Talk:Recommended Web Video Channels

From 1d4chan

Regarding Arch[edit]

Some Controversy has arisen regarding his mods and him making some not very appropriate jokes and saying crude things about people of other races. I am curious as to what we should do? part of me says "Whatever, more Arch drama." But anothre part isn't so sure. Thoughts? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • This is the wrong place to be discussing him. I don't think he has done anything on this page so why are you bringing it up here? --73.41.249.220 22:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Because that part of the page is about him. How is it wrong to talk about him in a section about him? -- Triacom (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You think something should be done about "some not very appropriate jokes and saying crude things about people of other races"?! Do you realize you're literally on a 4chan wiki? --Agiletek (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
We're talking about a dude who has pedophiles as his mods, and since that section's about him, why shouldn't that and his racism be mentioned? I also fail to see why you're cutting out his VtM game when that's the source of the original Nazi accusations. -- Triacom (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

VTM is a fucking game, do you call people on axis in battlefield Nazi's over playing and discussing the era and war the setting is in?

If they unironically go out of their way to create and portray the Nazi's in their games as sympathetic and ignore the shit they did, then yes. VtM is a game, the characters and scenarios he used were custom made however. -- Triacom (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Last I checked, VTM is literally about roleplaying as an abomination against God with that's a parasite upon humanity, most often as part of a giant company, with a record of genocide, that's willing to brainwash and murder innocents to keep things secret. --Agiletek (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Big difference between roleplaying as a vampire and making the Nazi's sympathetic. Those characters you play as are also acknowledged to be villainous, unlike the Nazi's in that campaign. -- Triacom (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, I've moved his section off to its own page, Arch Warhammer. Feel free to continue this debate there. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Puffin Forest[edit]

Every time I've seen him brought up on /tg/, people cringed themselves to death, but not before pointing out that his stories have either never happened, or he's a truly godawful GM if they really did. His bit here about hilarious stories and amazing humor seems highly suspicious. --Ratman (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. I was the one who wrote that. I am a bad writer. Go ahead and correct it. --73.41.249.220 04:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Plus I also don't ever visit 4chan so I don't actually know what the community's opinion of him is. I recommended him based on the fact that I find his videos very enjoyable and he has a very high number of subscribers. --2601:203:480:4C60:54D6:9E50:8C82:5B99 04:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright, hope this is neutral enough. --Ratman (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I made some made some more changes to it but I think it still needs some work. --2601:203:480:4C60:54D6:9E50:8C82:5B99 07:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I did some further edits. I think it is a lot better now.--2601:203:480:4C60:2190:A86E:19E1:EC73 00:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The Other Circle and Leakycheese[edit]

Anyone have thoughts about including The Outer Circle or Leakycheese? -- HussarZwei (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I mean that's up to you. Personally, I think Outer Circle is okay, but he does have a tendency of devolving into a bitter rambling curmudgeon. -- Bear Eater (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2020

Winters SEO[edit]

Channel I go to for Warhammer battle reports, but I don’t know many others since I’m fairly new to WH40k. Can he be added to the list? Thoughts?

Sign yer posts anon. But yes, assuming he isn't already there that should be a mighty fine addition. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, at this point[edit]

Move "Arch Warhammer" over to his own page, so we can just link to it, like we do with Counter Monkey? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea--2601:203:480:4C60:A0AC:5C3C:53A6:E621 01:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
We could just collapse the section as well. -- Triacom (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
He doesn't need validation from generating controversy, nor do we need to do anything more than bare bones stuff. I say keep it as it is now, let people decide what their opinion is. I.E. We don't mention SS82 can be a bit of a droner in some people's opinions, only that he does only batreps or whatever. To some degree we need to let our audience form their opinion of him. Politics makes people want to go there, alright, you do you. Not your thing? Leutin09 is a great alternative. I hardly believe we need to be /tg/ drama upkeepers. Otherwise we're just reporters, but worse because we aren't even payed. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
That's like talking about GW and just going "they make finely detailed miniatures for tabletop wargames" and leaving it at that. It would be doing a huge disservice. Also letting people form their own opinions is exactly why I linked the sources of my claims. -- Triacom (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I should also probably mention that I don't see why we would be listing people on here while avoiding talking about their personality. That's going to make up a huge reason for why people watch certain channels. Why even list any channels at all if it's not going to include the person who's running the channel and making the videos? -- Triacom (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I dunno, part of me thinks that giving him his own page seems like a little much. Like, the political talk that's been plaguing this wiki recently (The Zwei situation in particular being a more recent example) is making me more than a little reluctant to start letting anything along these lines onto the wiki. I get you've been around longer an all, and I get the whole GW analogy. I think the concern also arises from the fact that right now this is a very recent development, and I am concerned about raids. Can we objectively prove all this crap about him? I usually avoid this kind of drama because I have a life that revolves around things besides politics and the like. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree it's a bit much, that's why I'd rather collapse the controversial bit below a small descriptor of him. That being said, it's not political to say somebody's a racist and then show them being racist, or say that they made pedophiles their mods and then show their mods defending child porn. When I made the claims I made sure to link proof about what I claimed, so yes we definitely can prove it, and collapsing the section would stop most casual viewers from seeing it anyway. -- Triacom (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I would be down for having a drop down box below a main description, along the lines of twilight on the Rage page. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Below is how I would prefer to do it. -- Triacom (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Arch Warhammer[edit]

Mister Skubtastic himself. He has made a name for himself by producing Warhammer 40K and Warhammer Fantasy lore videos and depending on who you ask is either a funny guy with a purposely offensive sense of humor, a literal Nazi, or a Skaven. The best way to describe him is a somewhat well-read but politically outspoken prick with an insufferable accent. Also makes videos on 40k related games and the occasional video or series of videos on miscellaneous games that grab his attention, and recently GW filed a trademark complaint against him reducing his name simply to "Arch".

