"Mad at the Internet" - a/k/a My Psychotherapy Sessions

[Buffalo Chicken Sandwich]

Null I know you have been talking about your basil for making pesto and that sounds awesome, but the basil is the easy part of pesto. One of the only other ingredients is pine nuts and they are bonkers expensive and possibly hard to find in your shithole country. Last time I saw them in the store they were like 12 bucks a pound. Just a heads up.

 

[Lee Crabb]

Null I know you have been talking about your basil for making pesto and that sounds awesome, but the basil is the easy part of pesto. One of the only other ingredients is pine nuts and they are bonkers expensive and possibly hard to find in your shithole country. Last time I saw them in the store they were like 12 bucks a pound. Just a heads up.

It's not perfect, but you can swap out the pine nuts with walnuts.

 

[Disgruntled Pupper]

I'm late af but as an official Person Who Bothers Birds (& other wildlife) For A Living Including On Nests:

1) They're trying to nest for sure
2) It's a toss up of whether they'll bother your peppers or not. They likely won't bother the plant above the nest, they're using that for cover and won't do anything to draw attention to it (unless they're retarded which pigeons kinda are) but they're likely eyeing the surrounding plants as a food source
3) If you think the parents are annoying the chicks are going to be even worse
4) If they lay eggs and you want to move them you can. I would recommend getting another pot, putting the same kind and amount of dirt in it, recreating the nest scrape to the best of your ability, maybe consider getting a fake plant that resembles the pepper plant but if you can't find anything close don't bother. Wait until the parents are off the nest, which may take a awhile because both female and male pigeons will incubate, then just quickly transfer the eggs and whatever material they might use to the new pot and move it where you want. There's a slight chance they'll reject, but honestly most birds, especially city birds, don't give too much of a fuck and as long as it's not too far away will find the nest and still sit. Don't worry about smell from touching the eggs, pigeons aren't a species you have to worry about that with. Incubation takes 18-20 days from date of LAST EGG LAID and the young will stick around for roughly a month after that. You'll probably flush the young off the nest early if you go out to water, not much you can do about that, don't try to put them back in the pot just leave them alone and try not to scare them off your balcony.
5) If you leave them make sure to wash the peppers that come from that plant very well. Pigeons don't carry away feces like other birds so it's going to get messy by the end.
6) Enjoy being a bird parent, they hate you and if you look deeply into their eyes you can see that they still remember when they were dinosaurs and long to return to the day when they ate our ancestors

If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer.

Edit: The more I think about it the more I learn towards either scaring them off now or moving the eggs if they lay. I don't know how you would water that plant otherwise. They're pigeons, if they don't breed for this year it's not the end of the world and honestly it's so late this is likely their 2nd or 3rd nest anyways lol.

 

[TyrasGuard]

After watching the latest MATI stream i have to wonder why Null keeps the farms alive at all. Don't get me wrong, i love laughing at retards and it's something i've probably done a lot in my life but it seems that Jersh has gone through a lot just to keep this site up. Personally i would've done as you said on the stream, find a nice place in the woods and stay on the edge of society away from the cities, hopefully you won't have to gun down government people coming to your door to ask if you got your 7th booster shot of the CoVid-29 vaccine.

I know he also said "you shouldn't give up even if you lost because you might as well kill yourself then" but at the same time, when i see convicted sex offenders putting up a YouTube video about how they are going to WOLOLO my kids, whatever battle we seem to think to be fighting has probably already been lost. That's why i think people say "accelerate" in the same manner than a man who is about to get executed just wants it to be over and done with or maybe in the manner that people just wants the flames to grow bigger for entertainment purposes.

All that's going to be left is laughing at the retards who pushed for all of this to happen and then getting surprised that the world has become a degenerate shithole.

 

[AnOminous]

Null I know you have been talking about your basil for making pesto and that sounds awesome, but the basil is the easy part of pesto. One of the only other ingredients is pine nuts and they are bonkers expensive and possibly hard to find in your shithole country. Last time I saw them in the store they were like 12 bucks a pound. Just a heads up.

Another note about pine nuts. Not only are they insanely expensive (and they are expensive even in normal countries), but they go rancid really quickly. If you do blow $100 or so (which is entirely likely if you are planning pesto making), just on pine nuts, portion them out and freeze them IMMEDIATELY. They last a pretty long time frozen and it doesn't harm them much.

