- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Infected RationalWiki - Whiny hugbox for spergs and a clusterfuck of neverending drama on a rapidly declining website.
- Thread starter chimpburgers
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php...en_coop&curid=2919&diff=1762717&oldid=1762715
There we go, he was calling a pedophile a pedophile.
There we go, he was calling a pedophile a pedophile.
Last edited:
The diff history is a massive minefield of struck out revisions.
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Saloon_bar&curid=77683&action=history
And I know Gerard loves white knighting for the pedophile and all, but holy shit, he's not even trying to hide his naked contempt for evidence even Nyberg themselves won't deny.
Hamburglar
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2016
RW has already been sued for libel a few times, hasn't it? What do they do about people who actually get them sued vs this trumped up ideological retaliation against a user who routinely humilated loud dummies like Icanreed and Revernd Black Percy and held a mirror up to the site's flaws?
It really is too bad that the site gave up on the mission and is such a free for all for despicable petty tyrants. What TK used to say back in 2008 became true: RW is now nothing but a troll site.
It really is too bad that the site gave up on the mission and is such a free for all for despicable petty tyrants. What TK used to say back in 2008 became true: RW is now nothing but a troll site.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
Reminder that this is about self-admitted pedophile Nicholas 'Sarah' Nyberg.
They are still fighting over whether their official Twitter account should be David Gerard's sockpuppet or if it should actually tweet about RW articles.
David Gerard is just screeching at FuzzyCuck and telling everyone to fuck off for questioning why their official Twitter account is being run as David's secondary Twitter.
They are also telling David that they need SSL but he's bitching about it and dragging his feet to avoid doing it, and apparently it was something RW was supposed to have done three years ago.
They are still fighting over whether their official Twitter account should be David Gerard's sockpuppet or if it should actually tweet about RW articles.
David Gerard is just screeching at FuzzyCuck and telling everyone to fuck off for questioning why their official Twitter account is being run as David's secondary Twitter.
They are also telling David that they need SSL but he's bitching about it and dragging his feet to avoid doing it, and apparently it was something RW was supposed to have done three years ago.
Last edited:
Fnord
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2016
Wall of Text Incoming. And juicy sources.
It's widely known that RationalWiki editors are the thinking elite of the internet. It should be accepted uncritically when their leading board members assert their whole site is in danger and could be taken away from them, because of alleged defamation in a talk page argument. In Reverend Percy Black's words:“This is why the board bans people very rarely — only when their actions threaten to take away the entire site from all of us.” Do they themselves really believe this? The RationalWiki is however, completely cool with “not-defamation” in main article space such as this (as seen on RationalWiki then)
The explanation of what PZ Myers meant was provided by one Stephanie Zvan, then a co-blogger at Freethought Blogs.
In other words, coverup and protecting the reputation of someone who is a rapist (etc) is providing a haven for rapists in their own words – the very accusation the RationalWiki has levelled against other people. And that's not defamatory, according to them, since it was hosted in article space. With that baseline established, how about this:
Case 1: Meet Ogvorbis. He's a regular on Freethought Blogs, and of the same community to which also David Gerard (Ruler of the RationalWiki), and Stephanie Zvan belonged. Well, one day, Ogvorbis opened up. Warning, it gets very dark. He wrote:
As you see downthread, the community reacted with circling the wagons (in their words). If you can't wrap your mind around it, you are not alone. But to sum this small part up: PZ Myers and the RationalWiki did accuse other people of things they didn't do, but of which the accusers are themselves guilty of. Here's Myers defending the child rapist. The community knew exactly what they were defending, since why else would they want to circle the wagons around their in-house child-rapist? Also, later you can see some serious cult behaviour (downthread), when that issue came up again. Elyse Anders, whose story got the thread started comments on this creepy behaviour:
Even the reality-challenged can read Elyse comments and get an idea what might be wrong. So, it was clear from the beginning that this was not cool. They've tried to twist and turn it around and yet have shown their true colours: Quick to accuse others based on nothing, and yet engaged in such behaviours themselves, including total apologia for a child rapist (btw, nobody cares about this poor individual, we only have his story, which may or may not be true, but we see plainly how people react to it).
Likewise, David Gerard is providing a haven for rapists and pedophiles, according to Stephanie Zvan et al, i.e. his very own team. But keep in mind this is only an issue because David Gerard, PZ Myers etc have loaded that gun, have pointed that gun at other people, in article space, and now that same gun is blowing into their own face.