The controversy around the guy stems from a few main issues. Firstly he's accused of making shit up in his videos and claims to be a "loremaster" despite not knowing a lot of things (like how Angron became a daemon prince). Secondly he ran a Vampire: The Masquerade game where he tried to make Nazi's sympathetic, and finally he's a very outspoken racist on his discord (although some people would argue that's dark humour taken out of context) and he chooses racists, and even pedophiles to be his moderators. He's also somebody who seems convinced that if the Imperium of Man were real, everyone would be better off.

Replace "a bit of a prick" with " a prick and I agree with it. No one can really argue he isn't one. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Triacom (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As long as you don't reinclude it on the main article. I'm getting tired of 90% of all edits being about this one asshole. Why shouldn't we just do the same thing we did for Spoony, and move the drama off to its own page? That way, at least the drama goes where it belongs, where I (and most others) can ignore it. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The point is to include it back on the main article. I already covered this earlier, what's the point of listing any channel if you don't talk about the person running it? As for giving him his own page, there's no need, you can just collapse it. -- Triacom (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
A collapsible does not fix the "90% of all edits to the page" problem. As far as I can tell, the only two long-term options are to remove him completely, or move him off to his own page. I chose the latter, but the former is just as valid if his content isn't all that great, which is what I'm getting from reading the above section. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
How is making edits to the page a problem? What's it matter if most of the edits are about one of the users? Nobody's jumping in like on the SJW or /pol/ pages, there was just a short argument. -- Triacom (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Sort of fair enough... but I've yet to hear anything resembling an actual recommendation. This article is for creators people at least some people on this wiki recommend, or are in some way important or useful, and I've yet to hear anybody actually recommend Arch. If he's important enough to be worth discussing, he gets his own page, where the issues can be made clear. If he's not important, and nobody actually recommends him, he's not worth including here. Again: (1) Is he recommended by anybody here? (2) Is he important enough to warrant his own article? If the answer to both questions are "no", he doesn't belong anywhere on this page. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Some people are good to mention just because if we didn't then users would be asking about them anyway, or somebody else would try to give him a recommendation not knowing that you didn't want him on the wiki. Also at one point he was recommended on here, his racism and pedophile mods have only come to light fairly recently. -- Triacom (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Having thought about it more, I'm putting him on this page again since giving him his own page just makes it a beacon for vandals, as we just saw from an anon. I highly doubt they'll go scrolling through this page to find him, and it's much less likely to come up in search engines. -- Triacom (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

From Arch's own page[edit]

Those videos linked on the front page are just embarrassing. Dude thinks he made a difference and scored a win because there was no change in policy on an intentionally dry financial report that would've been made weeks earlier? He thinks progress was made because a web page was taken down and a fan complained on twitter? You could slap his picture in the dictionary under "delusional" and it would be a perfect fit. -- Triacom (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record this isn't just me, look at the top comments in a story about this. The guy's a laughing stock, and I'm thinking we should just redirect this page so we can be done with him. It'll take forever to be deleted otherwise and even then somebody could make a new page. -- Triacom (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Though I can't imagine this will be deleted, the admins never delete anything short of actual spam.--Newerfag (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm just redirecting it outright, blanking it doesn't really help us. -- Triacom (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Imagine if GW came across his Gnoblar or Al Muktar videos. Telling victory, my Reforged Ass!!! -- Bear Eater (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Haven't seen this Gnoblar video (can't even find it), but the Al Muktar video's not bad at all compared to his video rant about the Black Ultramarine. Admittedly it's hard telling where the ignorance ends and the racism starts (if there's even a difference in the first place), but I'd place my bet at where he starts talking about the Salamanders. -- Triacom (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
You won't be able to find the Gnoblar video anymore, as he actually took it down, for unexplained reasons. But rest assured, it was quite....out there in its real life comparisons. We're talking Gypsy references, stuff about Jew's noses, and the creme de la creme, a full on racial slur. Here's a clip that was saved before the video was removed: Gnoblar Controversy. -- Bear Eater (talk) 3:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Found it. Holy shit you weren't kidding, not only is he so completely wrong on the lore, but it starts out race-baiting, then after a brief bit of getting the setting wrong he goes full mask-off when he starts calling them "house-ni**ers". I should also point out that he mentions that his channel is well-known for the term. -- Triacom (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Also his response to the Christchurch shooting is deplorable. Fortunately there's already somebody out there who watched it and goes over why. -- Triacom (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Some Idiot[edit]

Nuke Review.pngThis article covers a topic that, by its very nature, is a magnet for flamewars. Try not to get too assmad at what you're about to read.

The Below is part of a long discussion between multiple people that has taken up a substantial portion of the page. For the sake of shortening the page, all content has been collapsed.

if you think arch is a Nazi or a pedo or enabler of pedos you’re mentally ill and have too much of a bias to decide definitions. FYI some Nazi actually were not bad guys some saved a lot civilian lives in China and during the fall of Germany, some even tried to kill Hitler.

The discord's shots are pretty indisputable, it's pretty easy to figure out that people who defend child porn are pedophiles, and when you make those people mods, it's pretty easy to see you're enabling them. FYI nobody cares about those Nazis since nobody was talking about them. It's also easy to say you're defending them when you claim that pedophiles when you try to hide them and pretend like that never happened. I'm also going to need to see proof that the comments were somehow faked. -- Triacom (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Also your spelling was atrocious. That alone is grounds enough for undoing any of your edits. -- Triacom(talk) 08:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Triacom. You have proven yourself to be the bane of this wiki, an SJW who deserves death. I for one cannot wait to see Arch and the rest of us with sanity profit from the golden age that is coming in the next decade when the ethnostate is finally established and the west begins to recover, while you are left behind to be raped by tyrone and his muslim migrant friend. Oh, and science proves that blacks aren't human, look into phrenology. Get triggered.

