Talk:Trashbin 2

SJW and /pol/ = /pol/ar opposites of the same thing.

SJW's tend to get associated with the left for a reason. While the early set of images added went overboard, I think that we need to be able to say a few things. Some people posting here have said "don't bother polishing a turd." However, someone (or someone's) keep making edits when they see an edition that rubs them the wrong way. True, this isn't a leading SJW board, but neither is it a leftist platform or an Antifa board. We can rightfully take the mickey out of that abhorrent board /pol/, then we should be able to humorously point out the problems with SJW's. So I propose one of several solutions;

• We delete the SJW page altogether if we can't play nice about it.
• We compromise, and add a few of the mentions of SJW's and why they get associated with left-wing politics.
• We edit-lock this page.

Discussing the merits of one of these three solutions is more productive than an edit war or just bending over backwards and letting those posters who want to whitewash their precious leftism get their way. What say you?

The problem there is it implies editors are invested in preserving the reputation of leftism rather than recognizing this isn't the place to go but so in-depth on it (and/or surmising most other people wouldn't care enough). Also implies we haven't been compromising and going with the second option for some time.

In addition, check the edit summaries again - SJWs are relevant by virtue of being pretty much everywhere on the internet (thus we "have" to cover them to some degree, /pol/ is another 4chan board and regularly tries to hijack shit on /tg/ and every other board (hence the gallery being full of 'gb2/pol/' memes. I'll probably look into fixing that shortly). --72.89.208.68 02:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Also helps that /pol/ views are mostly just the latest iteration of a particular form of right wing political thought, whereas a SJW can be practically anyone left of center (or of the person using it, hence the reason (I assume) no one cares enough to detangle that particular knot - too many possible schools of thought to cover, and that becomes plausible deniability for outright attack articles (e.g. the 'Feminids' bullshit someone tried to sell before). Regardless, I'll think on that a bit more. --72.89.208.68 02:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop wasting time on polishing a turd. It's a waste of good drinking / role playing time

The WHOLE article is summarized by the last paragraph and that is not reason enough to keep the whole page. It's not relevant to /tg/ and this wiki. There are more important things that need to get done! -- The Awkward Man 14-8-2017. 23:46 UTC+1

I find it amusing that it all happens regarding pages about over-obsessive nuts who think they're better than everyone else and insist on letting the world know. TiamatRoar (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, people tend to react to those nuts but becoming nuts themselves. It's like a disease. --Newerfag (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

SJW's and the Left

The seems to be some overlap with the /pol/ and SJW targets. From the page for /pol/ "board, nowadays populated by neo-nazis, alt-righters, ancaps, edgy contrarians, and other colorful characters who rant on Jews, black people, women, "Marxists", Muslims, Christians, Athiests, and every variety of white depending on the time of day." However, if /pol/ board is considered the extreme right, shouldn't SJW's be the extreme left? /pol/ board is even described as "the cancer on the opposite side of the body. They have preferred targets as well, which is anyone they deem "privileged", in practice this is a group that is a majority, is perceived as being powerful and/or one whose views clash with theirs; examples of the far left's preferred targets include men, Christians and conservatives. Why list the preferred targets of /pol/, but not the SJW's?

Many of the art-righter wypipo are actually little different than SJWs. Suburban and rural Wypipo wouldn't know oppression if it was throw in their faces by a chimp. These "men, Christians and conservatives" are mostly anacaps, obese losers who worship that Russian slut Ayn Rand who deserve the backlash. Both the alt-right and SJWs are full of bratty white teens and twenty somethings with some sort of grievance and think they know better than everyone else. It's the ultimate first world problem.--Valvatorez (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense, Valvatorez. I was listing the groups that tend to get targeted by SJW's; I also mentioned the irony of SJW's attacking Christianity because the article said that the mostly Christian attacks on things such as Dungeons and Dragons were proto-SJW's (ironically the creator of Dunegons and Dragons, Gary Gygax, was a Christian). SJW's tend to be and support left-leaning causes and ideals, so I say there needs to be more about the left and SJW's. On a side note, how is that "catering to snowflake Christians"? And "Christians" is spelled wrong. Your words indicate a callous indifference to the humanity of certain people. We Christians (myself and others) may be comparatively well-off in Western society (for now), but Christians are a persecuted minority in countries including Pakistan and North Korea (to head off any accusations of playing "Oppression Olympics", every group has faced unfair persecution at some point). Should the persecution Christians face be addressed or not? -- User:Flufflion

