Inactive The SJWiki

[Lunete]

So, time to dissect the more amusing idiocy from the Gamergate article on this trashy piece of shit.

Spoiler: #NotyourShield

#NotYourShield Campaign

the NotYourShield hashtag, which claimed to be minority groups distancing themselves from claims of bigotry from Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn[31] has since been revealed as a coordinated attack campaign to deflect from claims of misogyny in the gamergate movement [9] [32]

Indeed, much like the attacks on Gamergate for misogyny in order to deflect from claims of corruption in gaming journalism. But obviously, SJWs would never stoop so low.

Spoiler: Errrr

Right-wing bias among supporters

This is gonna be good.

Spoiler: A fair look at Gamergaters.

Milo Yiannopoulos, who has Nazi tendencies,[34] once wrote a transphobic piece

Christina Hoff Sommers is a known neoconservative and she dismissed the sexism in video gaming, because its targeted audience doesn't care

Sommers also laughs after saying "heteronormative privilege", as if this is some kind of joke.

Gamergate has also attracted two youtubers, one of whom is a white nationalist and the other an objectivist.[42]

Excellent, I love this already. The gay guy is a fascist, the woman who disagrees is a neo-conservative and laughs at stupid tumblrisms and youtubers are white nationalists. Seems reasonably fair and balanced so far, much like Fox News.

Spoiler: And the final best bit

See Also

• Silencing
• Rape culture
• Anita Sarkeesian

What can I say, a perfect end to an absolutely perfect and unbiased article.

Their sources are mostly opinion pieces. I even saw a Tumblr blog in one.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Check_your_privilege#.VblN2flViko This is the best page hands down. I literally had no idea how to check my privilege but this handy step by step guide has made me an expert. OH FUCK sorry that was arrogant of me, I now have to check my privilege checking privilege. Also 'condesplaining' my spell checker does not like you because you aren't a real word.

EDIT: http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Patriarchy#.VblPGPlViko This one's even better. Not only does it have a trigger warning but if you click the 'something nice' link you get taken to a picture of a kitten. What if you're triggered by cats?

 

[Hummingbird]

http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Check_your_privilege#.VblN2flViko This is the best page hands down. I literally had no idea how to check my privilege but this handy step by step guide has made me an expert. OH FUCK sorry that was arrogant of me, I now have to check my privilege checking privilege. Also 'condesplaining' my spell checker does not like you because you aren't a real word.

EDIT: http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Patriarchy#.VblPGPlViko This one's even better. Not only does it have a trigger warning but if you click the 'something nice' link you get taken to a picture of a kitten. What if you're triggered by cats?

I know they say it's not about, "shut-up, you're evil", but they always seem to target a certain group of people (white, CIS, straight and usually men).

 

[TiredConlanger]

I know they say it's not about, "shut-up, you're evil", but they always seem to target a certain group of people (white, CIS, straight and usually men).

Indeed it is used that way. It's a way of SJWs trying to bluff to get their opponents to back down. They accuse people of bigotry and have them try to defend themselves against the ad hominem of it and avoid the blowback of being called a bigot. (Despite all their cries of oppression, the fact that being accused of bigotry or being a bigot is an instant tar-and-feathering should say a lot about them not being oppressed. Funny, that...) This pattern of accusations includes backhanded ways like the "check your privilege" argument implies.

 

[AnOminous]

Indeed it is used that way. It's a way of SJWs trying to bluff to get their opponents to back down. They accuse people of bigotry and have them try to defend themselves against the ad hominem of it and avoid the blowback of being called a bigot.

This is a good point, and it's basically the definition of an ad hominem argument. It is also, in many cases, a very convincing argument, and logical fallacies basically exist as arguments because they do work. For instance, if someone is literally a Nazi, for instance, you generally do not really care what they think or say.

Logical fallacies are used as a shortcut to thought, and this isn't always bad. Some sources of information (such as literal Nazis) are rarely sources of good information, and just presumptively discarding their output is efficient. Google "rational ignorance" for other times this shortcut to thought makes sense. It simply isn't worth it to pick through turds in the hope of finding a kernel of corn.

It's easily abused as a tool of "debate," though. For instance, it is nearly inevitable that anyone who criticizes anything the state of Israel does will be accused of being anti-Semitic or the old stand-by, a "self-hating Jew." The vast misuse of this tactic has robbed it of a lot of its sting as a result, though. And of course if you're on the other side, you're automatically a terrorist supporter.

SJWs have taken this to a new level, though. Literally everything they don't like is racist. Or sexist. Or some word they just made the fuck up.