This is a really unhealthy coping mechanism for getting proven wrong on a wiki, my dude. Seek help. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:444A:7280:D358:4722 15:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Exhibit A for why people call Arch and his fans Racists. -- Triacom (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
You know what? At this point I'll settle for him not being listed here at all. It seems like nobody's interested in genuinely recommending him. -- Triacom (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
1:Anon, Triacom does good work on this wiki, so stick your addled excuse of an opinion back into the trash bin where is belongs. 2: I'm not sure about deleting him. Didn't we talk about this earlier? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
We did, I wrote that when the anon briefly stopped trying to post that terrible edit and instead tried deleting him off the page outright. If they were happy with him being gone instead of him being badmouthed on here then I would've been fine with that if the alternative was an endless editwar against his fanbase. -- Triacom (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I suppose. Though weren't there a few fellas up above on here that agree with him being on here? Further, what is to say his fans just add him back on? It seems like a hydra: each solution just leads to a host of other problems. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on deleting him myself, I was just saying that if the fan wanted him gone that I wouldn't bother putting him back on the page, and I figured that other people would feel differently about it. You are right in that there's not really a good way to get rid of this problem, though I think permanently protecting the page would help a lot in curbing their edits. -- Triacom (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ironic how Triacom cites a Vaush video to support his hate boner against Arch, even though Vaush is literally defending CP in a debate against Vegan Gains. Also lol at citing a Vaush vid period -- Anon who's sick of the bullshit

Do you think it's impossible to think more than one thing is bad? You can say why one thing is bad and go over why, then you can point out why something else is bad and go over why. In case that's too complex for you, I'm not giving Vaush a free pass on everything because of the video he did on Arch. I'll admit I haven't seen that particular video yet, I don't watch much of Vaush, so I'll wait until I've seen it to comment on it. -- Triacom (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Right but you'll take the word of Vaush and a literal subreddit full of communists (who themselves have enough skeletons in their closet to discredit their entire argument against Arch). Can't say I'm surprised -- Anon

I'm not taking anyone's word, I've seen the original unedited videos, and the discord. -- Triacom (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean the screenshots that were made up by Sigmarxism (pic can't be posted due to the captcha stopping links)? Do you mean the screenshots that show Arch repeating what CHRIS ROCK said? Or how about Arch mocking the communist shills' thought process by replacing 'true communism' with 'true fascism', which you wouldn't know since reddit only gave you a single out-of-context picture. Maybe we also have the numerous videos where Arch clearly states the Imperium is a hellhole, sounds like such a shining endorsement of the Imperium after all... - Anon L

I mean the words typed by Arch and his mods, and I mean the videos he uploaded to his own channel. Even with the videos he unlisted it's not hard to find videos where he's proud his channel became associated with the words "house ni--ers". -- Triacom (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah the words on his server that you blatantly misinterpreted . And quit crying so much about the Gnblar video, he's not suddenly a card carrying KKK member due to one vid made at least a year ago...

Oh please do tell me how I misinterpreted his mods discussing how they think child porn is fine. -- Triacom (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I never mentioned his mods, and I don't pay lipservice to the 'guilt by association' bullshit. Countless servers I've been on have had mods with sketchy shit. I'm talking about the alleged smoking gun against Arch, with photo evidence suggesting parts of it are false or clearly shown without the full context that tell a different story.

Except you did mention his mods when you said the discord pics were faked. If you have photo evidence they were faked or taken out of context why aren't you showing it? You're also not addressing the fact that prior to the gnoblars video the "house ni--ers" term was so associated with his channel he not only commented on it, but did so proudly. -- Triacom (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Except I clearly didn't mention Arch's mods, I mentioned Arch and only Arch. I explicitly stated that the stuff Arch is being accused of is (for the most part) false, I made no mention of his mods. I'm not disputing what Arch said in his gnoblar video, but like I said I think it's irrelevant and a grab at straws. I also told you why I can't send you these two photos that shed additional light, the captcha stops me from sending links and I have no clue what the response to the question is. So unless you either tell me your email or the answer to the challenge captcha question, my hands are tied.- Anon

Either the discord is faked or it's not, you said the photos (plural) was faked and since there's only two that means you were referencing both. If you didn't mean to reference both you should have specified. As for the captcha, if you cannot figure out the answers then I highly doubt you have any evidence the photo is faked. Going over his videos for a second, the gnoblars video and videos like it make up most of the reason people call him a racist, and once he proudly asserts that people associate his channel with the term "house ni--ers" I don't think anyone can dispute whether or not he's a racist. The discord photo is just the cherry on top. -- Triacom (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

How specific do you need me to be when I only mention one person? And more importantly, how does not knowing a password (which could be any given case-sensitive phrase) mean that I have no evidence? There's literally no correlation. And since you're still hung up on the fact he used off-color language a year ago, where is your evidence that he's PROUD to be associated with that term and that he used it? P.S. @Lord of The Lemmings: name checks out

I'm bringing it up because it sounds like backtracking, as if you found out it was something you can't defend and now you're trying to pretend you didn't bring it up. As for your "password", you can look all of them up on this wiki. If you're not going to even try doing that then I doubt you have any sort of compelling evidence; and it's not that I think you have no evidence because you don't know the captcha, it's that I think you don't have evidence because you're not willing to do a 3-second search for the answer. And since you're still hung up on the fact he used off-color language a year ago, where is your evidence that he's PROUD to be associated with that term and that he used it? In the Gnoblar video. -- Triacom (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There's literally no part of the twitter video capture that was taken to suggest Arch was proud, and I listened to the whole thing. Sure he'd acknowledge that he's infamous for saying that, but not proud. And the entire idea that he'd be proud of saying House Ni--ers is extremely stupid; why would you unlist/delete something you're proud of? There's also nowhere online that shows what this captcha password is.

Twitter video? Have you not listened to the actual video? His tone where he continues to use it is pride. He didn't acknowledge he was infamous for saying it, he seemed to be under the impression it was a good thing. "why would you unlist/delete something you're proud of?" Same reason he tried hiding the discord stuff, it eventually came back to haunt him. "There's also nowhere online that shows what this captcha password is." Yeah that's not true. 3 seconds in a search bar gives you the answers. -- Triacom (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The original video is gone, all I have to go off of is a snippet on twitter where he acknowledges that he'd be infamous for saying it. That's not a prideful tone in the slightest, and hiding something you said is the very opposite of pride. No search results are showing the captcha password either, so I'm done trying to wrangle with the stupid thing.