They will go rancid in two weeks, though. It's ridiculous.

The other super expensive ingredient for basil pesto is the Parmigiano Reggiano. The good thing about that is it will literally be good, and possibly even get better, over the course of one or two years. So when you blow a couple hundred bucks on really high quality cheese like this, you don't really need to worry about it going bad. You just have to wonder how it goes better.

 

[Big Mommy]

@Big Mommy June 25th got flagged for hatespeech. You might want to scan it and remove whatever I said that's too retarded.

June 25th stream on archive just got a hatespeech strike too, don't know why it was delayed - did they manually review the video after people flagged it, or does it scan for subtitles and match that to hate speech, or is it the description, or the song "Dixie's Land"? Maybe direct intervention from Caves of Qud troons, if they are willing to dox the family of someone who promotes their game I am sure they would do this.

I'll appeal it but not hopeful. Think this means I won't be able to upload or post on the Archive until July 19th.

 

[R00T]

I find it surprising that YouTube will give the strike but not provide information on what it was for? How am I ever to end my hateful ways if you don’t tell me what is evil?

 

[Null]

I find it surprising that YouTube will give the strike but not provide information on what it was for? How am I ever to end my hateful ways if you don’t tell me what is evil?

When they just shoot you in the fucking head

 

[Jones McCann]

I know he also said "you shouldn't give up even if you lost because you might as well kill yourself then" but at the same time, when i see convicted sex offenders putting up a YouTube video about how they are going to WOLOLO my kids, whatever battle we seem to think to be fighting has probably already been lost. That's why i think people say "accelerate" in the same manner than a man who is about to get executed just wants it to be over and done with or maybe in the manner that people just wants the flames to grow bigger for entertainment purposes.

You shouldn't give into fatalism especially when it comes to the big things. The fact is that there are more good people than shit people and that's always going to be the case. While that's true we will have the chance someday to remake the image of man into something that worth preserving, and we'll need people who aren't demons to do that. We must instead focus on the root cause of the fall of mankind which is clear: the Industrial Revolution has radically altered man's environment and way of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been. If you're really worried about the future of the Internet, as am I, you must realize that the Internet as it exists today (the wild west) was always going to to be temporary in the same way that liberalism of the 19th century was only a transitory state that now exists only in words and symbols. The Internet as it exists does not work well with the "borgeious" concept of freedom that exists in modern society and is a great pressure point to modern conditioning (television, radio and especially pedagogics) that all people receive throughout their lives.

There isn't anything quite like the Internet, so I'll use automobiles as analogy. Automobiles did for individuals on the physical plane what the Internet did on the intellectual. At the beginning they were optional but overtime the barrier to entry became lower and it become mandatory to own a car because society was organized around individuals owning vehicles. They varied greatly in the past but eventually became uniform. They allowed for the expansion of the police force. They greatly expanded the range of transport for individuals. They were extremely physically dangerous, and as such required a great amount of regulation for relative safety. They were once produced by wide variety of businesses but eventually became concentrated into a few due to neccesity.

 

[Revo]

You shouldn't give into fatalism especially when it comes to the big things. The fact is that there are more good people than shit people and that's always going to be the case. While that's true we will have the chance someday to remake the image of man into something that worth preserving, and we'll need people who aren't demons to do that. We must instead focus on the root cause of the fall of mankind which is clear: the Industrial Revolution has radically altered man's environment and way of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been. If you're really worried about the future of the Internet, as am I, you must realize that the Internet as it exists today (the wild west) was always going to to be temporary in the same way that liberalism of the 19th century was only a transitory state that now exists only in words and symbols. The Internet as it exists does not work well with the "borgeious" concept of freedom that exists in modern society and is a great pressure point to modern conditioning (television, radio and especially pedagogics) that all people receive throughout their lives.

There isn't anything quite like the Internet, so I'll use automobiles as analogy. Automobiles did for individuals on the physical plane what the Internet did on the intellectual. At the beginning they were optional but overtime the barrier to entry became lower and it become mandatory to own a car because society was organized around individuals owning vehicles. They varied greatly in the past but eventually became uniform. They allowed for the expansion of the police force. They greatly expanded the range of transport for individuals. They were extremely physically dangerous, and as such required a great amount of regulation for relative safety. They were once produced by wide variety of businesses but eventually became concentrated into a few due to neccesity.