Making it worse, when their sheer mind-boggling hypocrisy is pointed out, David Gerard and his bootlickers of a board, including the Fuzzy here, have – sweet irony – done it again. Providing a haven for a child rapist and a pedophile, according to the very accusation they hosted for so long.
Case 2: Sarah Nyberg is familiar to you. Even in simplest terms, Nyberg stated “To say the contents of those logs were not flattering would be putting it lightly.” the very logs as discussed by Leo Pirate, here. Case closed. Why does David Gerard retweet this individual with the official Twitter account, and makes excuses for Nyberg, again?
Now onto defamation.
Keep in mind that there is not even a need to retweet or endorse pedophiles and rapists. They do this, because they are buddies or the same community, especially David Gerard. Hence, the "circling the wagons" simply continues there.
It's widely known that RationalWiki editors are the thinking elite of the internet. It should be accepted uncritically when their leading board members assert their whole site is in danger and could be taken away from them, because of alleged defamation in a talk page argument. In Reverend Percy Black's words:“This is why the board bans people very rarely — only when their actions threaten to take away the entire site from all of us.” Do they themselves really believe this? The RationalWiki is however, completely cool with “not-defamation” in main article space such as this (as seen on RationalWiki then)
It’s not about what he thinks, but what he’s doing: defending & providing a haven for harassers, misogynists, and rapists. – PZ Myers
The explanation of what PZ Myers meant was provided by one Stephanie Zvan, then a co-blogger at Freethought Blogs.
To sum all this up, if your policies or common practices protect rapists from prosecution, administrative sanction, or damage to their reputations, you’re providing a haven for rapists. You’re creating a space in which they are safe. If you don’t want this pointed out, you might want to reconsider those policies and practices.
In other words, coverup and protecting the reputation of someone who is a rapist (etc) is providing a haven for rapists in their own words – the very accusation the RationalWiki has levelled against other people. And that's not defamatory, according to them, since it was hosted in article space. With that baseline established, how about this:
Case 1: Meet Ogvorbis. He's a regular on Freethought Blogs, and of the same community to which also David Gerard (Ruler of the RationalWiki), and Stephanie Zvan belonged. Well, one day, Ogvorbis opened up. Warning, it gets very dark. He wrote:
The last year that I lived out west, I [12yo] was offered a summer job babysitting two girls (aged about 4 and 7 (?)). [...] One day, he asked if I could watch a third girl who was 6 years old. I said, sure. There was extra money involved. [...] I was invited to jointhe sex play. [...] But I didn’t stop before raping three young girls (all were, give or take, the same age as ‘S’, the girl I was forced to abuse while a scout). I was older. The age difference was even greater. I knew it was wrong even as I joined in and I still did because it may be wrong but its what I was used to.
As you see downthread, the community reacted with circling the wagons (in their words). If you can't wrap your mind around it, you are not alone. But to sum this small part up: PZ Myers and the RationalWiki did accuse other people of things they didn't do, but of which the accusers are themselves guilty of. Here's Myers defending the child rapist. The community knew exactly what they were defending, since why else would they want to circle the wagons around their in-house child-rapist? Also, later you can see some serious cult behaviour (downthread), when that issue came up again. Elyse Anders, whose story got the thread started comments on this creepy behaviour:
But I cannot read through it. Now that there are stories of abusers asking victims to tell them it’s okay. Now that the thread has comments telling child abusers that they would let them watch their own kids.
Even the reality-challenged can read Elyse comments and get an idea what might be wrong. So, it was clear from the beginning that this was not cool. They've tried to twist and turn it around and yet have shown their true colours: Quick to accuse others based on nothing, and yet engaged in such behaviours themselves, including total apologia for a child rapist (btw, nobody cares about this poor individual, we only have his story, which may or may not be true, but we see plainly how people react to it).
Likewise, David Gerard is providing a haven for rapists and pedophiles, according to Stephanie Zvan et al, i.e. his very own team. But keep in mind this is only an issue because David Gerard, PZ Myers etc have loaded that gun, have pointed that gun at other people, in article space, and now that same gun is blowing into their own face.
Making it worse, when their sheer mind-boggling hypocrisy is pointed out, David Gerard and his bootlickers of a board, including the Fuzzy here, have – sweet irony – done it again. Providing a haven for a child rapist and a pedophile, according to the very accusation they hosted for so long.