I linked the original video earlier on this very page, and hiding something years after the fact still means there were years where he was proud of it. As for the captcha, I don't believe that for a second, control+c, control+v into any search you want would give you the answer. -- Triacom (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Not hiding some dumb thing you said years ago doesn't mean you're proud, you just didn't think a subreddit full of communists would force your hand. I'm also not finding any captcha so I'm just going to read the pictures directly. Anonymous 06/06/20(Sat) 01:50:46 No.73019730 File: sigmarxism.png (26KB, 621X387), the text below depicts a discord chat.

Arch (05-Jun-20 01:28 AM): Lol (30 thumbs up emoji reactions)

Arch (05-Jun-20 01:28 AM): It turns out anyone can change their name and avatar to anything on discord (18 le thumbs up reactions)

TauZedong (05-Jun-20 01:29 AM): That's nothing, if you hit F12 in the web client you can change timestamps too

loldongs (05-Jun-20 01:34 AM): Oh, this is gonna be great.

Yet it still remained up for far longer and he never made any sort of retraction or apology, he just tried sweeping it under the rug and hoped everyone forgot. You can also be proud of something while not wanting to deal with the backlash. As for that evidence, are you seriously telling me your evidence that the pic is fake is just Arch saying it's fake and that's it? -- Triacom (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Bruh. These are sigmarxists pretending to be Arch and reveling at the ease of impersonating people. That's NOT ARCH in that conversation, and that isn't in his server. When people delete old tweets of things that could get them cancelled today, that doesn't mean they're proud to have made that tweet. Unless your mind is already made up and think Arch is a card-carrying racists there's no reason or evidence aside from speculation that he'd be proud of the vid.

Dude, it was already confirmed to be him by people on his side who were on the discord and claimed the discussions those were taken out of were jokes. When people delete old tweets of things that could get them cancelled today, that doesn't mean they're proud to have made that tweet. If they act proud of it at the time of posting then yes, they were proud to have posted it. How they feel after the fact doesn't change how they were in the past, and hiding it instead of owning up to it shows that they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions, not that they changed. -- Triacom (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
>Unironically using Sigmarxists
Anon, I think you're a bit too obvious in the trolling. Maybe cut back a little? --58.162.223.230 06:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Go back to drinking your soylent beverage, Mr IP address. For the 3rd time acknowledging that you'd be infamous for saying something is not the same as taking pride. That confirmation you're referring to came from Arch, where he strongly denies ever endorsing fascism and whatnot despite many retards lying that he did, and manipulating the 'evidence' to support it.

Wait a minute, so you're saying Arch confirmed it was him, and that Arch also claimed it was all faked by other people? You can't have both, it's either one or the other. As for him being proud, he didn't acknowledge he was infamous for it, he was proud that his channel was associated with the term and continued to use it for years before hiding the video and hoping people didn't notice. Even if he thought he was infamous for that phrase, you don't continue to do something you're infamous for without being proud of it. -- Triacom (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Arch was confirming that he made quotes bashing fascism and the state of the Imperium (if you bothered to fully read them). Arch however has vehemently denied many of the false allegations against him. If sigmarxists keep pushing this verifiably false narrative that Arch endorses nazis, that can only mean they've outright fabricated stuff. Also, he doesn't keep using the N word in his vids and hasn't for quite a while, quit lying lol

