutemons. If only GameFreak wouldn't have always made them suck.  :( Q0 (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention a lot of the better new-gen mons I find a bit ugly. Call me a curmudgeon, but when I design creatures, characters, monsters, etc., I try and go for simplicity over complexity. While a lot of the newer mons I feel have pretty OK designs, I do feel that many of them are overdone in some ways... Too many details, lines, or lost iconic-ness in other ways can make animal-like designs look forced, inorganic/inanimate designs look like windows icons, and goblin/humanoid designs look like robots. Some of the designs are good and I like them, but B/W has more 'eh' designs than any other generation to me. Not to say others were perfect! but I can never get teams that I like looking at and don't suck anymore. Bleh. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 00:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Now, my good man, what do you like to play? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I have to say I admire your dedication to making pokemon jokes no matter the topic. Especially when you know that there are probably only one or two of us out there giggling every time, haha. Q0 (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I can never resist a dorky joke. Pokemon is a subjectthat I deem the most likely to be understood by others. I mean, I could start making jokes about the THAC0 of a fundamentalist, but I am not sure how many people would follow. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 22:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I can never remember. Do I subtract the fundamentalist's IQ from my THAC0, or add it to my AC? I know they have DR20/holy book, but first I need to find out if I've hit! Q0 (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

reply[edit]

That depends. :) What things? --The.Shadow 18:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 19:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Knight spins a tangled yarn."[edit]

[1] Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I aim to please. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlavishly loquacious 00:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Linkin Park mockery area.[edit]

BLEED IT OUT BLEED IT OUT DIGGING DEEPER JUST TO THROW IT AWAYYYYYYYYY Osaka Sun (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I happened to like that song. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't have contempt for Linkin Park, really... but I DO have contempt for the hoards of goofy 'being-emo-is-like-being-depressed-so-it's-cool' attention people who confuse the issue for derps like DRP and make the tragedy of self-harm look like the same thing as attention-hungry bad Anime Music Videos of Naruto dying or something to a track from Meteora. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 01:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The Numb/Encore Mash-up with Jay-Z was pretty cool, I don't care what anyone says. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I kinda liked it, too. Even if others didn't enjoy it, it was nice to hear something kinda different that made it onto the radio. I recall that was a period of extreme sameyness... ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 01:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I can always find a P!nk song on the radio any time of the day or night, I don't know how that works. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This is because P!ink is cool. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 01:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

E-mail[edit]

I have sent you a very important email. Some of it is in all caps. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what people think[edit]