The issue is addressing that begs the question of whether or not /tg/ actually cares that much about the subject (protip: they really don't). Speaking of, I'm gonna see if I can't compress it a bit more sometime tonight. --LGX-000 (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that is because it is playing Oppression Olympics and Whataboutism that whiny wypipo engage in. 1d4chan should know better than to give credibility to a Soviet Propaganda technique. Or whataboutery for our British freinds.(but that's what American Christians have been doing for several years now.) Those North Korea and Pakistani Christians are siding with tyrants who oppress the very people they share a country with. However this isn't about minorities in far off countries. If we're going to engage in whataboutery we may as well dedicate a section in the /pol/ article about the IRA and how they fault persecuted during The Troubles. Many here more than old enough have experienced that personally. Or if were going to engage in the both siderist nonsense. We could also mention NLFT, Nagaland and Eastern Lightning with paragraphs defending describing their POV as well. Not every view point is valid and 1d4chan shouldn't have whataboutery in its articles.--Valvatorez (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And that about sums it up, really. --LGX-000 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question Valatorez; what is an anacap? Second, to everyone, just to clear the air, I wasn't trash talking Dungeons and Dragons or Tolkien, I wrote those points to elaborate on the reasons behind the issues (for the former) and some of the complaints raised (for the latter, however baseless they were). There's a difference between stating complaints and actually attacking people, so why was the bit about the Lord of the Rings removed? There seems to be a disproportionate leftist sympathy on this page (left-sympathetic concepts include secularization, catering to emotions and recently, a tendency towards suppression of free speech surpassing that of the right; all of which have appeared here). It is disingenuous to lump /pol/ with the right by association and attack both, but not also dissemble the left for its problems. It speaks volumes that this page was labelled flame bait; even Matt Ward's page hasn't gotten that label. In short, can we civilly discuss the left here as the /pol/ page here does the right? To briefly get off topic, there is so much wrong with what you said Valvatorez I have to break it into bullet points.

1) Oppression Olympics is often misused as an excuse to ignore the suffering of a group you dislike (which I suspect you are doing here); everyone get unfairly oppressed at some point, some more than others.

2) What or who are you accusing of a Soviet Propaganda technique?

3) Christians in North Korea and Pakistan ARE one of the oppressed groups; oppressed by an Islamic (former) and atheistic (latter) regime. They don't side with the tyrants, they're the ones being ground under their heel while other people approve it. The governments of those countries don't just let people leave (especially North Korea; people leaving is not common and difficult), they didn't ask to be born into a country ruled by a draconian regime that won't let people leave.

4) I wasn't asking to put that on the SJW page. I want to point out the irony that the SJW concept originated with those mostly Christian groups, and now SJW's are predominately left-leaning and the left has a history of anti-religious sympathies and Christianity is their preferred target among religions (note I said preferred not "only", and this issue is an elephant in the room regarding religious discrimination).

5) In closing, why should we care about your views and welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned, especially since you seem set on trying to suppress certain views?

Found the SJW amid the pile of slurs. It is just /pol/ with the races reversed.--Namefag (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Essentially what Namefag said, though you're not necessarily wrong about the types of white people both sides attract. --LGX-000 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you're missing that the right isn't being discussed civilly on the /pol/ page, it's as bad as this page is in that respect. I've been trying to tell people for ages that politics, especially American politics, are so emotion-driven and so prone to irrationality that there is no way on Earth that this page wouldn't attract those problems; that said, I think he may have meant anarcho-capitalism, which is a completely different kettle of fish that I think he may have gotten mixed up with libertarianism somewhere. I'm opposed to discussing politics anywhere on this wiki for the simple reason that nobody involved in it is remotely mature enough to do so without it devolving into a shitstorm.--Newerfag (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree Newerfag; the thing is this emotion-driven politics is a trait of the left rather than the right, especially the Alt-left. Also, thank you for explaining what Valvatorez may have meant by anacap. I was seeking to point out that this is often an example of the negative qualities of the left, but these days the left seem to be a protected class in the Anglosphere and online. What I would like to add to the page, which appears to have been edit-locked, is that politics in the UK have shifted from the hard-right authoritarianism towards the alt-left. If possible, I may clean up the page on /pol/ a bit. User:Flufflion

Take my advice, don't bother polishing the turd. --Newerfag (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

tried to do some clean up

i tried to clean up the article some by presenting their positions in a better format. i corrected the bit about SJWs being liberals, they are not liberals, they are leftists. i also added some stuff about the roots of their philosophy and motivation. also deleted the last paragraph. --Kapow (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Does anyone but some hardcore political grognards care about ye olde definition of Liberal? The mainstream English speaking world has long ago started using the term "liberal" to mean centre-left. The digression on classical liberalism just seems really grognardy and stretches out the page more than it has to. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SJWs are not center left tho, they are far left, as demonstrated by their positions. much of their philosophy comes from a mix of hardcore reactionaries, and hardcore communists. the resulting political abortion, is not at all liberalism.--Kapow (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Like, this page is already an ugly eyesore and I could not care less for your pet ideology given my disinterest in the great internet slap fight. But let's not add more to it with a long screed on shit nobody cares about. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Gee, Kapow shows up to start shit with his unique brand of hyper-reactionary politics, remaking the page in his image and resisting any attempt to unfuck it until the mods roll in. Never saw that one before. --SpectralTime (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • im not a reactionary, friend. im a liberal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism --Kapow (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Definitions drift over time. Using "liberalism" to describe your ideology is conscious archaism. And having liberalistic economic views in no way, shape, or form prevents you from having reactionary social views, which you do. --SpectralTime (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
          • no i dont. would you like to debate the topic now? instead of debating my badness/goodness?--Kapow (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
            • The page is fine as it is.--97.104.199.133 02:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
              • I'd rather this page be like the /pol/ page, short, sweet and to the point with some snide humor here and there. This isn't your politics class, keep that shit in your pants people. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
                • Couldn't put it better myself, Necron. Who says you're crazy? Then again, I doubt it'll ever happen short of mod intervention, so... --SpectralTime (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
                  • You can't know that til you try, and god knows this page could use some mass culling. We don't need to know their exact ideology to dismiss it here, after all. --Newerfag (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
                    • Well, took a swing at it. Wonder how long it'll last... --SpectralTime (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
                      • Looks better already. I'm thinking that perhaps it would be prudent to request this page be locked if this shit keeps up, otherwise it'll never be more than an unmitigated bitchfest. --Newerfag (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Shall we keep the images at least? Derpysaurus
  • I wouldn't. Most of them were terminally "topical." Of a moment soon to pass, rather than of all time, if you get me. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