So then he's saying the thread's real but the contents of that thread were faked, even though they were already confirmed by other people and he has no evidence besides his word backing him up? You say the accusations are false, so where are you verifying that they're false? If it's just him claiming he and his mods were all impersonated then that's not a defence unless he can show you proof that he was actually impersonated. As an example, if I signed my posts with Newerfag's username you could tell I impersonated him by checking the history of the page. Also I didn't say he uses the N word in his current videos, I said he hid the videos where he used it and hoped people didn't notice, because that's what happened. -- Triacom (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You're claiming screenshots can be verified as fake by checking a log? Really?! You're also saying it's someone's burden to show something was faked. That's exactly the opposite of how evidence works: The burden is on the person presenting the evidence to show it's real. Screenshots are easy to edit: All modern desktop browsers have inspect element functions (ctrl+shift+I on Chrome based browsers) that allow text alteration with trivial levels of ease. This is why people with any sense don't take screenshots seriously without an archive link. --Agiletek (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"You're claiming screenshots can be verified as fake by checking a log? Really?!" No, you obviously missed the part where I said "As an example," but don't worry, I'll write it in all caps and bold it next time so you can't miss it. "You're also saying it's someone's burden to show something was faked." Yeah, because when somebody accuses someone else the burden of proof is on them to show evidence, and screenshots are evidence. After that it's on the accused to disprove the evidence if possible, and if you want to disprove evidence then you'll need to show how they're fake. If somebody was accusing Arch without evidence I wouldn't give them the time of day. As for your claim that evidence can be manipulated, there's not only no sign of that, you have the opposite with people claiming that was actually said, but in discussions that have been taken out of context. The fact that something can be manipulated doesn't mean it has been manipulated. -- Triacom (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
And what would you consider signs the "evidence" was manipulated? Like I said, it's trivial to edit the text of any web page directly, without leaving any artifacts like photoshop would. "A group of pseudonymous people on the internet said it was true!" hardly bolsters an unverifiable screenshot that's disputed by the one party that would undeniably know if it's true or not. Like I said, archive or nothing. --Agiletek (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Chat logs and/or a history of the accuser editing footage before would be pretty compelling evidence that it was manipulated. -- Triacom (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Produce them and authenticate them. --Agiletek (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I think you're confusing me for Arch, I'm not the one who had access to the chat logs, and since he's the one accused and his accuser is not known for fabricating evidence, he needs to produce the chatlogs if he wants to defend himself and his mods. -- Triacom (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, so you're just demanding someone make unreasonable effort to disprove random accusations with no verifiable proof. --Agiletek (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not an unreasonable effort, if somebody makes a claim and has evidence backing it up then it's on the other person to disprove them. -- Triacom (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
A random out of context screenshot isn't "evidence backing it up", it's just a random claim. I've never seen any of ArchWarhammer's content, I'm just telling you your arguments are retarded: Screenshots of text on the internet is so easily faked it has no value as evidence on its own. --Agiletek (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
And what's the context behind it? How do you know it's out of context? If you have extra context to give and it would show the screenshot in a new light then that would disprove it. If screenshots are genuinely faked then the person being accused can prove that they were faked, yet for some reason nobody's been able to do that yet, how strange. -- Triacom (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what the context is. That's why it can't be trusted. Again, demanding someone actively disprove every flimsy claim against them made with minimal to no evidence is retarded, especially when it's really hard to prove you never said something. --Agiletek (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
If you don't know what the context is then how do you know it's taken out of context? -- Triacom (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You're asking how I know I don't have the context if I don't have the context? Really? Random screenshots of text aren't evidence --Agiletek (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
How do you know you don't have the context? Seems like you're just assuming you don't. As for the screenshot, if I wanted to disprove that it would be entirely on me, and I could do that by doing a search through his Twitter history. -- Triacom (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Obama deleted it he posted it. --Agiletek (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
In that case look to see if anyone else claims he said that, because there will always be people responding to someone that popular, deleted tweet or no, and if people agree he said that then I'll say it's more likely than not. -- Triacom (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Putting aside the sheer difference in attention between literally a public post by a former President of the US and (from what I can tell) a private chat room from a random e-celeb... I'll agree Obama said it. How many other people do you need to agree saw it before you'll admit trusting random screenshots of text you see on the internet with nothing else backing them is a retarded idea? --Agiletek (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"How many other people do you need to agree saw it-" It's not just about who says they saw it, it's about people who as far as I can tell haven't talked to each other who can independently agree he said it. If I asked you for example if he said this and asked you to quote it for me without looking at what was said (for example, prompting them with "has Obama ever mentioned somebody named Triacom") then I'd start to believe he said it, and that would also be further helped along if you could find other mentions where he does the same thing. Remember, the accusation that he's a racist is only partly because of the screenshots, and is mainly because he was proud his channel became associated with the term "house ni--ers", and he kept using that term for years. I'm not just trusting random screengrabs, I've both seen and linked the video from his own channel where he does this. -- Triacom (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You were just arguing the random screenshots were legit. --Agiletek (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm still arguing that I haven't seen anything that discredits them, the reason I brought up his videos is because you said with "nothing else backing them-" and even though I was sure you were just referring to the legitimacy of the screenshots, I wanted to point out the idea the screenshots were supporting (that he's a racist) did have other sources backing them up. -- Triacom (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Then give them, because all you've said is "other people said they're real". --Agiletek (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I already linked the video earlier on this page, would you like me to link it again? It's the gnoblars video in case you've already seen it, sorry if that wasn't clearer. -- Triacom (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
That's it? That's what you've spent weeks arguing that means someone is a Nazi because he spoke metaphorically about a fantasy creature and compared it to a real world position while admitting he's being edgy in the same sentence? Where the fuck do you think you are?! This is 1d4chan, not some Something Awful spawned shithole! In your own link the guy calling him a Nazi is a self-admitted communist (as in, the failed ideology that holds the world record in death count) and can hardly be seen as a rational person. Sorry did I say weeks? You've spent months obsessing over this! What's wrong with you? Argue he's wrong on the lore all you want, dig up all the examples you can find. At least obsessing over detail over a hobby is something rational! You've been assmad for months because someone said a bad word once! --Agiletek (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
No, the argument that he's a racist is from the screengrabs and his own videos, the argument that he's a Nazi comes mainly from his VtM campaign where he made Nazi's the sympathetic party. As for the bit you say where he's intentionally edgy, there's a point where it stops being a joke, just like there's a point in that Cuties movie where it stops being about child exploitation and becomes child exploitation (before you claim I'm calling him a pedophile, I'm not, I'm using this as an example of how something can become something else). If you're so proud of a phrase that's become synonymous with your channel and decide to fully own it, then you've gone past the point of just making racist jokes and have become a racist. "In your own link the guy calling him a Nazi is a self-admitted communist-" Weird, because he calls himself a socialist anarchist. Bad ideology aside, he's not the topic here. "Sorry did I say weeks? You've spent months obsessing over this! What's wrong with you?" You're hardly one to talk, you've been reading and responding to it, although I question whether or not you paid attention since you're all over the place. The answer's quite simple: I've got some free time, and there's evidence backing up my claims. On the other hand you've got some free time, and the evidence backing up your claims is... well just let me know if you find any. "At least obsessing over detail over a hobby is something rational!" It's not rational to call out a racist when you see one? That's what I've been doing (to Arch, I'm not calling you a racist). "You've been assmad for months because someone said a bad word once!" He said it so often it was associated with his channel specifically, and if I was butthurt about it I'd be talking like you. -- Triacom (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not rational to spend months on 4chan to "call out a racist". Months is a lot of free time. "Post Modern Neo-Marxist Game Master || he/him || Warhammer YouTuber (new video in bio) || Gnoblar Supporter" is not "socialist anarchist". Like I said, you could have easily spent this time cataloging how he's wrong on lore, producing objective evidence for why he shouldn't be on the page and skip and skip all this stupid shit. Instead you've focused on easily your weakest argument for why he shouldn't be on the page and backing it up with non-sense (it's real because people said they're real and he isn't releasing a bunch of private stuff to disprove it!). I'm annoyed because two idiots have been eating up the recent changes page for months making stupid arguments to eachother on the most petty bullshit. It's clear your top priority is calling him racist and anything else is incidental. That and your other insistence on tone policing articles (again, on 1d4chan) makes you look like the bigger of the two idiots. --Agiletek (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"No, it's not rational to spend months on 4chan to "call out a racist". Months is a lot of free time." I've got downtime when I'm waiting for videos to render, when I'm in transit, when I'm eating and before I sleep, if I choose to spend that time arguing that using the N word so often it becomes associated with your channel makes you a racist then why is it unreasonable to do that as opposed to something like playing mobile games? I don't go out of my way to find these kinds of things, they simply pop up and that's when I notice them. "-is not "socialist anarchist"." It's also not Communist, but is it really worth it to argue over which is worse? "Neo-Marxist", "Communism", and "Socialist-Anarchist" are all terrible and can join Capitalism as other shitty systems that don't function thanks to human nature. "Like I said, you could have easily spent this time cataloging how he's wrong on lore, producing objective evidence for why he shouldn't be on the page and skip and skip all this stupid shit." Him being wrong on the lore wouldn't be evidence for him not being on the page, and it's already so widely known that a warning was already on his section before this started. Also nobody is arguing that his lore videos are accurate, if they were then I would be doing what you want me to. "Instead you've focused on easily your weakest argument for why he shouldn't be on the page-" Wait a minute, I think you misunderstood why I'm arguing. I'm not arguing to remove him from the page, I think he should be included, however I also think the page should reflect the user's it links to, and that's why I'm arguing against people arguing it's inaccurate to label a guy who got his channel associated with the N word as a racist. "and backing it up with non-sense (it's real because people said they're real and he isn't releasing a bunch of private stuff to disprove it!)." Well yeah, if people say something happened, and they back it up with pictures of that thing happening, and people on the side of the accused said it happened, and the accused does nothing to disprove it, then yes it's reasonable to believe it happened. "I'm annoyed because two idiots have been eating up the recent changes page for months making stupid arguments to eachother on the most petty bullshit." Uh-huh... just a warning, you should not look at the talk page for the Damocles Gulf Crusade. "It's clear your top priority is calling him racist and anything else is incidental." My top priority is arguing against people who try to change a page or argue with no evidence of their own. If Arch came out today with a video where he apologized for associating his channel with the N word I would happily reflect that on the main page and link to it. If he went 6 months after that without any racist jabs on discord, his videos or social media then I'd be happy to include that as well. Furthermore, if anyone came out with proof that the screengrabs were fake and that the videos uploaded to his own channel were also somehow fake then I'd stop arguing against them. As of yet nobody has provided any sort of proof, they haven't even provided any link or citation beyond Arch saying "it's possible to fake stuff" (which isn't even a denial). "That and your other insistence on tone policing articles (again, on 1d4chan) makes you look like the bigger of the two idiots." Tone policing? I don't do that, when anon's edit into the Gue'Vessa page the Angry Marines call them "Weaboo faggots" I leave it, same with many other instances. If you're thinking of referencing the Yugioh page and the discussion that happened there I'll remind you that you were not only in the minority for how COVID-19 should've been presented, but you also agreed with my edit that it could've been excised since the "joke" was redundant (after mocking my offer to do that no less). The only general change I make to the wiki is to undo strikethroughs when people use them to argue on the main page, and I do that because it was widely agreed upon years ago that those were a plague that offered nothing, and they needed to go. -- Triacom (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
"associated with" "associated with" "associated with". By who? Under what standards? Nobody cares. 4chan (and Xbox Live) is far more "associated with" people on the internet saying the same word than some random Youtuber. At best you're just arguing any entry should have a NSFW tag. "I'm not arguing to remove him from the page, I think he should be included" So you think he should be recommended and that he's a vile racist who doesn't know what he's talking about? --Agiletek (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
By himself and his community, as according to Arch and his own standards. "Nobody cares. 4chan (and Xbox Live) is far more "associated with" people on the internet saying the same word than some random Youtuber." Yet those people aren't on the page, if they were we could talk about them the same way. "At best you're just arguing any entry should have a NSFW tag." Well if the shoe fits, why not? "So you think he should be recommended and that he's a vile racist who doesn't know what he's talking about?" I think he deserves a mention, and that we need to think about expanding the scope of the page to "skub" users, if we don't create a spot for them on the page then their own fans will try to do it and we'll be back here all over again. As far as him being a racist who doesn't know what he's talking about, yes and yes. -- Triacom (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How many times do I have to spell it out for you tri? The very same screenshots you insist prove that arch is a racist nazi actually exonerate him unless you ignore their context or interpret shitposting as endorsement. Additional screencaps that conveniently weren't provided by the sigmarxists support that. You're trying to operate off of already manipulated screenshots (why else would they be single-line, out of context photos) and insist that none of them could've been tampered with, despite the fact that it wasn't Arch in the convo transcript I typed out. What's worse is that you actually think Arch endorses nazis and the imperium's government despite him repeatedly condemning them in past videos. Also you literally just said he keeps using the N word in his vids. As for Mr Lemming and Bear, go pop a knot. You might claim you're 'willing to defend him from unfair criticism' but you never pushed against Tri's BS narrative on him because you're too busy sucking him off. You let him cite a vid by a marxist CP-defender that claims Arch backs the Christchurch shooter. For allowing such a grand act of stupidity and hypocrisy you're arguably even less trustworthy. Also congrats on redditors making a circlejerk, definitely an achievement that can never be matched or exceeded...