TLDR ?

 

[R00T]

TLDR ?

Don’t give up and the internet is a car and google is General Motors.

 

[Bloitzhole]

I feel like at some point Brennan will need a person stream - he seems to have gone so far off the deep end that I'm frankly surprised he doesn't have a thread and big ass OP.

Null seems like the best worst person (if that makes sense) to do a full, balanced and fair video/podcast treatment of Fredrick's strange life.

Edit: There is a thread now

 

[RuneWarrior]

View attachment 2337009
View attachment 2337010
View attachment 2337013

I hope null talks about Niggers next stream.

I saw more tweets of people bitching about racism then actual racist tweets that day

 

[Iron Hamster]

I find it surprising that YouTube will give the strike but not provide information on what it was for? How am I ever to end my hateful ways if you don’t tell me what is evil?

It is the ultimate cowardly douche move.

 

[Anne Hyroe]

Has Dana Marie Cain done enough for a person stream? She’s on a manic streak of recording vids and commenting in her thread. Her latest video is entitled ‘kiwifarms’ and alleges that you’re secretly ‘sweet’ on her, that you don’t run the site any more but are being forced to cooperate and that your mum is stalking her (amongst a lot else). Her sons participate in the thread and she is hideous towards them and their ‘dumpy’ partners.

 

[Snuckening]

Isn't there meant to be a stream happening, right now? Is there a MATI schedule posted someplace?

 

[I (Don't) Have A Gun]

Isn't there meant to be a stream happening, right now? Is there a MATI schedule posted someplace?

I believe it's usually on Fridays, but exceptions are occasionally made such as the Shoe stream or Jim Sterling dropping below 900k,
Null usually gives some updates over on https://kiwifarms.cc/users/josh (but it seems he's just trying to be humble silver merchant right now)

 

[Never Scored]

@Null I just listened to the last MATI and I really loved your rant about leaving shitholes like LA and living in the middle of no where. I was born in the middle of no where, spent my whole life in the middle on no where up to this point and I'll probably die in the middle of no where. You are correct, it is great. Though I've never lived anywhere near a city with more than 100,000 people so I have no real point of reference. Still though, the crazy shit happening in the world is always far far away.

 

[Wodanaz]

Rewatching old streams and I came across this. @Null Now that you're coming back to America and returning to tradition, PLEASE make sure to acquire the gun imbued with magical properties that Barb once wielded with such hatred and contempt. I beg of you.

On the topic of Wikipedia, I just saw this:

Obviously I was reminded of Null's homework assignment, so I decided to poke around on the Kiwi Farms | A | article for funsies.
The following sentence is located in the first paragraph of the article:

"Harassment stemming from Kiwi Farms has been implicated in the suicides of three people targeted by users of the site.[3][4][5][6]"

Okay, let's check out the citations. This Kiwi Farms place sounds pretty bad.
Citation 4 links to this article. Much of it is the same retarded shit about Byuu that we've all seen by now, but to be able to put the above statement on Wikipedia, you need to satisfy the policies of Verifiability, not truth | A |, No original research | A |, and Neutral point of view | A |. Most probably, nobody here really needs the ridiculousness of these policies to be enumerated by me, but I'm going to do it anyway.

"Verifiability, not truth" essentially means "fuck you". It means that you cannot add something to Wikipedia (eventually Kikepedia) unless a True and Honest verified checkmark has published an article about it already. Which inevitably begs the question of what to do when the source article in question is changed or deleted, but hey, I'm not an administrator of Wikipedia, so that's not my problem. For further reading, consider the Reliable sources section of the Verifiability policy. Of particular note is the statement, "Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people".

"No original research" essentially means "fuck you 2: electric boogaloo". This is best summarized in the second sentence of the policy:
"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a]"
Reliable, published sources links back to the previous policy. I love circular logic. Also, the footnote at the end there is funny too:
"By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."
Just lol.