edits

"Why don't you do more edits?" This is why. Dumbfuckery like this. Poor 1d4chan may be beyond saving at this point. --Furore23 (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• There's already an article on Tumblr, and incursions into /tg/ games means it is certainly relevant to the board (Magic: the gathering is a prime example, as is pretty much anything Wil Wheaton does). Not even this site is exempt, though it's mostly on the fringes. --Asorel (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, should have been more explicit: the problem isn't that there is a page, the problem is that it is 100% adolescent gator trash. --Furore23 (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • So if you choose to interpret the page as pro gamergate, it warrants deletion? Good to know.
    • Feel free to fix it. --Thannak (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
      • There's nothing to fix here. It shouldn't have been made in the first place. 1d4chan is no place for RL politics. Besides, we're trying to be a respectable wiki, not Encyclopedia Dramatica Junior. --Newerfag (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Um, actually the entire site is pretty Encyclopedia Dramatica. That's kind of the difference between it and a legitimately respectable wiki with citations and sourced information. Its an informal guide to /tg/ culture and relevant information, presented in a slightly more refined manner than you'd actually see in a post on 4chan. Furthermore, it isn't an "attack page". Just an explanation of how you'd see literally any reference on /tg/ to the SJW meme; as a generic insult referring to a few screwballs from awhile back. See: Furry, as the two are quite similar groups in terms of 4chan history in that they were a vocal minority who irritated a few and lived on as an insult long past their loss of interest in posting on the site. --Thannak (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Also, I recall there was a very annoying tripfag back in the golden days who only posted with Sergal pics, but as far as I know there has never been an attempt to incorporate them into an actual /tg/ homebrew. While no doubt somebody gave them tabletop stats at one point, that crucial information has been left out of the page and as it stands should probably be merged with the more general Furry article. --Thannak (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Fair enough, perhaps it deserves a cleanup tag instead- personally, I just view the whole thing as a political issue which /tg/ just happened to be caught in the crossfire, hence my misgivings on the page and preference for it to be removed. As well as my own philosophy that the best way of dealing with them is to deny them recognition in any form at all. By the way, Sergalfag never used trips, he just used the avatars and had a very distinct posting style in which he was as condescending as possible while remaining superficially polite. (Ironically, when I looked at /tg/ a few hours agp there was an attempt to incorporate them into homebrew games in one thread- it was shot down almost as soon as it was posted.) --Newerfag (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
              • • Yea, I can't help but feel the same way about them. /tg/ never goes after the SJWs, but they almost constantly try to shoehorn their beliefs into here. The only way to really deal with them is to IPBan their threads every time they appear, and to give them no ground. NOTHING, not even an inch. Because if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Evilexecutive (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
        • We are a chan based wiki. Let us not fool ourselves with delusions of respectability. This wiki has been irreverent and proud of it since the beginning. I take issue with your attempts to try to put this square peg into a round hole. I see no great push to "respectability" from a majority of users. This reeks of the same kind of whitewashing that has infected the hobbyist community as of late. Just from a different direction than it normally originates. --Goldnoon (talk)
          • I find these negative nancies pretty amusing, though also pretty irritating. "Let us not fool ourselves with delusions of respectability", is pretty much someone saying that they have no intention of ever bettering themselves. You really should leave if you think there isn't any work to do on improving the wiki. While I'm one of the fandex editors, I do take the time every now and then to check up on the Cleanup Section to see what I can do to help improve things. Which is a hell of a lot better than bitching about "How things will never get any better". Evilexecutive (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Indeed. It's that mindset that makes most of /tg/ itself think we're not much more than a bad joke useful only for the tactics pages. There's no point in calling ourselves "/tg/'s wiki" when the board wants nothing to do with us.--Newerfag (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry that you feel so ashamed of our roots. We can be a informative wiki and still have articles that are fun and troll lolcows. You are sadly mistaken if you think that the majority want this wiki to be all business. Climb down off that cross. You are not martyrs to the ungrateful plebs of /tg/. --Goldnoon (talk
                • Have you actually asked /tg/ what they think of us? You'd be surprised by how many of them disagree with that sentiment. It's not that the funny articles exist, it's that the humor is increasingly dated and in some cases refers to memes so old hardly anyone on /tg/ can be counted on to remember them. Keeping the humor is fine, but it has to be up to date at the very least. --Newerfag (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • Yeah, general reaction I've seen is "Don't look at that, its just inaccurate memeshit, don't bother", to the point that pages without memes and with accurate info shocks some who check it anyway. From what I can gather most people just use it as a repository for tacticas and fapfics. --Thannak (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
                • By all means let us improve and update the humorous articles. There are some serious zombie meme's that could use to be replaced with funnier and more relevant ideas. I was under the impression from the way you reacted that you wanted to strip this wiki into another "Just the facts, ma'am" site like so many others. Which would definitely go against the spirit of /tg/ and our glorious history of combining solid tabletop ideas with triggering the terminally offended and milking the lolcows that infest tabletop gaming. --Goldnoon (talk)
                  • • I suppose I failed to make myself clear in that respect then, I guess. Funny is good, but it has to be blended in carefully or it'll fail to inform or entertain. I've yet to find the balance myself which is why I keep coming off as a stuffed shirt. --Newerfag (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Conversation, huh? This is promising. Not because of the outcome for this article, but because it may lead to a stronger definition of what 1d4chan is. --Furore23 (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?