Hang on a minute, you just spent the past couple paragraphs telling me that those screenshots were fake, then suddenly they're no longer fake and actually exonerate him? Then you go back to "actually they are fake". You can't have it both ways, and if you really have additional screencaps then I'd love to see them. "You're trying to operate off of already manipulated screenshots (why else would they be single-line, out of context photos) and insist that none of them could've been tampered with-" Except I never did that, I said that if there's no evidence that it's been tampered with and if the person posting does not have a history of tampering with evidence then there's no reason to assume it's been tampered with. I'm not saying it hasn't been tampered with, just that there's you shouldn't assume it has been. "despite the fact that it wasn't Arch in the convo transcript I typed out." Except I wasn't referring to the transcript, I was referring to this: "That confirmation you're referring to came from Arch-" I get that following a conversation is hard for you, so I'll directly spell it out next time. "What's worse is that you actually think Arch endorses nazis-" Because he ran a game where he endorsed Nazi's, not hard to make that connection. "and the imperium's government despite him repeatedly condemning them in past videos." And yet he still also praised them, so he's trying to have it both ways again. "Also you literally just said he keeps using the N word in his vids." No, I said he kept using it for years until he tried to hide all the videos where he said it. "you never pushed against Tri's BS narrative on him because you're too busy sucking him off." Or they followed the conversation, read the screencaps, watched the videos, and waited for you to present actual evidence instead of just claims that all the evidence against Arch was faked. "You let him cite a vid by a marxist CP-defender that claims Arch backs the Christchurch shooter." I checked Vaush's vids, that video you're referring to where people claim he's a "CP-defender" came out after I linked his video on Arch, and Arch actually did back the Christchurch shooter and try to absolve him of as much blame as possible. If you're going to continue going after Vaush, I'll tell you right now I'm not going to stop you, he's not relevant to the current conversation and I am not interested in defending him or anything he said. I'm sure he can do that himself in the video where he directly responded to those accusations, and it's funny how you'll take Arch's word and ignore everything else (even when, according to you, it's directly contradicting himself), yet you won't extend the same courtesy to other people. -- Triacom (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Imma say this one more time since you still don't get it. Arch never defended nazis. You are using clearly manipulated screenshots to claim he did, as Arch explains on multiple interviews that he never did so. He or his fans also presented other pics that showed what Arch ACTUALLY said. For example, one of them has Arch ACTUALLY saying the following: 'I mean fuck it! If the communists are gone keep going 'no no no REAL bla bla bla will lead to the perfect world' may as well use their logic'. When you combine this with the fact that a screengrab of sigmarxists pretending to be Arch exists, that means that the sigmarxists have been tampering evidence and it's thus invalid. You might try and deny that you're relying on those screenshots, but the fact you keep defending their veracity and the people who posted them clearly means you are. Arch explicitly and regularly claiming the Imperium is a hellhole invalidates your accusation that he endorses the Imperium, end of discussion. On Arch's Christchurch video, one of the first things he says is that it's a terror attack, he is actually pushing back against the popular narrative that online meme culture is to blame and censorship is the solution. This means you either didn't watch the video, you're a liar, or you actually put more stock in Vaush's word than you're letting on. What's most pathetic however is thinking that sympathetically portraying the bad guys in a GAME makes you a nazi. It's a GAME, roleplaying as the bad guys doesn't actually make you a bad guy or a believer in their ideology. That's the most infantile thought process I've ever seen. I'm also going to say this one last time: acknowledging your infamy for using a metaphorical (if off-color) term for a fictional species does not make you are racist, especially since it happened years ago and hiding it is the direct opposite of pride. If he was proud he'd repost it and keep using that term to this day. The entire 'disclaimer' section you and your mods signed off on is a load of BS that was created when woke/cancel culture hit its peak.