Case 2: Sarah Nyberg is familiar to you. Even in simplest terms, Nyberg stated “To say the contents of those logs were not flattering would be putting it lightly.” the very logs as discussed by Leo Pirate, here. Case closed. Why does David Gerard retweet this individual with the official Twitter account, and makes excuses for Nyberg, again?
Now onto defamation.
- First. According to the RationalWiki Standard it's not defamation to make the accusation in article space (by them). Why is it defamation when hypocrisy is pointed out in talk space? Of course, that's ridiculous. Article space is far more serious than talk page, and using their own "argument" and playing it back to them is not defamation.
- Second. Who could be taking away the site, or even sue? PZ Myers? A buddy of David Gerard, because it was pointed out he and his community make up excuses for a confessed child rapist, he still proudly hosts on his own blog? Or Sarah Nyberg? Another buddy of David Gerard (who runs the official twitter account), because it was pointed out that Nyberg is a confessed pedophile? Would David Gerard's buddies even want to cause trouble to their friend? Perhaps the board is afraid David Gerard takes home his toy and they can't have it anymore, since he runs and owns the site effectively?
- Third. Defamation nearly doesn't exist in the USA, and especially not when the allegations are entirely true. The core are confessions, which Nyberg and the regular at Freethought Blogs provided themselves. PZ Myers also posted his thing freely and openly. And everything is hosted as primary sources by them. How can you trust RationalWikians on anything when they are obviously incapable to see even verbatim quotes, primary source, of the people themselves? By definition, it is not defamatory to point at things people themselves confess or write.
Keep in mind that there is not even a need to retweet or endorse pedophiles and rapists. They do this, because they are buddies or the same community, especially David Gerard. Hence, the "circling the wagons" simply continues there.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Also, the pedophile Nicholas Nyberg not only didn't deny any of the substantive factual allegations in Milo's article, but actually flat out admitted they were true but tried to spin them with the ineffably lame "edgelord" defense.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
It's appalling how many of these fuck ups lead directly to David Gerard. Would the RationalWiki userbase support pedophiles? Probably not all of them, but David does so they all must.
It's NeoGAF in wiki format, only it's tyrant is a fedoralord.
Fnord
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2016
The mystery is why anyone would support such an individual, and over covering for a fucking pedophile and a child rapist? They're not exactly gaining popularity points, are they? The corner they're in is a tiny pond and it makes the rounds. How can allegely intelligent people be this dumb? On top of that, they're the fucking rationalwiki — filled to the brim with the dirty laundry of individuals they dislike. That's going to look great on the CV to document minor YouTuber's every harebrained idea, yet cover-up and apologize for pedophiles, and child rapists when they even confess it themselves.
H
HG 400
Guest
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
H
HG 400
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Nigga have you ever met a twelve year old? You can talk them into anything. Give me a dab of tiktik and three hours with one and I can put a .38 in his tiny little palm and talk him into walking up and outright shooting you because it's the only way he'll ever ride eternal in Valhalla, shiny and chrome.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2015
He started when he was twelve and then molested multiple toddlers over a period of several years.
H
HG 400
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Okay that's fucked up and now I have no sympathy for him or anyone defending him.
Fnord
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2016
I don't know where you got this from, but that's not apparent from any source known to me. Can you back up your assertion?
Yes, as I posted above. His victims were 6, 7, and a toddler and as I posted above, nobody knows whether his story is true, half-true, made-up, exaggerated, misjuged, false memory or any such things. However, this isn't about him, but about how PZ Myers and a community reacted immediately, and ever since. You might think about it whatever you want, yet there is no reason whatsoever to shower someone with sympathy just after such a confession. They could show concern for the victims too. They could be carefully critical. Ignore it away. Disapprove mildly (if they really have to be nice). But sympathy and telling him directly after such a confession they'd let him watch their kids, too? SRLSY.
And this is a standard that should work for normal people. These aren't even normal people. They are the morally superior elite. They are some of the most extreme and vicious Social Justice Warriors you could find, who would skin someone alive and then kick them into a salt mine for mildly controversial opinions which they also interpreted in most uncharitable ways. Same for PZ Myers, a guy who is outraged over a misunderstood tweet by Richard Dawkins. To top it off, his apologia is factually false (also his claim he was never accused of sexual harassment, he himself posted it, and it was apparently a false accusation he nibbed in the bud -- also a doublestandard if you consider their on rules for such situations).