After the whole debacle that was "Minorities In The Imperium Of Man", I thought it was apparent that this wiki wouldn't be touching /pol/ or tumblr bait with a 12 foot pole. AFIK, the whole matter of SJWs vs. Regressives is best left to places like /pol/ or /int/. SJWs aren't a thing on /tg/ and many of /tg/'s SJW styled posts tend to be trolls since actual SJWs are incapable of truly sticking to a chan board for more than a few hours it seems (vice versa for /pol/acks and tumblr).

Otherwise, we'd probably need to bring up "Minorities In The Imperium Of Man" again and start writing about /pol/acks and how their version of the Patriarchy is the Cultural Marxist Jewish conspiracy and other sorts of BS for the sake of consistency. -X

Because SJW accusation or references is more of a meme, and Happy Merchant would be a subcategory on the /pol/ page whereas we don't have a chanboard to assign SJW to. --Thannak (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel that this is less of a meme page and more of a rant a la our Matt Ward pages. Difference is that Matt Ward is far for more relvant to /tg/ as a whole and it just seems hypocritical for us to get rid of "Minorities In The Imperium Of Man" which is more about Social Justice and still have this page. I was thinking about expanding a section on /pol/acks and how they often mirror SJWs with their own BS either on this page or the /pol/ page for the sake of neutrality, although I fear that would cause a backlash since I'm sure more offended /pol/acks utrilize this site than offended SJWs. -X

Feel free, being informative and humorous is the point of the site. Just keep it trye enough to not be a personal rant, unbiased enough outside of jokes or generally agreed upon /tg/ mentality, and funny enough to be a good read. Or throw references to 40k in wholesale, whatever you have time for. --Thannak (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Should it be done here or on the /pol/ page however -X

Regressive SJWs

Added a section on regressive SJWs (not necessarily /pol/acks) for a more neutral view and because they exist. -X

Calling anti-SJWs as social justice warriors themselves while trying to justify the actions denounced on the page is not neutral. You can't be neutral towards SJWs because the moment a progressive becomes worthy of someone's time they stop being an SJW. All that is really needed is the reminder to ignore them.--166.172.187.223 19:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The point I was trying to get at was that anti SJWs can often end up acting like SJWs themselves. By neutral, I mean we just don't acknowledge one side of the debate exists while ignoring the other. There are plenty of regressives not worth anyone's time either. In fact you seemingly missed the section where I stated it was okay to fight what you believe in, just don't be an SJW or regressive SJW about it. -X

/pol/lacks are not anti-SJW, they're a different problem despite acting similar. Much like That Guy and WAAC faggots, there is a great deal of overlap but they aren't the same thing regardless. Also, really? All those rapid-fire 40k references? Come on, man. That's cringeworthy. --Thannak (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

/pol/acks by definition are anti SJWs. As in they oppose SJWs, but obviously, most anti SJWs are not /pol/acks and this does not just cover /pol/acks. Delete whatever references you want TBH, I just don't want an article sounding vitriolic as it's not in the spirit of this wiki. Having ap rant would be much worse IMO -X

I have never before heard of the regressive right being called social justice warriors. Keyboard warriors yes, but "social justice" is a leftist thing whether or not it is derogatory.--166.172.187.223 23:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That is why I originally placed regressive sjw with a question mark. They exist, but there is no term for them. /pol/ack is the closest, but not all regressive SJWs use /pol/. -X

Wait, anti-SJW as in "same group, different alignment" or anti-SJW as in "against SJW"? Because my point is they are not the former, and in the latter all the article needs is a sentence saying "For their opposites in beliefs but the same in methology see pol" so said idiots get a full page. Or some other word, maybe a page for Stormfront or something. I dunno. --Thannak (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on the current wording of the page, it is written so that those two types of anti-SJW are the same. Maybe in vitriol, but I don't see them as the same.--166.172.187.223 00:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I wrote it to say that although prog and regressive SJWs have different beliefs, they tend to act the same about it. -X