You do know that there’s a difference between role playing and just being an ass right? That can apply to both sides of the political spectrum. Arch knows how much of a rise he gets out of people for doing stuff like that so he does it just to see their reaction. It’s not about nazis or being woke or whatever the fuck the buzz word of the week is. It’s just an internet troll being a douche.GreySeerCriak (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Anon, nobody is saying the screenshots have anything to do with him being sympathetic to Nazi's, they say he's sympathetic to Nazi's because he ran a campaign where he was sympathetic to Nazi's. "He or his fans also presented other pics that showed what Arch ACTUALLY said." Yet again you're not going to link them and it seems like you're expecting us to take your word for it. "When you combine this with the fact that a screengrab of sigmarxists pretending to be Arch exists-" Again you're flip-flopping between "They're not real!" And "They're real but taken out of context!" Either it's one or the other, make up your mind. "You might try and deny that you're relying on those screenshots-" Again, I can point to his own videos to call him a racist, I don't need the images for that, and you've yet to cast any doubt on their legitimacy. "Arch explicitly and regularly claiming the Imperium is a hellhole invalidates your accusation that he endorses the Imperium, end of discussion." And Nixon repeatedly said he wasn't a crook, guess that means he wasn't. "On Arch's Christchurch video, one of the first things he says is that it's a terror attack, he is actually pushing back against the popular narrative that online meme culture is to blame and censorship is the solution." Yeah, he said that was the problem and put as much possible blame on everyone except the shooter. "It's a GAME, roleplaying as the bad guys doesn't actually make you a bad guy or a believer in their ideology." But portraying them as sympathetic certainly lends credence to that. This isn't just a video where he was trying to get a ride out of people, it was a genuine campaign. "I'm also going to say this one last time: acknowledging your infamy for using a metaphorical (if off-color) term for a fictional species does not make you are racist-" Unless that term is racist, then it definitely makes you a racist. "If he was proud he'd repost it and keep using that term to this day." That's exactly what happened until he started getting more of a negative reception than a positive one. -- Triacom (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Bottom text
How long are you gonna keep up the mental gymnastics Triacom? You're clinging to the idea that Arch is a nazi who likes Brenton Tarrant and the Imperium, with nothing but conjecture and your personal (mis)interpretation. Your 'silver bullet' is proof Arch used an edgy metaphor he made years ago a couple of times, and the false assumption that he pridefully kept doing so up to the present. As the photo shows you're also operating off of manipulated out of context screenshots, which seriously questions how reliable the rest of your screenshots are (or if they're even real). Even for you that's quite the grasp at straws, but I shouldn't be shocked since your go-to is Vaush and R/Sigmarxism.
You just fucked up hard anon, you just proved the stuff in the screengrabs are not faked because you provided a separate section where Arch actually did say what they posted, so you can no longer claim all of it was made up. As for him portraying Nazi's as sympathetic, that actually happened, how long are you going to deny reality? "Your 'silver bullet' is proof Arch used an edgy metaphor he made years ago a couple of times, and the false assumption that he pridefully kept doing so up to the present." Pay attention, it's not a metaphor, and I said he kept using it to the point it was associated with his channel, which Arch confirms. I also didn't say he kept using it up to the present, I said he kept using it until he was given a lot of shit for it, then he tried to hide the videos, which is also what happened. Also Vaush doesn't add any additional evidence, Arch sinks his ship on his own and all Vaush does is point out how. As for Sigmarxism being my go-to source, that's not true, my go-to source is Arch's own videos and their screengrabs help back that up. -- Triacom (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
>Showing the guy supporting any form of Fascism (while seeming to believe that it's somehow a good thing)
Are you just retarded or did you intend to defeat your argument? --58.162.223.230 04:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey IP address, switching the words around in a popular phrase to make a point isn't endorsement. If you weren't such a bugman who didn't know what context was, you might've been able to catch onto that. Seems like online learning is really hard on the special ed students...