You think I am doing this so people like you will care? I don't give a fuck. RW has been sliding downhill for ages now - I am just speeding up my own slide into obscurity. Acei9 02:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so you throw fits, flip birds, and overall act like a drama queen for no other reason to... prove how cool you are? To prove how fucked up RationalWiki is? You only prove how shitfaced you are. You realize that you get so many concessions on this wiki, you walk around like you fucking own the place, and you have the GALL to say that it's been 'going downhill' when YOU and other RW celebrities set the tone for the whole goddamned place? You are a gigantic baby. If I ever behaved like you did, I would be trollbanned in an instant. Get real. You don't behave like a moron to prove some kind of point. You behave like a moron because you enjoy behaving like a moron. And honestly, I can see why RW is sliding downhill. Until your shit ferments into gold, take your bitchfit off my talkpage±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlavishly loquacious 02:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I am going to shove an oily penis in your ear. Acei9 02:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Translation: "Knight is right, so I'm just going to mutter vulgarities." Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
An alternative translation would be "Didn't pay attention, care not for Knight's opinion, make comment about cocks instead." Acei9 03:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This is seriously what kids my little sister's age do, Ace. You are not acting like an adult. "The person said words that I want to avoid, so I am going to laugh at them and say something totally unrelated instead!" I got worse than this in middle school from snot-nosed brats. You are indistinguishable from a 12 year old on the internet, Ace. Think about that long and hard. Unless that's too difficult for you. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 03:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You don't know me very well, you appreciation of my character is way off base. I am going to go feed the wild parrots outside on the deck. See you soon, sweets. Acei9 03:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
"How DARE this person disagree with me. I'm going to dump on their talk page then ignore any response." Darling? Acey-poo? Could you check where your laptop is, because it appears MC is posting under your account right now. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of his inner, complex, tortured soul, he still acts like a two-dimensional idiot on the outside. I can only judge what he presents to me. And why is he so concerned with me getting false impressions of your character if he supposedly doesn't care what I think?±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 03:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
What ever helps. Acei9 04:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You have plenty of help, in the form of your misbegotten popularity and your personal friends. Yet you still behave like an asshole? Whatever help you are getting or giving, it's not very good.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlavishly loquacious 04:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Wanna dance? Acei9 05:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Your primary tactic for addressing issues is to be as whimsical and faux-lovable as you possibly can in hopes that it will make it impossible to argue with you or point out your glaring, ugly flaws. I seriously am having none of it. If you want to talk to me like an adult, please do. You are not a fun-loving wiki-anarchist. That's just your persona. You are a person who is utterly afraid to face your own flaws because it might hurt your stupidass popularity that you don't even deserve.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRcritical thinking is the key to success! 05:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
So you can't dance then? rpeh •TCE 05:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you please keep off my talk page? I am trying to get Ace to talk to me like a human being, talk with me about his urges to 'improve' the wiki with stupid trolling. It's not my fault he's a child and loves using deflective statements rather than actually talking to the people he's supposed to moderate when they actually need to talk to him about his piss-poor behavior. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 05:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to this conversation, I'm just being an asshole ARGLE BLARGLE BLARGLE BLARGLE. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It isn't beholden on me to address your comments, Knight. You know nothing about me, know nothing of my motivations, my private life, you know fuck all about me. If someone were to assume I was a homosexual gibbon it isn't my job to prove them wrong. I'm happy for you to believe what ever it is you want to believe about me. Acei9 05:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to believe that you are married, alcoholic, have depression, have a dead/dying liver, and for a man with a hard-partying reputation you spend an awful lot of time on this website. That's pretty much all all there is to you. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess then as a moderator you just don't care about your community, or resolving problems in it. Especially when the problem actually requires effort on behalf of yourself. Protip: when people have problems with you, you try and resolve them. You don't mock them. You don't throw fits and whine, 'YOU DON'T KNOW ME!' Whether we know the inner workings of your soul or not, I don't give a fuck about that. I give a fuck about the way you act. And until you prove to me that you are more than how you act, that is all you will ever be to me. Your bullshit, the fit you threw above on my talkpage, your unprovoked harassment of other people, your shitty shenanigans that you seem to depend on people to forget about, those things are the opposite of what you should be doing as a person of responsibility. By all logic, you should be trollbanning yourself. And 'YOU DON'T KNOW ME' is a shit-poor defense against actual grievances against your person. Imagine if any other elected position in any establishment on the planet tried to defend himself when caught acting like a fool with 'YOUR CRITICISM IS INVALID, YOU DON'T KNOW ME. He would be in hot water. For some reason, you are not. Why is that, I wonder?±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 06:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess then as a moderator you just don't care about your community, or resolving problems in it. Especially when the problem actually requires effort on behalf of yourself. Protip: when people have problems with you, you try and resolve them
I have spent an inordinate amount of time on RW sorting a multitude of issues. The amount of shit Brx, a prime example, has put this community through outshines (for lack of a better term) anything I have done. I have come down heavy on friends here and nearly cost myself friendships because of it. Only someone as ass-backward as fuck like the way you are portraying yourself right now would say I hadn't worked and put effort into RW since my signing up 4 years ago.
For months on end Nx abused his mod rights and blatantly stated he was trying to drive me from RW, granted you weren't here at the time but it is hypocritical of anyone to lay grief at my feet when this behaviour has been endemic from the start and I have been one of the strongest critics of the current mod system because of it. Yet Nx is still here, despite being despised by most everyone, and nothing has changed. I am just the latest incarnation of systemic failures.
Secondly, and importantly, I am not deflecting criticism from myself by proclaiming YOUR CRITICISM IS INVALID, YOU DON'T KNOW ME. I say this because the caricature you have applied to me is so far from who I actually am that my only response can be pointing out how wrong your insinuations are. I have deep and longstanding friendships with many long time users on RW and critiques of my character from them I would take quite seriously - the bullshit you're fountaining from the gaping ass wound you call a face is meaningless, wrong headed and, quite frankly, so far from the truth as to be relegated to Rick Perry-esque gibberish. Acei9 06:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Brx is the community shitbag; he doesn't need special attention from you to be shut down. Unless you want to take on personal responsibility as like, Brx's keeper or something. And I have no idea why you ever would want to do that. And I don't care about Nx. This discussion isn't about Nx. And seriously, that's your excuse? That Nx was allowed to be a terrible mod in the past, so you should be allowed to be a terrible mod, too? This discussion is about you and your behavior, it isn't even about Nx or whatever else you want to redirect this conversation about.
What you have accomplished in the past (and all of what you cite is debatable, depending on what user I go for to clarify matters!) doesn't have any bearing on the situation at hand. It is not what is being discussed. I am not accusing you of not ever helping RationalWiki, not ever devoting time to it. It's clear you devote a lot of time to it; an inordinate amount of time to it, in fact. But none of that is a band-aid for throwing fits on the talk pages of users, none of that is some kind of excuse for your other bad behavior that you are clearly demonstrating right now. I don't need to interpret anything, nor am I far-from-the-truth: you have gone through nearly EVERY motion of your normal fit-throwing procedure on THIS VERY TALKPAGE! Invading the talks of users to harass them when things aren't going your way, insulting them, mocking them, using shitty deflective tactics while refusing to actually confront problems people have at you, taking advantage of your precedence and vast reputation as an oldbie to deflect criticism away from you, etc. Those are not the responsible actions of a good mod. Those are actions I would expect from a nasty child. And as I have said multiple times before, I don't care about whatever inner character you have. My critiques are with your behavior, the only thing I have to judge you by on this series of tubes, and so far you have given me a pretty poor impression of yourself. If you want me to respect who you really are, provide me with your TRUE self. The self that you claim to not be this nasty, confrontational, asshurt person. Show me a good moderator that, despite what problems he grapples with, tries his best to be fair and friendly to the people he not only keeps the peace for, but also is supposed to represent. But until then, you can insult me all you want. I'm not doing this for me. I'm doing this for every time I have stood by and watched you be shitty at your job and not get called out for it. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 06:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
And I don't care about Nx. This discussion isn't about Nx. And seriously, that's your excuse? That Nx was allowed to be a terrible mod in the past, so you should be allowed to be a terrible mod, too?
No, it isn't my excuse. If you read my comment properly you'd note I made mention the problem was systemic to the community structure.
using shitty deflective tactics while refusing to actually confront problems people have at you
I have done no such thing. I not avoiding confronting problems. Not caring about these problems as you put it in no equates to avoidance of confrontation. I just don't give a fuck.
Those are not the responsible actions of a good mod
I am pretty sure I dropped almost all pretense of being a good mod considering the history of poor moderation by almost every mod before me. I have been a vocal critic of the mod system since nearly day one.
If you want me to respect who you really are, provide me with your TRUE self
I have never been anything but my true self and I don't need you to respect me.
I'm doing this for every time I have stood by and watched you be shitty at your job and not get called out for it
Sorry, what is my job? As a mod I am supposed to what...? Obviously not do what I have been doing for the last 24 hours but, outside that, what have I done that is outside my purview as mod? Acei9 07:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
-You claim that your choice to be an asshole is systemic to a wiki that strives to have no system at all. In fact, you try and make sure it has no system or rules at all.
-What the hell was you spamming penis and asking me if I can dance if not either deflective, dismissive comments, or outright harassment?
-You think that actively and openly not caring about others (or their views, words, or problems with you) is an acceptable trait for a community representative to have.
-You think that you don't have to at least try to be a good moderator here. Why should we bother tolerating you if you won't even try? And yet you claim to have devoted so much of yourself to this position? What the fuck, do you seriously think I can just take lying down that you want to play the 'but I work so HARD!' and the 'I never said I cared about doing my job properly' cards at the SAME TIME?
-For someone who doesn't care what I think of them, you sure whine a lot about how I regard you.
-Not even knowing that a moderator's job is to moderate the community. This doesn't just mean going to the coop or banning some vandals. This means actively promoting peace among the people who post here. Which you do the opposite of.
These are all reasons, all interpreted just from what your last post was, why you need to stop acting like an assturd and put on the grownup pants. You complain about how this community is going downhill, how it sucks and how it's gotten worse and how being an asshole is systemic to it... but I DO NOT SEE YOU EVEN ATTEMPTING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. You just like bitching and moaning about it, but I have never, never seen you put your time and effort where your mouth is other than to go actively provoke butt monkeys like Brx and Rob, who we all know are full of shit and we are perfectly capable of handling them without you. Other than that, nil. A good first step: to make a community not full of assholes, DON'T BE ONE. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 07:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
So I guess this means you don't wanna dance? Acei9 07:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No. I want you to turn into an actual human being and stop proving further to me that you have absolutely no business being in any position of authority whatsoever. I want you to stop resorting to bullshit when people confront you and actually take responsibility for your actions, because you are the number one promoter of the superficial, bitchy, useless culture you constantly complain about, and the sooner you realize that focusing on idiots like Brx is just a Bread and Circus show distracting away from AceMcWicked, who sets the tone and attitude of the wiki to the beat of his own diseased, uncaring, childish, irresponsible, embarrassing, and selfish drum. We have a reference in text, Ace. We are in a book. We get linked to from all over the internet. In fact, the increased traffic was stressing us recently. Do you seriously think ANY of those people came here to stare and gawk at your idiotic shenanigans? You are not what this wiki needs, unless you seriously straighten up and fly right. You are humiliating to RationalWiki. And the fact that you don't see that just paints you as a guy who wears his tighty-whities over his face.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 07:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Ace, you oh-so-bravely resigned from your moderator position (only to run and win the same position later), accomplishing nothing. You handled a troll once. Just the one. Ooooooh, I'm impressed!
You say you've busted your ass off for the site. All right then, show me the results. Is the server running smoother and faster because of you? Nope, that'd be because of David Gerard and Tmtoulouse. Did you handle legal paperwork for the Foundation? Nope, that'd be Tmtoulouse and Nutty Roux. Handle secretarial duties for Foundation board meetings? Nope, that'd be ListenerX. Did you create a ton of RW's help pages? Nope, that'd be SusanG. Bust your ass off in the early days, laying the groundwork for many still-heavily-used templates? Nope, that'd be Human. Play a major role in shaping most of our articles in the first few years? Nope, again, Human. Administer RationalWiki's official Twitter account? Nope, that'd be Osaka Sun. Pour a ton of effort into a single article, making it the go-to refutation on a particular subject? Nope, that'd be G.D.. Work tirelessly to repair the widespread damage wrought by Proxima on our articles? Nope, that'd WaitingforGodot. Bring a jaw-dropping level of insight and knowledge to certain articles and discussions? Nope, that'd Nebuchadnezzar.
Those people I named earlier? They are the heart and soul of this site. You're just a hanger-on. A pretender. Can you name anything you've done or do that makes you worthy of placing yourself alongside the people I just named? No, you can't. You show up on talk pages, announcing you are OH SO DRUNK RIGHT NOW, sometimes get angry at something and waste everyone's time throwing an ineffectual fit about it, and occasionally partake in behind-the-scenes email intrigue. You are worthless — a drunken piece of deadweight upon this site. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
If we're looking at relevant accolades, let's not forget how much positive tech work Nx did for the site, back before he got into a lot of arguments with Human and co. and turned bitter. Seme Blue 08:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The funny thing about this is Human and Nutty have shit flung at them constantly. By you, RA. As well as Nx, Brx, UHM etc etc etc etc.... Acei9 08:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
One night, many years ago when I was flatting and long before I met my wife, I got home after a particularly vicious drinking bender. I think I had been out for about 30 hours and it was around 3am. When I walked into my bedroom I discovered, to my horror, a woman in my bed. I had given her my house key for some reason several weeks earlier and now, here she was, in my bed asleep. I was kinda angry but intstead of waking her I rolled a spliff, grabbed a beer and climbed up to the roof. I was hanging out with my cynicism when I heard a voice calling me from a hotel across the road. Some guy was hanging out the window calling me to come over. I said "Meet me in the lobby" and I popped downstairs and crossed the road. I entered the hotel and met this smiling gent named Steve who invited me up to his room. We went up to the 8th floor and into a room where there were 2 other guys and 3 sexy babes. They were from Napier (a small town about 300m north of where I live) and had come down for a concert. Steve had checked himself in and snuck the rest of the crew up with him. It was only a double rooms so space was at a premium with mattress's and sleeping bags all over the floor. Steve was the only name on the bill and wasn't supposed to have anyone else in the room. What followed was an atavistic bender the likes which many can't stomach. By the time 10am rolled by I had helped drink all their gin, finished all the drugs and tossed a few water filled condoms out the window for good measure. The room was a fucking tip so I thought I better leave. But before I did I nicked the Gideons bible and grabbed a door sign. As I left, quietly closing the door on the pile of filthy bender I had helped create, I stuck the sign on the door handle. It read "Please tidy my room". I sauntered down the hallway as the maid started her round, chuckling to myself. They didn't even know my name.
Some days later the bible I stole caused me to set my bedroom on fire and was throw from the roof, flaming, back at the hotel whence I got it. Acei9 07:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
...and what happened to the person in your bed in all that? Peter Subsisting on honey 07:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I got home and fucked her. Acei9 08:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I might have known. Did she survive the fire? Peter Subsisting on honey 08:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't so much a fire (I should also add she was meant to be my girlfriend at the time but we were having a protracted break-up) but a small..err...singeing. What happened was I wanted to read Bible stories by firelight but we had no fireplace so I constructed a camp-fire in the bedroom, ringed with stones, which kinda got out of control. Acei9 08:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Everyone knows you're supposed to read the bible in the company of torches and pitchforks, not just any old open fire. Peter Subsisting on honey08:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
So I wake up and all Ace has done to my talkpage is add a bullshit ineffectual story that only serves to further dodge away from acknowledging what is wrong with him, and he has used bad logic to justify how much of an asshole he can be. "The funny thing about this is Human and Nutty have shit flung at them constantly. By you, RA. As well as Nx, Brx, UHM etc etc etc etc...." So basically, Ace, let me get this right; that statement is chock-full of terrible implications. You are allowed to discard when people actually have a problem with you, on the account that people have problems with Human and Nutty and THEY are allowed to blow them off, so why can't you be allowed to be an asshole just like them? And you imply that anyone has a problem with you is on the level of Brx, and UHM? How the fuck can you even laugh at WIGO:CP when you use such horrible logic? That's on the level of implying that all atheists are fat because some of them are fat. And even worse, your statement implies that not only do you think it is OK to be an asshole to the people you were voted to stand for, you think it's OK that because you are not the only person people are displeased with, it is okay to not do anything about it. Well, I guess a lot of people also don't like Brx and have problems with Brx, Ace. Yet for some reason it's OK for users to attack Brx because he's the community buttmunch, while users that have problem with you don't get to do a thing about it? ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 14:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sociology question[edit]