"Neutral point of view" essentially means "pretend to be unbiased (so that you can fleece donations from unwitting or uncaring retards because it makes them feel like they're on the right side of history)".
"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

We have now established the criteria for adding encyclopedic information to Wikipedia. It must be verified by a reliable source, which means that obviously, you cannot have personally done the research - which makes you wonder why there is a separate policy for that - and it must also be written from a neutral point of view which represents fairly and without editorial bias all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. So, how does the aforementioned reliable source for the original statement hold up?
It was written by a woman named (((Shoshana))) Wodinsky. Other than her ancestry, she is not notable and her article is riddled with biased bullshit specifically tailored to push an agenda. Without a doubt, it does not satisfy any of the Wikipedia policies, except perhaps the verified checkmark one. (((Shoshana))) does absolutely no legwork to inform herself on any of the suspicious aspects of the Byuu situation. She just presents them as true without any other commentary. In fact, the last two paragraphs are utterly biased and just plain wrong.

"Because this is Kiwi Farms we’re talking about, the site’s operators chose to see the situation differently. During its downtime, the site splashed a lengthy rebuttal to the anonymous letter and Near’s thread on its landing page, saying that “no evidence” of any harassment towards this person exists. But again, this is Kiwi Farms, a site whose toxic community very publicly drove Portland-based game developer Chloe Sagal to kill herself back in 2018. In 2016, a Canadian woman, Julie Terryberry, ended her life after being targeted by the site. So, yeah. If Near, and Near’s close friends and confidants say that the harassment on Kiwi Farms is what ultimately drove them over the edge, it’s worth assuming they’re telling the truth."
"While Kiwi Farms seems to have come back online by Tuesday afternoon, the site’s homepage notes that “service will continue to be disrupted,” until the site’s operators “can contact other providers and arrange a fix.” Hopefully that fix won’t be coming for a while."

Other than the blatant bias displayed here as a so called reliable source, it also cites two other supporting articles which are both somehow even worse than (((Shoshana's))). I don't really feel the need to recap Chloe Sagal or Julie Terryberry - you can just look up their threads on the forum - but, although the first article about Julie was published in The Daily Dot, the second one, about Chloe, was published by none other than Sam Ambreen. Even if you know nothing about Sam Ambreen, anyone can tell that this is clearly a personal blog ran by an insane woman.

So, to recap, someone edits the Wikipedia entry for the Kiwi Farms and they cite a Gizmodo article, which itself cites a personal blog, which is, no matter how you look at it, "original research" by Wikipedia's definition, and not a reliable source.
It turns out you were wrong, Null. You actually can edit Wikipedia without a verified, reliable source. You just have to be on the right side of history.

I could go on, especially about the longest serving female Wikipedia administrator (this may be wrong, I saw it on Reddit, but she has been on Wikipedia for nearly 15 years), and how she has taken an inordinate interest in the Kiwi Farms article:

And about how she tweets out | A | such fascinating takes, while allowing literally the exact same thing that she is scrutinizing to occur on a Wikipedia article about a website that she probably doesn't like, if her user page is anything to judge by:

But I will spare you and consider my autism satisfied, for now.
I am so sorry that you ever gave them even a single cent of your Whataburger paycheck, Null.

 

[Least Concern]

Rewatching old streams and I came across this. @Null Now that you're coming back to America and returning to tradition, PLEASE make sure to acquire the gun imbued with magical properties that Barb once wielded with such hatred and contempt. I beg of you.

On the topic of Wikipedia, I just saw this:

View attachment 2345632

Obviously I was reminded of Null's homework assignment, so I decided to poke around on the Kiwi Farms | A | article for funsies.
The following sentence is located in the first paragraph of the article:

"Harassment stemming from Kiwi Farms has been implicated in the suicides of three people targeted by users of the site.[3][4][5][6]"

Okay, let's check out the citations. This Kiwi Farms place sounds pretty bad.
Citation 4 links to this article. Much of it is the same retarded shit about Byuu that we've all seen by now, but to be able to put the above statement on Wikipedia, you need to satisfy the policies of Verifiability, not truth | A |, No original research | A |, and Neutral point of view | A |. Most probably, nobody here really needs the ridiculousness of these policies to be enumerated by me, but I'm going to do it anyway.

"Verifiability, not truth" essentially means "fuck you". It means that you cannot add something to Wikipedia (eventually Kikepedia) unless a True and Honest verified checkmark has published an article about it already. Which inevitably begs the question of what to do when the source article in question is changed or deleted, but hey, I'm not an administrator of Wikipedia, so that's not my problem. For further reading, consider the Reliable sources section of the Verifiability policy. Of particular note is the statement, "Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people".