Part of the reason the racism allegation is so appealing is that people almost automatically will feel compelled to defend themselves against it. Seriously, in today's society, being a racist is basically being a complete piece of shit, and the very fact that this is the case is, as you point out, pretty strong evidence that seriously, racism is something we're trying to eradicate as a society.

However, this natural desire to defend yourself against this accusation is what whoever hurls it wants. It is basically sand in the face. I think at least when the accusation is entirely baseless, it should just be disregarded and you should keep on whatever argument you were making in the first place.

It is basically an irrelevant and ridiculous slur, and should be treated as such.

Another possible response is just to hurl back slurs and insults of your own, and I like this one, but find it hard to recommend it.

 

[Meowthkip]

This is a good point, and it's basically the definition of an ad hominem argument. It is also, in many cases, a very convincing argument, and logical fallacies basically exist as arguments because they do work. For instance, if someone is literally a Nazi, for instance, you generally do not really care what they think or say.

Logical fallacies are used as a shortcut to thought, and this isn't always bad. Some sources of information (such as literal Nazis) are rarely sources of good information, and just presumptively discarding their output is efficient. Google "rational ignorance" for other times this shortcut to thought makes sense. It simply isn't worth it to pick through turds in the hope of finding a kernel of corn.

It's easily abused as a tool of "debate," though. For instance, it is nearly inevitable that anyone who criticizes anything the state of Israel does will be accused of being anti-Semitic or the old stand-by, a "self-hating Jew." The vast misuse of this tactic has robbed it of a lot of its sting as a result, though. And of course if you're on the other side, you're automatically a terrorist supporter.

SJWs have taken this to a new level, though. Literally everything they don't like is racist. Or sexist. Or some word they just made the fuck up.

Part of the reason the racism allegation is so appealing is that people almost automatically will feel compelled to defend themselves against it. Seriously, in today's society, being a racist is basically being a complete piece of shit, and the very fact that this is the case is, as you point out, pretty strong evidence that seriously, racism is something we're trying to eradicate as a society.

However, this natural desire to defend yourself against this accusation is what whoever hurls it wants. It is basically sand in the face. I think at least when the accusation is entirely baseless, it should just be disregarded and you should keep on whatever argument you were making in the first place.

It is basically an irrelevant and ridiculous slur, and should be treated as such.

Another possible response is just to hurl back slurs and insults of your own, and I like this one, but find it hard to recommend it.

I am reminded of @Anti_Racism_Dog, a twitter account made solely to bark at people saying racist or racially insensitive things on Twitter without any explanation as to why what they said was racist, and how it was praised on places like Tumblr. Unfortunately, all it really did was put people on the defensive, and people who said things out of being ignorant continued to stay ignorant and didn't learn anything.

 

[Innocuous]

Wonder how long it will be before someone makes a Kiwi farms page.

CWC is a very loaded subject. They don't do anything related to internet drama anymore, that includes CWC himself. It's just too disputive. They did have a Sonichu page for awhile, but it's locked now.

 

[APerson]

I got the account, and I've been looking around the site. It seems pretty much dead. Feminism was last edited in December, and no forum has been used in almost a year.

Spoiler: Feminism history

Spoiler: Forums

This is the only person to have edited in the last 30 days (yesterday and today only, even.)

 

[Wabbu]

This is the only person to have edited in the last 30 days (yesterday and today only, even.)

I am a bi/panromantic, non-binary, genderqueer, neutrois, demisexual, white-passing, woman-passing, able-bodied, dyspraxic, neuroatypical, migraineur, mixed European/Middle Eastern brown person.

"All those labels are completely necessary"

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I got the account, and I've been looking around the site. It seems pretty much dead. Feminism was last edited in December, and no forum has been used in almost a year.

Spoiler: Feminism history

View attachment 42265

Spoiler: Forums

View attachment 42266

This is the only person to have edited in the last 30 days (yesterday and today only, even.)

So this is basically a dead website

 

[APerson]

So this is basically a dead website

Pretty much. Since there isn't going to be any new fun coming in, should we just let this thread die?

 

[Meowthkip]

Pretty much. Since there isn't going to be any new fun coming in, should we just let this thread die?

Fine by me.

 

[*Asterisk*]

Pretty much. Since there isn't going to be any new fun coming in, should we just let this thread die?

The Wiki model in general is sinking fast. ED's a dried up husk often months behind trends. TV Tropes has been dying slowly for years due to Gus Railey's stupidity. Branch Wiki's have metastasized to the point of meaninglessness. Even Vanilla Wikipedia has been damaged heavily by constant infighting and an internal bureaucracy that makes Soviet Russia look penetrable.

 

[Meowthkip]

Closing the thread for now, I think. If something changes, we can always open it back up again.