Who was responsible for introducing the emphasis on "systems of power," etc., into sociology? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Power and social status have been crux parts of sociology even in its roots, ListenerX: a topic covered by Karl Marx,who discussed the nature of power and how it is used in conjunction with the population (as a centaur; the beast of physical or direct might coupled with the human face of persuasion), and Max Weber, who defined social status as a convergence of Property (wealth and life opportunity), Prestige (place in a social stratification system), and Power itself (or the ability to assert one's will over the wills of others). Both are considered among the founding fathers of the field of study. So it's not really a new topic; exactly why the rich are rich and the poor are poor, and why the poor can or cannot become rich or vice versa, what gives the king his credibility and the peasant his death in obscurity despite intelligence or wellspokenness... people have asked these questions for not only a century or so, but probably since societies themselves developed. People have even asserted ideas independently of the main core of sociological writings themselves, later incorporated into the background of social study material; Frederick Douglass spoke upon the injustice of current power systems in his day, and even first-wave feminists found themselves critical of a power system that considered them unfit to make intelligent conversation much less go to university or vote. In the end sociology is just what it sounds like: the study of societies. And without studying the distribution of power in said society, one can hardly call it a social study at all. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
And I know you don't like redsredsredsreds, but that's just how it is. Modern sociology is no more marxist nowadays than psychology is freudian. It's not really his fault that his ideologies were picked up. Anyone who has ever read Animal Farm knows how that went. (if you don't know, go check out required reading asap)±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 03:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Um, if you are going to dust off the good old No True Scotsman, you might want to appeal to some other authority than George Orwell. Yes, I have read Animal Farm. I have also read The Road to Wigan Pier, in which he rips on the Marxists at some length, on the theoretical and practical levels, right back to its very foundations in the Hegelian dialectic.
Modern sociology is no more marxist nowadays than psychology is freudian. I disagree. Modern psychology has quite emphatically rejected Freud's ideas and relegated them to the fringe. No similar rejection of the core ideas of Marxism, which Marx also introduced into his take on sociology, has taken place in that discipline.
And without studying the distribution of power in said society, one can hardly call it a social study at all. There are other aspects of society to study besides distribution of power; a fact that seems to have been forgotten by many sociologists. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I did not invoke No True Scotsman, please read more carefully. Nowhere did I say 'you are not a sociologist if you X.' If you are here to bitch about a subject you haven't actually studied to a person who has actually studied some, you can take it elsewhere. I'm beginning to suspect you just asked this question for justification of your own rejection of sociological theory, not to actually learn something about the subject. Modern sociology has far, FAR more models of power than marxism nowadays, better, more accurate models of power that have long supplanted his, while he remains in the roots. You can read up on plenty of these here. Basically, your hatred of reds reds reds seems to blind you to the fact that sociology doesn't care about your reds reds reds mania. There are plenty of people who hate Darwin, yet that doesn't make the study of natural selection a sham.
You realize that in sociology, there is this concept of intersectionality? Basically this means that every factor is intertwined with every other social factor. While there are other things than power hierarchies to study, they all relate back to power hierarchies in some way. Study of social opportunity and mobility depends on the power system in which the study takes place. Study of education and impact on income and status ties into what social background the participants have and their access to education, which is most certainly tied into structures of power. Studies of race tie into the roles that races are shunted into, specifically by the group that happens to be in power. Studies of gender are heavily influenced by what is considered 'norms,' which are dictated by the society's structure of power. Every one of these topics relates into every other topic, and back into power as all connected points in a map of what a society looks like and how the people in it can live within. I repeat: intersectionality-- a new word for a not-very-new concept. The fact that people talk more about social issues now doesn't mean that OMG THOSE PEOPLE BITCHING ON TUMBLR ABOUT CHECKING PRIVILEGE just crawled out of nowhere. They are heirs to a very long, culmulative study of these issues and are simply the most recent manifestation. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 04:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you came here to learn anything at all. You thought wrong. True, my question was rhetorical and there was nothing in your first reply that I had not seen before; but the old Socratic method always kicks in in these things, and I also wanted to see how long you could continue to pretend that sociology "doesn't have to do with communism." Put up or shut up.
First of all, I did not invoke No True Scotsman, please read more carefully. I submit that you invoked it when you said, "It's not really [Marx's] fault that his ideologies were picked up." Picked up by whom? Your invocation of Animal Farm indicates the old argument about how the nice, pure Marxism was corrupted by the evil Soviets, who were not Real Communists™.
Nowhere did I say 'you are not a sociologist if you X.' Did I ever claim that you said this?
Modern sociology has far, FAR more models of power than marxism nowadays... I am aware that the models of power have changed. My point is that the emphasis placed on them has not changed — sociology in Marxist-influenced traditions has not yet ditched, nor will it ever ditch, that first sentence of Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto. As you say, "he remains in the roots."
You realize that in sociology, there is this concept of intersectionality? No, but my first guess would be that it is an adaptation of the notions of "base and superstructure," probably filtered down through critical theory and some of its derivatives. Do you happen to know who thought it up?
As far as interconnectedness in general goes, though, that is something we see in the hard sciences also. But although, for example, chemistry certainly relates back to atomic physics, it does not thence follow that doing research in atomic physics is the best way to make advances in chemistry. Similarly, in Marxist-influenced sociological traditions, study of culture and specific social institutions disproportionately focuses on their connections to the "power structure," which is probably not the best way to get the full picture. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. There is no point talking to you. Your hatred of anything that could ever possibly have to do with communism, EVER, is so strong that you refuse to actually like, evaluate the VAST body of material that makes up sociological study. This reads like just a huge jerkoff session for you. "Yeah! I came here to find out how fast I could get someone to talk about something tangentially related to something I hate! I will stroke my boner of this and ignore the fact that the question wasn't actually about it!" You're like some crazy person who dismisses the vast body of medical knowledge we have today because Nazis contributed to it, or a person who doesn't like computers because a guy who was gay had a hand in inventing them. You seem to not be actually hearing discussion about the issue; this is just porn for your hateboner. Please get off my talk page until you're ready to actually learn something. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 09:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I see you have chosen the "shut up" route; I will therefore do the same. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiccan fluffbunnies[edit]