But in this Oggy story, not only does Myers -- again! -- use a false story to smear his opponents, he manages to double it, as he distracts from his own dubious character. If you look into these invidiuals, you find this motif very often. They accuse other people falsely for things they didn't do, yet at once conceal they are themselves "guilty" of this same thing (which is often oddly specific, such as "providing a haven for a rapist"). It such bizarre that I suspect they are mentally challenged in some way. A condition exists called proection, but it's far too mild for what you'll see.
Story Two: Myers provided a blurb for his friend and co blogger Greta Christina's porn book "Bending". The official Amazon description reads:
These are not nice stories. They're filthy. They're fearless. Some are even funny. Greta Christina's erotic stories are written to get you hard and wet―and to change the ways you think about sex. Be forewarned―stuff happens here that's borderline consensual. Or not at all consensual. These are dirty, kinky stories about shame, about pain, helplessness and danger, reckless behavior and bad, bad ideas.
In other words, this book contains rape fantasies. Fine, if that's their cup of tea. But at once the same people promote Anita Sarkeesian who is concerned about how media promotes "Rape Culture" and other such problematic ideas. Myers always at the forefront, and also complaining about critics of Sarkeesian. Myers is also the guy how promoted and shared japanese tentacle rape porn (I'm not kidding) on his blog. These are people who are outraged over "rape jokes", except the rape jokes Myers made, caught in a YouTube hangout. Again, their (double) standards! I cannot describe just how bizarre this is. From all the other big whigs, Dawkins etcetera, I know only Myers who does such things, and at once his faction is the most zealous about such things, but about hypothetical other people.
Third story and last example (also this is getting OT; since it's not RationalWiki anymore). PZ Myers and gang always whined about lack of women in atheism and wanting it become more welcoming to women. Again, fine. I know nobody who ever disagreed with that general idea. Myers then goes on about how important uppity women are, and is proud of his Rebecca Watson defying Richard Dawkins (who did rather nothing anyway, they were fighting windmills, but that's yet another story). So more women, and more women in important roles. Fine. Who violates the idea first? Look no further than PZ Myers, who was the first who blackballed a female skeptic who was critical of him. Oh, he also doxed another one (also female) and tweeted her employer.
It get ten times more bizarre the more you know. So, Watson had declared an at least personal boycott on Dawkins directly after Elevatorgate, and then one of her writers at SkepChicks overhears Dawkins how he says (months later) to some organizer (David Silverman) that he doesn't want to have Watson around, either. Should be a non-story, since she declared publicly (first) she would not want that anyway. Also, organizer says he didn't intent to invite Watson anyway. However, predictably, Myers' whole faction shrieks and howls for weeks about Dawkins terrible "misogyny". What the heck. I kid you not: Myers wants to join the hate-bandwagon, remembers his own actual blackballing (which was totally okay for the same people), and quietly drops it in the very same post where he allows his commenters to crap all over Dawkins, again. Greta Christina, rape porn author of above, depicts it the same way, totally outraged over Dawkins non-"blackballing", yet is friends with the one guy who is on record with his blackballing of a female skeptic.
Last edited:
H
HG 400
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Ye because of how the quotes were arranged I took it as him being paid by the adults to fuck the little kids. That deserves sympathy because twelve year olds are stupid and you can talk them into doing anything and fucking them up for life. If he just went and fucked some kids off his own initiative then fuck him, he deserves to be hanged.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
If he was coerced by adults to fuck children when he himself was a child then he's a victim as well. Sounds like a sad situation all around.
Fnord
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2016
He deserves sympathy for the FIRST story he tells, a page earlier. In that one he claims older boyscouts forced him to abuse someone he calls S. But on the SECOND story, he was paid for being a babysitter, hence there weren't adults around. The 6-7 year old girls were engaged in some “sex play” (and there was a third girl of the same age as S) and he joined in and then he himself calls what happened rape. And yes, this story distinction was pointed out each time by detractors, including on the RationalWiki, and was also made aware to PZ Myers. It would have cost him nothing (and consequently the RW) to admit what everyone can plainly read, apologize and be done with it. But it has become an article of faith and a tribal marker (as with Nyberg), and it works precisely because it's controversial, as this shows true loyality to the tribe. Agreeing to what is evident and obviously true would be easy. Cults like you see on RW (to a far lesser degree) and around Myers (to a high degree) don't run on evidence.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015