I still think the smart thing in this situation is to deny both sides recognition, including removing this page itself. By bringing attention to them you make them legitimate, so the only logical thing to do is to act as if they simply do not exist. But the question of whether or not this page ought to be deleted is one that I would rather save for another topic.(Unless you would like to address it here at least.) --Newerfag (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, this page should be deleted. We are not /pol/or tumblr. I don't care how progressive or regressive you are (okay, I kinda do in certain cases lol), but giving these people who sully their own ideologies attention isn't worthy of us. I only added the section on regressive SJWs because we can't just ignore one side of the debate. -X

Regressive SJWs are not the far-right on /pol/, they are the far-left "progressives" beginning to resemble the far-right through horseshoe theory. As in the people who want to "regress" and reinstate segregation to protect minorities from white people instead of the other way around. These terms were mentioned, but not used correctly. The far-right are usually just called bigots or neo-Nazis. People know about the far-right as a stereotype, while the new far-left is... new.--97.104.194.213 03:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion?

I already stated my basic reasons for why this doesn't deserve its own page above, but here I would like to add that the actual presence of SJWs is admitted even on the page itself to be nothing more than another form of trolling, which hardly makes it worth talking about. And the whole section that anon added about just makes it all even stupider by pretending to be "neutral" when a truly neutral article wouldn't even be willing to acknowledge either side even exists. Better to just get rid of this cancer magnet, because the chances of it spontaneously becoming a halfway decent article are near zero now.--Newerfag (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I am conquer in that it needs to go. At most the page should just say "SJW means Social Justice Warrior and has no bearing on /tg/" as it stands now it is just bad and should be gone, there is no real way to salvage itDragoon508 (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I trimmed it down to that.--97.104.194.213 00:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Its a part of 4chan, and /tg/, history. Trolling is no less relevant than anything else. This is the /tg/ wiki, not the Warhammer 40k wiki. The page in fact is far more relevant than generic ones than Fail, and serves a similar purpose: to be linked to in text for a humorous effect. --Thannak (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the current policy regarding Linking Pages is that they must also be relevant to traditional gaming, barring a few very rare exceptions such as Skub and Derp. I've tried to make this argument in defense of Tubes, but it got shot down pretty hard. Mostly by Forgefather and his lackeys. I however do not see this page as being very useful at all for the In-text links as other pages such as Tubes, Derp, Rape, and DISTRACTION CARNIFEX. It really seems to just exist to cause butthurt, rather than to enhance any jokes. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Except that SJWs are barely relevant to /tg/. It's mostly the same kid of person always circle jerking. Considering many SJWs are of the hipster variety, many think trad games are "untouchable" or some shit. Besides, if we hate these people no matter their or our politics, we better not acknowledge them. ALSO, SJWs can't stand chan related stuff, so most SJWs we do "see" on /tg/ are going to be trolls to rustle our jimmies. Please Sig me properly by replacing this with ~~~~

If it happened, continues to happen, and exists within the culture it deserves an article summarizing what it is. We do not ignore what we hate, we mock or trivialize it. There is no legitimate reason to not have this page. There are multiple good reasons to have it, namely that it was something that existed on 4chan and /tg/, and anytime there's something to point out like the terrible writing in Ulrika the Vampire you can link this page as a joke. The only reason to mark this page for deletion is if it personally offends you in some way, which is even more reason to have it. --Thannak (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

But it HASN'T happened on /tg/, you yourself just admitted it. And we already have a page on trolling, thus making this one irrelevant. And your "multiple good reasons" thus far have utterly failed to hold up to any scrutiny- and you left out how you're only pushing this so hard because you made it in the first place. Conflict of interest much? --Newerfag (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I did no such thing! Do not put words in my mouth because you have no better reason to want this gone than your fear of te internet boogymen. It HAS happened, and somewhat often. Furthermore, I've made an extremely large number of fucking articles on this site, and have no less right to argue for or against than anyone. None of my arguments have been discredited, you simply do not acknowledge them. In truth, accusations of being SJW and references to them are more common than any actual ones, putting it in "Elf Slave, Wat Do" category (which need I remind you we also have). Regardless, as a meme in 4chan culture which has been recurring on /tg/, this page should stay unless you have ACTUAL objections. --Thannak (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean besides the fact that the page is unfunny and terribly written? If you had the inclination to make this page even halfway decent, you or someone else would have already done so by now. But that obviously hasn't happened, and until now it's been little more than bitching about people who don't even show up on /tg/! And at least "Elf Slave, Wat Do" is actually a part of /tg/ culture, as opposed to a malignant tumor brought on by /b/tard rejects and the eternally paranoid. We don't need shit pages like this, so either bring this in line with a real 1d4chan article or GTFO. --Newerfag (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, guess what. We have a page for /b/tards too since they became part of the board culture. --Thannak (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like there's a lot of hubbub going on here so I'll pitch in my 2 cents. Did SJW's ever contribute anything of value to the world of /tg/? If not, then I don't see why there should be a page about them. Simple as that in my opinion. Remoon101 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither have Furries, we still have a page about them. Since accusations to SJW are lobbed around and they are made joming references to in addition to the actual trolling that has occurred, they are a part of board culture. --Thannak (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Since when is shitposting and bitching over irrelevant details board culture? --Newerfag (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever actually been on 4chan? --Thannak (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I consider those things to be less board culture so much as a lack of it. Especially because /tg/ has never been a haven for shitposting to the same degree as the rest of 4chan.--Newerfag (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