What sorts of material were you looking for? Yes, there's Tarot, and of course, casting spells. There's also plenty of Harry Potter fandom and Lord of the Rings nonsense mixed in. And, of course, these are just the starters. Let me know what you're looking for in this regard, and I can point you to it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to word this for a while now, but I figure the best way is the direct way. I don't see how "fuffybunnies" is any different then normal Neopagen belief, besides being more easily acceptable by younger people. I do apologize for my ignorance, but it really is lost on me. --Revolverman (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It has to do with how it's endorsed, in the same way that New Age ideas sold to the public are different from somebody's personal spirituality. Neopaganism in large can be disorganized and lawless, but it's a greater pool in which Fluffy Bunny stuff lives. The hallmarks of Fluffy Bunny stuff is that it's a subset of neopaganism that claims to be 'wicca' but it's all based on the promises that hawking authors sell to people dissatisfied with their lives and their previous faith/lack thereof. In the same way that there are people who can say 'Well, I practice tai chi' and listen to the instructor go on about chi and just accept it as flavor text, or accept it at face value, there are also people who go to a McDojo and are told that their life force can cripple people who are mean to them anime-style. It has to do with a specific targeting of market (insecure, ignorant, not within the community or often even involved with it at all, would like a power fantasy, irresponsible, easily satisfied), and the people who are targeted/buy into it.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 06:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Simpler explanation: Fluffbunny stuff includes those who want to be Sabrina the Teenage Witch, and those who sell books telling insecure people they can be Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Neopaganism at large may include such people, but it's not limited to those people.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 06:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, alright. I got it now, Thanks Knight. --Revolverman (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I suggest including this definition in the article. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised we don't have a page for Star Hawk yet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to say, i'm a bit wierded out by our distinctions between "fluff bunnies" "new age witches" and all other wiccans. I was a wiccan for years -- but clearly according to the authors of our page, i wasn't a *real* wiccan. whatever the heck that is. is this really a distinction drawn in the pagan community? or one just drawn by those who are gardinarians and hate everyone else? Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
It's sort of a fluid thing. Being a fluffbunny doesn't have to do with being a 'real' wiccan, but the attitude displayed. It's a behavior very like people who devote to star signs and meridian lines as sparkly fluff that makes them feel better rather than as an actual model of spirituality or how the world works. In the same way we can't say fast-food christianity is not still chrsitianity, we can't say fluffbunnies aren't 'real' wiccans. And in the same way we can't say that all people who choose to take only the non-punitive messages from the bible are fast-food christians, we can't say that all independant/non-traditional wiccans are fluffbunnies. But fast-food christianity still exists, and fluffbunnies still exist. It's less a case of 'not doing it right, not real wiccans' as a case of 'these people claim to be wiccans, and this is what they do and are.' ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 22:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Except that fast food Christianity doesn't exist, and "fluff bunnies" are only that if someone else calls them that. Always a matter of "not the right way, according to me". or true scotsman. No?Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Except there are actual social forces that cause people to consume spirituality and/or religion in recognizable patterns that constitute both terms? It doesn't take one's own special 'right-way' opinion to claim that the behavior of fluff-and-comfort megachurches and the behavior of people swayed by Silva Ravenwolf may follow (and very often do follow, from my own experience and from the experience of others I do) recognizable patterns that then can be referred to. Just because somebody doesn't consider themselves something, doesn't mean they can't be sorted by another person based on what they exhibit to other people. For example, by your logic we should dismiss mall ninjas as well and claim they are just the same as any other 'martial arts expert' when they really display recognizable patterns of behavior and interest that set them apart from the general population. It doesn't have to do at all with what anybody 'likes' or 'considers to be the right way.' It has to do with describing the behavior of subsets of certain groups, which then becomes related to our mission if these subsets do things like single-handedly perpetuate served-to-white-guys martial arts woo or sold-to-sad-teenagers watered down new age/paganism fusion ripoff books. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRcritical thinking is the key to success! 23:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's going to come down to the Potter Stewart test at some point. But the defining features to me are commodification and appropriation. The plastic shamans would be a prime example. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ghosts and fairies[edit]