"No original research" essentially means "fuck you 2: electric boogaloo". This is best summarized in the second sentence of the policy:
"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a]"
Reliable, published sources links back to the previous policy. I love circular logic. Also, the footnote at the end there is funny too:
"By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."
Just lol.

"Neutral point of view" essentially means "pretend to be unbiased (so that you can fleece donations from unwitting or uncaring retards because it makes them feel like they're on the right side of history)".
"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

We have now established the criteria for adding encyclopedic information to Wikipedia. It must be verified by a reliable source, which means that obviously, you cannot have personally done the research - which makes you wonder why there is a separate policy for that - and it must also be written from a neutral point of view which represents fairly and without editorial bias all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. So, how does the aforementioned reliable source for the original statement hold up?
It was written by a woman named (((Shoshana))) Wodinsky. Other than her ancestry, she is not notable and her article is riddled with biased bullshit specifically tailored to push an agenda. Without a doubt, it does not satisfy any of the Wikipedia policies, except perhaps the verified checkmark one. (((Shoshana))) does absolutely no legwork to inform herself on any of the suspicious aspects of the Byuu situation. She just presents them as true without any other commentary. In fact, the last two paragraphs are utterly biased and just plain wrong.

"Because this is Kiwi Farms we’re talking about, the site’s operators chose to see the situation differently. During its downtime, the site splashed a lengthy rebuttal to the anonymous letter and Near’s thread on its landing page, saying that “no evidence” of any harassment towards this person exists. But again, this is Kiwi Farms, a site whose toxic community very publicly drove Portland-based game developer Chloe Sagal to kill herself back in 2018. In 2016, a Canadian woman, Julie Terryberry, ended her life after being targeted by the site. So, yeah. If Near, and Near’s close friends and confidants say that the harassment on Kiwi Farms is what ultimately drove them over the edge, it’s worth assuming they’re telling the truth."
"While Kiwi Farms seems to have come back online by Tuesday afternoon, the site’s homepage notes that “service will continue to be disrupted,” until the site’s operators “can contact other providers and arrange a fix.” Hopefully that fix won’t be coming for a while."

Other than the blatant bias displayed here as a so called reliable source, it also cites two other supporting articles which are both somehow even worse than (((Shoshana's))). I don't really feel the need to recap Chloe Sagal or Julie Terryberry - you can just look up their threads on the forum - but, although the first article about Julie was published in The Daily Dot, the second one, about Chloe, was published by none other than Sam Ambreen. Even if you know nothing about Sam Ambreen, anyone can tell that this is clearly a personal blog ran by an insane woman.

So, to recap, someone edits the Wikipedia entry for the Kiwi Farms and they cite a Gizmodo article, which itself cites a personal blog, which is, no matter how you look at it, "original research" by Wikipedia's definition, and not a reliable source.
It turns out you were wrong, Null. You actually can edit Wikipedia without a verified, reliable source. You just have to be on the right side of history.

I could go on, especially about the longest serving female Wikipedia administrator (this may be wrong, I saw it on Reddit, but she has been on Wikipedia for nearly 15 years), and how she has taken an inordinate interest in the Kiwi Farms article:

View attachment 2346853

And about how she tweets out | A | such fascinating takes, while allowing literally the exact same thing that she is scrutinizing to occur on a Wikipedia article about a website that she probably doesn't like, if her user page is anything to judge by:

View attachment 2346874

But I will spare you and consider my autism satisfied, for now.
I am so sorry that you ever gave them even a single cent of your Whataburger paycheck, Null.

Join me, fellow OG GamerGaters, as we witness yet another babby's first realization of how the Wikipedia sausage is made; realizing what we've known since 2014 and then posting it as if it's the first time anybody has figured it out.

It's too bad, really. Wikipedia is a great idea with great intentions. But there needed to be firm rules about things like notability and truth from the start, well before the co-opting with nonsense could start. It's too late for Wikipedia, but it's also too big for a competitor to take it over.

There's still a good deal of value in it, but you just have to remember that it is yet another ideological press outlet at the end of the day.

And for fuck's sake, never donate.