After over a year since I made made this section, this page has somehow gotten even worse. The sooner this lightning rod of bitching and moaning gets shitcanned along with its /pol/ counterpart, the better. --Newerfag (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The ridiculously huge ever-growing size of the page does seem a wee bit obsessive. TiamatRoar (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better all around if this page and /pol/ were simply redirects to the Skub page. Any relation to /tg/ they may possess is, in my opinion, thoroughly overshadowed by the cesspit of edit warring they are. These are pages the wiki frankly doesn't need and I'd argue the only reason anyone would want to keep them is as a soapbox from which they can announce their own opinions. At least that's what these pages have turned into. Redmaw (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel that there is an option to just keep removing the soapboxing.--Namefag (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks to keep coming back faster than it can be removed. Improving this clusterfuck is a lost cause, plain and simple. I've added the redirect, because I have no confidence that anyone will be able to polish this turd at any point in time. That goes for the /pol/ page too.--Newerfag (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the chaos needs to be fixed. Nothing is more appropriate for the subject than a clusterfuck of fighting and edits. Its a meta article in the most wonderful way possible. --Thannak (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Believe me, it does. The longer it stayed, the more pointless arguments and bitching it created, which were all too prone to spilling over to the rest of the wiki. Any comedic and informative value it might've had long since died under the torrent of shitposting it attracted. --06:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not restore it to being a basic summary then, while reverting it back to that any time someone wants to bitch about it? Giving up is the worst possible response honestly since it turns the entire thing from parody into reality. --Thannak (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

We tried that more than once. Every single time, someone would turn it into their personal soapbox and any sign of parody would vanish. Preserving it was a valiant effort, but ultimately a futile one. I am not thrilled about it either, but it is the only lasting solution short of locking the page entirely. --Newerfag (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I was working on a genuine attempt to fix the mistakes made here (many of which were mine, I won't pretend otherwise), but I suppose I can live with blank-to-redirect, if only because it gives me even more time to step back and think about shit. The whole "chaotic" thing IS thematically apropos, but it does come at the expense of cooler heads far more often than I, Newerfag or most people would like. So while it's not a move I necessarily fully agree with, I can perfectly understand it and will be willing to work with whatever result this produces. --LGX-000 (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going back to Thannak's idea for the moment. But it'll only work if everyone takes the effort to keep it /tg/ related and only /tg/ related. We all dislike SJWs, but that doesn't justify drifting away from the subject matter of the wiki as a whole. --Newerfag (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And the page is locked for a month. Thank God for that. --Newerfag (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

White Square

That "the day people got offended by a white square" commentary is ridiculously out of context with what the original person who allegedly got "offended" is trying to say... I mean, do I really have to explain that? Just leaving that there is kinda empowering SJWs by proving their antagonists aren't even willing to think logically about anything because it really shouldn't be THAT hard to understand what that "offended" person originally commenting on that white square was really trying to say... TiamatRoar (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

THIS. Those SJWS weren't offended by the square, they were offended by the cartoonist's politics who by drawing that square, was making it clear that he hated political correctness, which the SJWs immediately guessed. That image only gives SJWs power. Please Sig me properly by replacing this with ~~~~

Yes and no. They were offended by the implication that they would be offended and resorted to creative name-calling.--97.104.194.213 03:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Who gives a shit? We shouldn't have anything to do with their slapfight either way. And Thannak, just because you can make gratuitous links doesn't make them funny, and in fact drives the joke so far into the ground that you can see it poking back up in China. The fewer of those pages that exist solely to be linked to, the better.--Newerfag (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh for fucks sake, the white square is a joke, if its unfunny then just delete it rather than yip on about it. As for gratuitous links, there's plenty of worse memes that merit far more scrutiny. Just look at the Meme category and take your pick. This one is actually relevant to 4chan culture as it currently stands, unlike Illustraded manual for example. This is once again a case of people leaving pages and redlinks in need of work in the dust when they can quibble over minutia on a "hip" page until Wikifag steps in and decrees "I don't care". --Thannak (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Or when they realized that you can't polish a turd of a page like this. And I don't see you working on redlinks either, hypocrite. --Newerfag (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, FUCK you. I wrote almost all of the fucking Warhammer Fantasy pages and did heavy editing to most of the rest. Not to mention overhauled who knows how many pages into at least not being a clusterfuck of strikethroughs and first person arguments on the page. Not even going into creating pages for old games and model manufacturers. --Thannak (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So is that an excuse for holding onto this cancerous shitpile then? Nobody cares what you did in the past, only what you're doing right now- which is anything but inspiring confidence in me. --Newerfag (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Newerfag's tone is doing violence to his point; that this page is only-tangentially-related to traditional gaming and the board thereof at best, and that it is creating a lot of stupid drama and "No YOU!" page editing. I'm not normally a guy who tags things for deletion, but I'm just not sure this is worth keeping around. --SpectralTime (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wait, why is him pitching a hissy cause for deletion? Isn't that literally giving in to the basic SJW attitude? They shriek and whine until they get their way using baseless attacks and flimsy arguments? --Thannak (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I can ask the same thing as to why "board culture" justifies making a page about whatever you want. Or to be more accurate, your highly distorted form of "board culture" that seems to have very little to do with /tg/'s actual board culture at any given time.