I read some of the responses to that post on the flood and dinosaurs and ghosts and fairies and my very soul facepalmed. It seems like the prevailing belief in this culture is that beliefs are so utterly sacrosanct that they should never be challenged, even by the likes of facts and reason. "Entitled to my opinion" and such, but taken quite literally. Uke Blue 08:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mod Nom[edit]

Exactly what it says on the tin. Humorless fascistsociopath 23:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mod statement[edit]

I read your mod statement with interest. You do know that being a mod gives you no more or less authority to do what you stated you wanted to do right? If you want to build a content-creation club or list users by experience you can go right ahead and do that. Mods don't dictate content or how users interact with each other - they merely put out the fires (or create them in my case). I guess I am confused as to why you think you need to be a mod to do what you have stated. Acei9 21:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I need to be a mod to do those things. I'll try to do those things regardless of whether I am a mod or not. But if I am a mod, it is still what I would do. It is relevant to the mod election because as of right now, mods are not really seen as community leaders, but as traffic to this site becomes less trollish and more people looking for actual non-mockery-based community, I predict that the expectations for what a mod should do for this site will eventually change. Even if slowly. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 21:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
community leaders are community leaders. Mods are moderators. I am curious why one would morph into the other. which isn't to say that many of the mods aren't active community leaders, but the jobs/roles are and should be quite different. When all runs well, and is troll free, then mods are there to help settle content disputes, endless edit wars, etc. Help the rest of us when we are acting childish (as we all do) cause it's a "pet article" and we are being stubborn. hehGreen mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Moderators are in no way community leaders. Acei9 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Mod[edit]

You're a mod.--ADtalkModerator 03:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How the heck did THAT happen? I have been AFK the past week in India eating goat. Not that this is unwelcome. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 05:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Knight errant[edit]

Where are you? On a quest? SophieWilder 18:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Last I heard from her, she was on a quest to make her local Secular Students Alliance not suck. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that. Also, I'm in my final school semesters and I have had trouble focusing, so I've been lurking about these parts rather than piping up. What might you need, friend? :O ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 02:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, good to see you're still around Knight! --Revolverman (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Nothing specific, i just missed having you round. SophieWilder 17:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Aww, you guys are sweet. :) ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgoing galt: the literal crazy train 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Misandry article[edit]

Don't worry, I don't like him either. He seems to like to stick his nose everywhere.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know him well enough to make a judgement, but thank you for your consideration! It's nice to see you, too. I myself have somewhat of a long, omnipresent nose... ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 20:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Wait, what? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't met you before, I don't think, so it's nice to meet you. Unless I am being forgetful, and I did. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 20:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh Powder, don't tell me you don't remember why I hate you? It was such a special moment, like 3 weeks ago.
And while I have your attention, Knight, I'm sure you're busy, but I wanted to do some work expanding our articles on feminist topics and feminists. You seem like one of the people who might be able to help out. Interested?--Token Conservative (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
EC We have met, I used to be P-Foster/Theory of Practice. Always a pleasure to see you. I'm just trying to figure out what I did to piss the Token off. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
A! ToP! Sorry, I didn't recognize you with your new name! I am not sure why anybody is fighting on my userpage, but I would be delighted to write more on feminist topics! I noticed the Misandry article because it's a very common term in the blogosphere nowadays that for some reason redirected to a very narrow subculture term that didn't fit what most people meant by it. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 20:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
He's a butt. That's why.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Some people like butts. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

there is no such thing as actual sexism (which is systematic, unlike just general discrimination) against men[edit]