Because this is a wiki about /tg/. Unless you feel like going through the meme category and trimming the fuck out of it (not a bad idea). --Thannak (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Now this I agree with. --Newerfag (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

At least one can make the argument that furries are /tg/ relevant via Iron Claw, minotaurs, centaurs, and similar shit (in addition to how the mass furry posting on /b/ supposedly led to Warhammer Wednesdays and the creation of /tg/). SJWs can't even claim that modest shred of relevance to the board. And don't act as if you've been a saint here either, Thannak. You're the one screaming about how anyone who doesn't agree with you is as bad as the SJWs themselves. I'm only trying to point out the flaws in the page that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

If it has appeared regularly on /tg/, it is part of board culture. Period. For fucks sake, TES is in no way connected to traditional games and we still not only have a page about it here, but 24/7 Generals. As for "screaming anyone who doesn't agree is an SJW", I made a (fairly apt) rebuttal to the point that deleting a topic because it triggers someone who complains is ironic and leads towards a bad road. Way to take it out of context though, you should consider politics. --Thannak (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That's because people actually made it into a (relatively) functional RPG and a Warhammer port (see Scrollhammer), thus adopting it into /tg/ albeit only partially. With this, it was never used for anything productive and as far as anyone can prove its only use is as just one more insult, in which case I may as well make pages for " idiot", "retard", and every other thing someone has ever called someone else on 4chan ever.

Even if I overlooked the relevance aspect, I can still say that the page in itself was never funny, makes only the bare minimum of effort needed to connect it to the board itself, and until it was cut down it was prone to rambling about the same political claptrap that it was ostensibly meant to condemn. As it stands now, I'm not happy with the page but can accept it if it goes this far and no further. It tells everything one needs to know, and as far as I can imagine anything else would just make it as bad as it was before.--Newerfag (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought we were arguing about this page being deleted. Yeah, it was bloated as fuck and not funny (although not every page needs to be funny, since only the ideal state is both funny and informative-if not both, something has to be one of the two). I'm saying the page belongs, not necessarily in the curresy state. Also, the point is that the loudest voice is not the one who needs to be catered to. --Thannak (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

While I would indeed prefer deletion, I would settle for aggressive culling and a full rewrite that illustrates what they are without dwelling on the subject long enough to imply that their position is legitimate (e.g. something like what we have now). THencenature is inherently political, which means that trying to make fun of them will only turn it into shitflinging as people flock to one banner or another and completely miss anybkind of joke being made in the process. And any kind of information worth knowing about them can take uup a couple of paragraphs at most without repeating itself or straying into opinions.

Hence my push to delete or shrink the page- the more attention you lavish on them, the more they can claim they're anything but a bunch of whiny simpletons and the trolls attempting to imitate them. The very act of acknowledging they exist makes them worse, and so logically ignoring them is the only correct option to deal with them. You earlier said we shouldn't ignore what we hate, but I say they don't even deserve to be hated.

And speaking of politics, a very similar debate to this took place on the Communism page in which it was pointed out that any page that taps too deeply into real world politics/ideology will generate flamewars simply by existing, so if one cannot delete it then its /tg/ links (which here are still anything but substantial unless you can show me an actual tabletop game featuring a SJW or undeniable evidence of their influence on the hobby) must be emphasized and the political content neutered to the point at which it simply cannot generate further flamewars. For the time being, I question if such a feat is even possible without simply redirecting the page to Shitposting. Which in my opinion would be just as accurate as what's currently present, if rather on the excessive side. --Newerfag (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Potentially relevant info actually concerning tabletop & SJWs

Recently this post claiming that tabletop gamers are terrorists has popped up. Considering that 1. The post has 12,000 notes, 2. It sounds like something that belongs on r/thathappened, and 3. It's forced the games store she accused to post their own response, this is probably noteworthy enough to add. Probably along the lines of:

"When SJWs go after tabletop gaming, its usually with sweeping accusations, such as the hobby as a whole is dangerous to women and minorities, and that these claims, no matter how outlandish, will be believed by at least a sizable number of people. And while this generally is limited to internet drama, this kind of behavior can have real-life consequences. Are we saying jerks don't exist in the hobby? No. What we're saying is that the hobby as a whole is not some evil destructive force out to murder anyone who isn't a straight white male. Your average fa/tg/uy isn't planning to commit hate crimes, unless it's for his Lich character in his Pathfinder campaign (And even then it doesn't count, because fuck elves). This hysteria should remind you of the D&D moral panic of the 70's and 80's when the religious right thought tabletop gaming promoted Satanic ritual murders."