What complete fucking horseshit. Actual sexism? Please. I don't profess to have experienced any sexism towards me, as a man, nor do I think that men, in general, have any thing to be aggrieved of in comparison to the centuries of sexism woman have been subjected to however your comment is complete and utter crap. "Hey, that isn't sexism, that's just general discrimination."
Replace sexism with racism and see how far you get. Idiot. Acei9 08:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of people do replace sexism with racism there Ace. Do you remember the crazy maori academic lady who said that it was impossible for a maori to be racist towards a pakeha. Like literally impossible - "contradiction in terms" - impossible. She should have been laughed out of the house but some people lap it up. DamoHi 09:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Holy fuck on a sandwich why the fuck do you think you are entitled to write about sociology issues when it seems you are not only ignorant of the topic at hand, but you are fucking using the same arguments that MRAs use... on a page that slams MRAs for being ignorant pieces of horse shit. This is sort of like being a young-earth creationist and trying to write on the evolution pages! Please stay off of pages you know fuck-all about. I fucking explain it like eight times on the page itself, so it's also super obvious you didn't even read the page you fucking edited. SEXISM is a society thing. It is not a personal thing. Sexism is when the people in positions of power in society (in our society, white, male, cisgendered, straight, rich, but you do not need to be all of these things to qualify)use that power to SYSTEMATICALLY oppress another group that is NOT in power. DISCRIMINATION is when you deny somebody a thing because of some trait. A woman cannot be sexist against a man because SHE DOES NOT CONTROL THE SYSTEM OF POWER, you ignorant fuckstick. She can DISCRIMINATE against a man. But in order for her to be sexist against a man, she has to be able to have society backing her to repeatedly deny a man oppertunities in life. Society does not do that. This is probably why you are an ignorant fuckstick. Stay off pages you don't know shit about. You are not a genius on every topic and neither am I but at least I have actual study and the actual first hand experience of BEING A WOMAN to back me up to write about this. I think I've found the reason why more women don't come to RationalWiki and it's douchecanoes like you guys. Stay. Off. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRcritical thinking is the key to success! 17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems the matter has been sorted now so If you calm down I'll give you some ice cream. Acei9 20:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, can you keep the patronizing bullshit down to a dull roar? Thanks, asswipe. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 21:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
That's just fancy word play and semantics. Sure, if you define the word sexism so narrowly to mean that only men can be sexist then you can get away with saying that women can't be, but that is a bunch of baloney. DamoHi 22:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not me, doing some bait-and-switch charlatan semantics-shuffling. You are arguing with pretty much most contemporary sociology and you sound as stupid in your above comment as someone trying to say, 'if you define evolution to mean a series of mutations over successive generations, then you can get away with saying my Pokemon aren't evolving and that is a bunch of baloney!' It's just that you doesn't actually know anything about the field you are talking about so you have this idea in your head that your limited knowledge matters more than an entire discourse on the field. Just because someone else (or society in whole!) has provided a definition, or a memetic definition, doesn't mean that definition is reflective of what it actually is. Like, I wish I could explain to you more about this, but the solution is to go fucking take a course at your local community college. You are arguing something as stupid as 'why are there still monkeys?' You actually don't know what sexism is, please stop talking about it. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 23:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Contemporary sociology huh? Ah well, you may have a point there. I am not up to date on the latest reasonings of contemporary sociology. I did something useful at university. I don't accept your premise that the only definition that counts is the one you learnt at your contemporary sociology class. A definition that reflects how the word is used and accepted by virtually everyone else has as much, if not more credibility than your narrow one. At the end of the day we are arguing over semantics, which is no doubt what contemporary sociologists enjoy more than anything else. DamoHi 23:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that the definition you are using is one that is overwhelmingly defined by males in a male-dominated society. Imagine if you went up to a black person and called them a 'nigga.' Then you told them that because you don't hate black people, you aren't being racist. Would that work very well? Why do people think it's okay to be like, 'sexism is defined by hating a person because of their gender. I don't hate you, so I'm not sexist!' We are not a post-racial society, nor are we a post-sexism society. Not so many people actually hate people because of their gender. But many, many people behave in sexist ways every day. Why do you think that is? How can the definition that most of society uses be right, and that still be the case? Society is self-defending; it will use semantics as a way to preserve its old social mores so it doesn't have to change. Only when people knowingly and critically examine and question those mores and stand up to them does anything change.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 23:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument (sociology mocking aside, I had to take a paper or two on this sort of stuff to get through my PPE). It just has limited application in the real world outside of a narrow academic setting and I just don't really buy the conclusion you are selling.
Let me give you an example. A long time ago whilst at uni, myself and 4 other blokes went to apply for a lease at a flat. We were told, bluntly, by the owner that he 'doesn't lease to all male groups anymore because they tend to wreck the place' (no doubt a sage policy!). You would call that "discrimination on the basis of gender" or some such nicety, like a good sociology student. I think calling it sexism is fine, and like it or not, society does not use the narrow sectional definitions of sexism that you think it should. That's all. I'll bet you would agree with the Maori academic above who argued with a straight face that a Maori can't be racist towards a pakeha? Well I have to tell you that nobody outside of her department did. DamoHi 23:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that Maori academic was very marginalised because of that view. What Knight doesn't seem to understand is that no one is going to feel better about being treated in a discriminatory fashion simply because Knight cries that it is only discrimination and in no way constitutes racism or sexism. Unfortunately Knight's overly academic point of view doesn't translate to the real world like she wants it too. Acei9 23:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Why they fuck is a white, straight male who does not experience racism, sexism, or any sort of discrimination in any way whatsoever telling anybody what the 'real world' is? Shut up, Ace. You don't actually understand anything. You just think you do because in every other aspect of your life you have been coddled into thinking people care what you have to say. Let's tell the bisexual woman who experiences sexism and biphobia on a daily basis what the 'real world' actually contains. Shut up. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 00:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Now you are just being hysterical. You know I have actually done a bit sociology so I am not mansplaing you nitwit. I am arguing with your overly academic point of view. Get a grip. Acei9 00:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Be careful Ace. Calling someone hysterical constitutes 'actual sexism' due to the original connotation of the word.  :)DamoHi 00:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"Holy fuck on a sandwich why the fuck do you think you are entitled to write about sociology issues when it seems you are not only ignorant of the topic at hand, but you are fucking using the same arguments that MRAs use... on a page that slams MRAs for being ignorant pieces of horse shit. This is sort of like being a young-earth creationist and trying to write on the evolution pages! Please stay off of pages you know fuck-all about." - a feminist such as you writing about issues connected to feminism is only fair, right? So what if feminism is just an ideology, and an ideology promoted on sociology studies? In communist Poland you had only communist and socialist sociology, nothing more. You clearly show here that you're not impartial to the problem, you react emotionally and verbally abusive when confronted with merely another opinion, in fact you dismiss *any* dissident thought ("on a page that slams MRAs for being ignorant pieces of horse shit"). Can you even have a rational debate with somebody of differing opinion about this? I am inviting you to do so. - Azradun (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Feminism is an ideology, I suppose, and the idea is "women are people and need to stop being treated otherwise." The fact that you differ in opinion on this matter is very dangerous for me as a woman, and that prevents me from having any kind of rational discussion with you here because it is very difficult to change your mind about my rights and how I am treated if you do not believe I am a person and that my experience, the experience of over half the population, is legitimate. If you want to have a 'debate' with me over this, I would suggest contacting me through another channel, and not doing it here because I really don't want to clutter this talkpage up with the fact that I probably won't change your mind. It's not my personal responsibility to educate you. I can send you to some basic courses and points written for people just like you, I can send you to resources and education that you actually need in order to have any kind of 'debate' with me over it, in the same way that you're going to need basic education on evolution concepts if you want to debate if evolution happens in nature. What is going to happen is that you are going to try to debate it here, I am going to have to begin explaining the most basic of concepts that you probably aren't aware of, and this will go nowhere fast. But believe me, you aren't going to be the smug, intelligent, suave man that's going to swoop in and somehow be more important than my actual life experience, the actual studied data, my reality that will shape my future forever of being a queer woman. The reason why you will not change my mind on this is that my mind will be changed if you show me actual evidence that the sexes are equal. Which is about as likely as you showing me a fossil of a dinosaur doing the cha-cha slide in the same geological strata as an albertosaurus. I'm really sorry that you deny reality in this way, but it's not my duty to educate you here. You are probably not here to actually learn anything from me. I am not Feminism Kindergarten, but you would like, I could point you to Feminism Pre-K off-site. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 12:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
"Feminism is an ideology, I suppose, and the idea is "women are people and need to stop being treated otherwise." The fact that you differ in opinion on this matter is very dangerous for me as a woman, and that prevents me from having any kind of rational discussion with you here because it is very difficult to change your mind about my rights and how I am treated if you do not believe I am a person and that my experience, the experience of over half the population, is legitimate." - which didn't stop you before from explicitly liking half of human population to monsters (Misandry footnote). You also seem to think your ideology is total and any voice of disagreement is dangerous. Where did I hear that before? Probably somewhere in history. This is disturbing that people in XXI century can still hold such views. You know that any ideology differs from science in the way it is not falsifiable? Good luck with your invalid comparison to the evolution theory then. This wiki's name is 'Rational Wiki', and you think debating with people of opposing views are not needed? Interesting. - Azradun (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for you[edit]

Here, have a project, because it's 3am and this seems like a good idea.--Token Conservative (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

I apologise for all of that "creep" unpleasantness. In order to put that behind us, I would like I get I know you. How are you today? Got any plans (and by the way, I'm not creeping. I'm just trying to apologise, and start a friendly conversation). Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle 10:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Aw, there's no hard feelings. As serious business as the repeated problem of people feeling entitled to be creeps is, on the individual basis it's really not that bad; every person is gonna be a bit creepy when they mess up and learn actual social skills, a process that is made longer by neurodiversity in some people making social skills take longer to pick up. If anything, the problem is people who ought not to have problems and should have learned long ago, using people who actually have social anxiety as a crutch and 'getting away with it:' something as mindlessly offensive as believing "hey, SOME people need wheelchair ramps, so WHY DO I HAVE TO WALK EVERYWHERE?"
Don't feel too bad about it, you learned a thing and that's all. You're cool. I just feel bad about the people who use 'creep' shaming as a way to say "no! People shouldn't get offended at me! I am a special snowflake! Everyone should accept me regardless of how I act!" ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 11:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand what you're saying, and that dies really annoy me as well. Like you say, the worst part is when it's people who really have no reason to be like that, except for their own personal choices. And, at least in my experience, they tend to seem 10X creepier and sleazier than those who actually do have social issues. Nice getting to know you! Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle 10:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with my personal life, but…[edit]

I'm going to ask a girl out tomorrow. Unfortunately, I haven't done this since a crippling experience I had when I was fourteen, involving me being tricked, humiliated and mocked. Anyway, I have no idea how I should do this. I was originally just going to meet up with her and tell her exactly how I felt, something along the lines of "Maria, in the time we've known each other, I've come to really like you. Would you like to come to dinner with me, as a date?" (obviously, not put that simply, but you get the idea), but then I realised that I may make her feel uncomfortable, or upset, or manipulated or something. In order to avoid this, how should I ask her out, while showing my feelings and still not seeming "creepy"? How would you like to be asked out by somebody? If she says "Nope", how exactly should I react? I mean, I know not to go "oh, yeah, well you're just a lesbian slut cunt!!!!!1!!1!11!", but is there anything in particular that I could say except for "Oh. Okay"? Sorry, I'm just really nervous, and I don't want to fuck this up. Could you please help me? Yours sincerely Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll help however I can. A disclaimer, though: this is not a broad generalization of how 'girls' are. It's just some insights into how a lot of us have been socialized to react. Not all women will respond in the same way, or to the same degree, we are people. Be prepared to adapt, social interaction is hard and confusing and I'm bad at it sometimes myself.
Asking people out is not easy, not for anyone. So what I can do is explain what the various sources of pressure on her side might be- saying 'no' to men actually is very difficult for some girls because many of us have been conditioned that 1) men are dangerous to deny, and 2) the needs of others go before your own. So when you spring the question, be sure she's in a safe place: one that she can willingly leave and has the agency to leave if she has to (you are not a threat obviously, but other people can be!) so avoid asking her in a car, or at your own house. A public place like a coffee shop, or a restaurant (split the bill) is best. Remember; getting a no results in a letdown and sad feelings, but for many girls, saying no results in angry men or even assault. You wouldn't do this but it's a cultural pressure and bogeyman a lot of us are trained to fear.
If she says no, you don't have to break off contact. Remember, her friendship is intensely valuable; whether or not she has romantic feelings isn't the reason she hangs out with you. She's gonna be stressed after a negative response, probably, so don't push it and just try to make her comfortable. If you're doing some kind of activity (dinner, hanging out, etc.) return to that, try not to let the question linger in the air. Reacting is tough stuff. But it might be best with a smile and 'that's okay. Whatever's best for you.' and getting back to enjoying each other's company with no penalty or social punishment on her part. She'll know it's awkward for you too, and I promise she'll be sympathetic. How comfortable you are is probably on her mind a lot. It's on a lot of our minds a lot, sometimes before our own needs.
If she says yes, don't be surprised if she has to ease into the relationship slowly; changing from friendships to romantic relationships is a transition. And while this is not to say 'her no means yes' (never! never!! no is no!) a deep friendship is a very valuable investment and she may decide otherwise later, or she may not. My current girlfriend was my absolute best friend for five years before we decided 'hey, we're practically a couple, do you want to date?' It was very awkward. On the other hand, the person I was with before was a dude friend and invited me over to his house (a pressuring environment, I had no car and couldn't leave easily if I said no and he got mad) like normal to play Portal and then he asked the question while I was distracted (be sure you have her full attention, decisions are hard to make) and I said 'yes' because I was too afraid to say no to him and I didn't know if he'd quit the friendship if denied. It was fairly miserable; he tried to rush immediately into romance when he'd basically tricked me into being there in the first place. What a mess.
I wish you good luck on your romantic and platonic endeavors and a good day thereafter, however the outcome!±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlavishly loquacious 12:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much. We're meeting at a coffee shop, and I'll try to do all those things that you pointed out. If she says no, but still seems to like me, then, yeah, I won't cut off contact. Anyway, I'll let you know how it goes! Thanks again! Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, today was one of the shittiest days of my life. It started off pretty good. I woke up at 9:30, a perfect time for me. Then, I made myself some toast, which, for once, was perfectly cooked. Hell, they even had the finale of Battlestar was on TV (I don't care what anyone says, the finale was fuckin' awesome). "Yup," I thought to myself. "Today's gonna be a fine day."
So we meet up at her favourite coffee shop, and engage in social chit-chat, and all is well. Here's where it all starts to go wrong. So, the time comes, and I ask her out. You know what her response was? She fucking laughed, and said that she wouldn't date a "limp-dick freak" like me, even if I was "the last person alive". Then she walks off, leaving me to pay for her expensive-as-fuck coffee and cake.
So I get into my car (I had to drive because I recently moved into a house in the countryside that's, like, 45 minutes away from everything), and I'm driving my beautiful Jaguar S-Type (second hand, I'm not particularly wealthy), when it breaks down, leaving me with no fucking car, and having to wait for a fucking hour, in the fucking rain, for somebody to help me. Also, I have to pay $1300 to get it fixed. But it gets even shittier.
I get home, and I'm feeling grumpy and depressed. Then I get a phone call from my vet. I really don't want to talk to him, but I answer anyway, to find out that my beautiful cat Maya, who I've had since I was a kid, has lung cancer. I'm so close to just smashing my phone to pieces, but I don't. Politely, I thank the vet, and tell him that I'll talk later. And then, to top it all off, my power goes off for two hours. So, as you can tell, I'm not feeling particularly happy. Honestly, all I want to do right now is cry, fap, listen to heavy metal and sleep. So yeah, I apologise if I appear a bit nasty, bitter, sexist or just generally douche-y for a little while. Hope you had a better day than I did. Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

Nice to see you're back at RW, although I must admit I'm dismayed to find the first thing you do is tell me to fuck off. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a bit of a sore topic and a point I've seen a thousand times before-- but not as common if you aren't a person in a common position to see the background the term comes from. I'm still going to be a bit quiet around here, but some topics are a bit infuriating-- such as seeing people talk about a term invented by non-white people to describe their own problems as if it was imposed BY white people upon them. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 07:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Part of the reason I wrote that essay is because I've only ever heard white people use the phrase; I've honestly can't recall ever hearing a person of color identify as such. (Admittedly I don't live in the most diverse community, which may be a factor.) So it seemed to me like the phrase itself was a perfect example of what you accused me of doing: imposing a name on a group not my own. Which I do agree is bad.
But I'm also pretty sore because I've been involved in an argument with another user on here for a week or so and it's really pissing me off and making me feel like my contributions are unwanted around here. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, mate, but I don't exactly call people out to stroke their warm fuzzy feelings and help them feel appreciated when I clearly didn't actually appreciate a somewhat ignorant post. This is not the end of the world. You can survive slightly bruised feelings. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 07:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to extend a hand to you by sharing similar experiences. As in, we're both dealing with sore topics. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to argue about social justice...[edit]