Decide for yourselves if this warrants inclusion or not. 108.183.63.184 17:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I should probably remind you that SJW's are generally not welcome on this wiki, or on /tg/. If and whenever they show up on /tg/, they're always met with cries of Sage and constant reporting for off-topic bullshit. Here on the wiki, they're met with outright hostility from nearly every major editor, myself included. We don't entertain them, as our job here is not give them even a single inch. Because if we give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this recent events should at all be placed in the article, because that is another case of just giving them the attention they want. Remember, they're no different from caustic trolls that still occasionally plague the wiki and the board, so treat them no differently than their original, classic form. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

And on top of that, giving them said attention also makes them seem legitimate- in their minds, people wouldn't be trying to argue against them if they weren't absolutely right. So we don't. It's simply a battle that cannot be won unless they are wholly starved of attention. Let the idiots jerk each other off, we don't need or want to be a part of it. In fact, I still question the wisdom of having this page on the wiki but can not currently muster the effort needed to re-engage the debate on whether or not to delete it.--Newerfag (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

At this rate I propose locking this article in its current state as of this writing

There's a time in every wiki when you realize that a certain article is simply too skubtastic and too attracting of political butthurt to be allowed to continue, which it seems, has come to cover pretty much every even remotely politically related article here. So why don't we all just lock the article and forget about it. We eventually laid down the law on articles like the Emperor's to-do list, I think it's time we lay down the law here before we get another Halo article sized shitfest. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Before that happens, I feel like it needs a picture. Something too comedic to be taken as controversial, like the Venture Brothers one on the /pol/ page. --Thannak (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Seconded on both counts because holy shit. --LGX-000 (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

PETA's letter to GW

We could add this gem to the list of examples of rabid SJW-ism.

http://www.peta.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Games-Workshop-Ban-Fur-Letter.pdf

Matt Ward responded to that: https://twitter.com/thetowerofstars/status/826052983565799424

• I wouldn't really consider PETA as part of the SJW force considering their antics of comparing chicken cages to the Holocaust, saying that milk causes autism, reducing women into sex objects to make a point and turning black people into racist 'caveman' caricatures. If anything they are the direct opposite of a SJW. Their both triggered cunts, but PETA are on a whole'nother level of nastiness and bastardry. Seriously PETA is the epitome of corporate hypocrisy and abuse. They kill more animals than they save and have a habit of firebombing scientific research centers for cures against certain diseases just because of the poor little mice. Seriously fuck PETA, I hope they go bankrupt and get sued. On the other hand, the post by Matt Ward have officially redeemed all his past wrongdoings. Kudos to Ward for being a marvelous fucking troll. Derpysaurus

Shitty page is shitty

This page is made like some pedowiki article using too many long words without actually telling exactly how much annoying those cancerous shiteaters are in practice. Even seems like someone is trying to justify their position. All this is bad and it needs to go. If you can't make it more accurate and at least somewhat fun, perform Exterminatus.

SJW detected. --SaltyMan (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC) It's an amazing article that explains the phenomenon.1. Far Left, 2. Heavily invested in Identity Politics, and 3. Has very low Integrative Complexity. Just for you, SJW- chan, I will do my best to spread this descripton ;).--SaltyMan (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Did what I could

But I doubt it'll really stop the edit wars for long. 72.89.211.134 08:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

would like to add this photo at the end of SJWs and "WH40k"

A while ago a sculptor, Stefan Mrdak Ražnatović, know as "Tupavko" on events like games day and golden demon made this image to explain why the Errant-questor model painting is hylarius.

" Skin color has nothing to do with it, as well as no possible feature of a model can be excluded.

What's involved is a poor management of these features:

1 - if I see a knight/ paladin with a BAROQUE armor I hardly associate it to a person with negroid or dark skin. 2 - Although I decided to go for contrast and to use negroid traits, I can not ignore that these characteristics are different from those of the Caucasian populations. 3 - If I do a black face, I certainly can not apply medieval hair or south america / central america indios hairstyle 4 - if a model has clearly white caucasian somatic traits,maybe avoid painting it contradictory on the presentation image is a good idea.

Why is all this WRONG? Because it produces a "cacophonic" effect,elements cobble between each other and give a "unconvincing" image"

SEE IMAGE

We speak English here, try again when we can understand what you're trying to say. --Newerfag (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Lazifag here,done,if you want to integrate the photo and / or rearrange the explanation about Errant Questor painting would be a good argumentation

OK, so who is this person and why should we care? He sounds like just another nobody, and we have better things to do than act as a mouthpiece for random chumps. Not to mention that Knights have nobody with visible skin color anyway, which makes the whole thing completely pointless. --Newerfag (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

yes becouse "SJW end with "It should be noted that GW has been somewhat addressing these issues themselves, in Age of Sigmar anyway; several human models have non-white skin tones, the first unhelmed Sigmarine is black, there's a model for a Sigmarine woman, and the most promoted faction other than Sigmarines and Khorne is the mostly female Sylvaneth" and this is a good analisis that can be added to the meaningless black skin tone of the errant-questor presentation poster,born feom leftist mental illness

• Doesn't change the fact that it's just a quote from a random nobody (possibly yourself, as I cannot find anything else about this person) who can't even use the right language on this wiki properly. Tell me why he shouldn't be dismissed as the attention whore that he is. --Newerfag (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)