... you might want to take that anger out on actual enemies of the movement, not uneducated allies like myself. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 01:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's bad advice. Taking anger out on something, that is. Especially when that anger formed due to reading something you disagree with and then you go take it out on something else you also don't agree with, but it still being a different issue. Nullahnung (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess you're right... It's just frustrating because I was arguing with people who thought privilege was a commie plot, and was wondering the whole time "where are all the lefties who supposedly populate the RW hive-mind?" It was just me and Armondikov trying to defend something that wasn't even controversial, but Smerdis kept making it seem like it was. And then Knight, paragon of social justice advocacy and a nice editor I hadn't seen in a while, shows up and out of nowhere tells me to fuck off, because I diverged from SJ orthodoxy on one minor point. And I'm like "Where were you? I needed you! And why are you yelling at me now? What did I do to you?" And then I get into the self-doubts again, and wonder why I'm still on this site at all, when all it does is make me argue with people and piss me off. You yourself said you don't use it as a resource. Are we honestly doing the world any good here? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 01:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Wehpudicabok, meet KnightOfTL;DR. You are wrong, she is right as proved by her USE OF CAPS and extolling you to FUCK OFF. Acei9 03:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
How about everybody just takes it down a notch? Knight, great to see you again. Stop being unnecessarily mean to a well intentioned editor. Ace, please don't add useless antagonistic comments to places that are not relevant to you. Wehpud, don't take it so personally- while it may have seemed like a personal attack, Knight was just trying to get across her own opinion in a manner that was, admittedly a bit harsh. Nosy guy who tries and fails at solving everybody else's problems, away! MESSIAH OF DOOM Impurity is the secret Dolan.png 10:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll post where I please. Good day sir. Acei9 20:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course. I'm just saying that all you are going to do is cause more fights and arguments, and not really add anything to the conversation. I'm not going to tell you to fuck off, I'm not going to get aggressive. That's just what's gonna happen, and I'm saying that I would personally suggest and prefer that you didn't do these things. MESSIAH OF DOOM Unite with thy oracle Dolan.png 09:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Zero fucks given. Acei9 12:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
*Sigh*. If you want to be that way, then I guess go ahead. MESSIAH OF DOOM What is this that stands before me? Dolan.png 12:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Why this is so disheartening to you will forever remain a mystery. Acei9 21:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't like it when people I like, or sort of like, fight with each other. But whatever, I guess I was being a bit of overreaction. MESSIAH OF DOOM The epitome of Gods and Men alike Dolan.png 11:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I love it when I don't even do anything and then Ace shows up to show that years later, his cock's still in an inebriated twist over me. As for MoD, I would like to point out that "but I'm an ally!" or "Save it for the actual bigots!" is one of those things that really isn't a defense against getting called out if you slip up. It doesn't matter if you consider yourself friendly or try to be nice about a group, if you mess up, it's still speech that contributes to violence against that group. Just like when moderate theists become upset that they are being unfairly targeted by atheists when they support gay marriage, are pro choice, don't support creationism in schools, etc-- you can be an ally to these movements but if you slip up (and everybody does, everybody) you're causing friendly fire-- and can be called out even by other allies who aren't partaking in such behavior. We don't tell people "You shouldn't yell at me because extremists exist!" in any other context, so being an ally doesn't really mean you're immune to the anger or ire or criticism of a group you say or publish violent speech about. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri18:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I generally try to run with "teachable moment" and "respectfully approach in a spirit of mutual help," rather than "anger or ire" and "calling out," but that's just me. TeenageWasteland (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
An inebriated twist? You seem to forget Knight it was you who started giving all this shit to me, out of nowhere, way back when. None of this conversation was directed to you and was actually directed at Wehpudicabok in the hope of advising his what sort of WEIRD FREAK you can be when CHALLENGED about your views. Acei9 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Look, I'm not saying that somebody's views aren't open to criticism just because they're an ally- all I'm saying is that it's not really as effective if you're going to be aggressive about it, especially when that person is a friend. As TeenageWasteland said, one could instead go for a friendly, yet thorough explanation, as opposed to Internet shouting match. Hell, even with obvious MRAs, I try to go for that! Consider, if you will, that you are new to doom metal, and you don't like Mournful Congregation, because you think that they have limited technical ability, and are boring. I however, enjoy them, as I believe that the atmosphere is more important in this type of music- but, since you are new, you wouldn't get what I was on about. If I was to tell you to fuck off, since you were obviously less educated than me, you would think of me as just an overly aggressive fanboy or something, and ignore what I said. However, if I was to explain it all to you calmly, you might think "oh, okay", check them out again, and maybe even like them! So, basically, while your criticism may have been valid (I don't really know much, or take a stance on the "PoC" issue, so I neither agree not disagree), the delivery was unnecessarily harsh, and probably took away from your overall message. All the best, MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM Within her hands are gifts for the damned Dolan.png 05:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Knight[edit]

Where are you? You were here for like two minutes, and now you're gone again! Anyway, what I really wanted to ask was your opinion on this band. If you don't like them you are fucking deaf I personally really like them, although they are, like doom metal, alcohol, coffee, and other prog bands, an acquired taste. Oh, and seeing them live is the best shit ever. But anyway, what are your thoughts? GØØBY PLS I am completeDolan.png 06:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and what do you think of this essay written mostly by my brother when he was 11? I think that it's actually amazing, but he'd be happy to hear any feedback! GØØBY PLS I am completeDolan.png 07:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fork over Knives edits[edit]

Sorry for not paying much attention. I just wanted to get the general idea across. However, I was, admittedly, a lazy, careless shit, and I apologise for failing to take that stuff into consideration. Sorry 'bout that. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 12:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's ok, friend. It can be difficult to try and be concise when this movie relies on concision and assumptions to sell itself. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 13:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

you[edit]

still have a great name :D --Mikal | lakiM 13:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

^o^ ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 13:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
So, are you here to stay now, or…? Brutal \m/ESSIAH 13:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I hope I can phase into being more active again. I have been more active on the facebook group for a while-- I'm walking graduation only in a few days and this summer I have one last internship to handle up for that dang degree to sail in by mail. I've had to pick and choose what things I could stress out over and unfortunately RW had to be put on the shelf for a while. With luck I'll be able to be more active around here again very soon. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 14:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, okay, that's cool. Hope it all goes well. Brutal \m/ESSIAH 14:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

stuff that happened with this other person[edit]

I read it. And I'm here to give you a hug. <3 ---Dgener8 (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Aw, thank you. :) ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 12:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


One might argue this is like a hug[edit]

noframe

Welcome to Project Social Justice, KnightOfTL;DR!
Oooooh! Check out your privilege!

You hereby pledge to sprinkle jimmies references onto SJ articles until they are rustling appropriate in both quality and quantity.

Here's a special one just for you: Person-first language!

·Femilisk 11:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)