1. Sign your fucking posts
2. Using unrelated insults is irrelevant
3. I wasn't talking about the stupid 'real fascism has never been tried'. That's just switching the terms around. But real fascism leads to a utopian state... part. Which isn't a common communist phrase, as a simple google search turns up no results. --58.162.223.230 04:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Fuck you 2. Fuck you, hypocrite 3. Tankies always go on about how communism leads to a utopia so yes, it is switching the words in a common phrase.

1&2. Insults will get you nowhere.
3. There's a difference between Communism and Fascism, however. Communism is good in theory but doesn't work because it requires the assumption of innate human good. Fascism simply doesn't work because it relies oppression and competition (aka the exact things that cause Communism to fail in practice). So tl;dr: Communism no work because it can't avoid humanity's innate failures. Fascism no work because it tries to rely on those exact failures. --58.162.223.230 04:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool so how does that disprove what I said?


Holy shit Triacom you're delusional. There's irrefutable evidence that you're using screenshots which were manipulated to create a false narrative, and your first impulse is to claim victory in that your screenshots are real & solid evidence. You're clinging to this desperate leap in logic that RPing as nazis in a game supports the accusation that he is one. You're trusting the interpretation of VAUSH, instead of the unmistakable fact that Arch condemned Brenton Tarrant in the SAME VIDEO you think is evidence. Using an edgy metaphor a few times YEARS ago and then hiding it when cancel culture went for Arch is somehow your proof that he's proud of using the word and kept doing so. I'M the one that needs to pay attention? You keep shifting your own goalposts and using mental gymnastics to jump to conclusions.

Except he said what was written, the only thing that was added is him saying that if people wanted to talk up their ideology, then he'd talk up fascism as if it was his favoured ideology, it changes nothing. "You're clinging to this desperate leap in logic that RPing as nazis in a game supports the accusation that he is one." Well, yeah, if you roleplay as Nazi's and make the Nazi's sympathetic then it's kind of hard to say you're not one. "You're trusting the interpretation of VAUSH-" Wrong, I'm going off of what Arch said, as I've repeatedly stated. "-instead of the unmistakable fact that Arch condemned Brenton Tarrant in the SAME VIDEO you think is evidence." After he put as much blame as possible on everyone else and acted as if the shooting was a byproduct of other people's actions. "Using an edgy metaphor a few times YEARS ago and then hiding it when cancel culture went for Arch is somehow your proof that he's proud of using the word-" Yes, because he said it so much the phrase was associated with his channel, also that's not a metaphor, a metaphor is a means of comparison without using like or as, his phrase is to say something IS something else. "I'M the one that needs to pay attention?" Yes, because I need to correct you on at least three things every time you post. -- Triacom (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit, you and Vaush aren't using Arch's own words against him, because you're deliberately ignoring that Arch's own words include condemnations of the very things you accuse him of. You're not turning words against him, you're twisting and cherry-picking them to form a narrative. I know that's exactly what you're doing because when confronted with explicit proof that Arch condemns what you accuse him of, you just fall back on your personal interpretation. I'm not even going to bother addressing your retarded mental gymnastics on how RP in games=IRL sympathy, anyone who thinks like that isn't qualified to distinguish reality. You also aren't correcting me on anything, you just keep spinning the facts and asserting that your opinion is fact because reasons (P.S., Arch didn't use like or as when comparing the Gnoblars, since you can't even argue semantics properly).

Except I'm not, I heard his condemnation, alongside a million excuses to try and make it look as if the shooter was some kind of victim made by the system and not some psycho who should've been in therapy. Him saying "but I also condemn the shooter" alongside all that is the equivalent of "I have a black friend" when somebody accuses you of being racist. "I know that's exactly what you're doing because when confronted with explicit proof that Arch condemns what you accuse him of, you just fall back on your personal interpretation." Oh? When did Arch condemn racism, especially the racism he engaged in? Was it during the part where he and his Discord buddies all decided to start making racist jokes, after he hid the videos where he was calling things "house ni--ers", or did it just happen and I'm supposed to take your word on it? "I'm not even going to bother addressing your retarded mental gymnastics on how RP in games=IRL sympathy-" Let's do a fun little experiment anon, which people like to roleplay as Nazis and like to portray Nazis as sympathetic? I'll give you some time to figure it out. "You also aren't correcting me on anything-" If you think this then you really haven't been paying attention. You keep saying I say what I haven't said, and I have to keep correcting you on it. You also get basic English wrong, as seen here: "P.S., Arch didn't use like or as when comparing the Gnoblars-" He didn't compare the Gnoblars, to compare the Gnoblars you'd need to say they are similar to something, instead he directly said they are something. That's not a metaphor, and you should look up actual metaphors before trying to claim that it's just a metaphor. -- Triacom (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Arch called Tarrant a terrorist and cautioned against doing what the shooter wanted. Your hearing is off. But it doesn’t matter that Arch has spent hours criticizing fascism and racism, unfavorably comparing nazis to the far left, and debating against Richard Spencer. All that matters to you are manipulated screenshots from a dedicated group of communists, the idea that because his mods did something Arch is also guilty of it, and that he played as nazis in a game (which would make anyone who played a nazi in any form of fiction a nazi if we were all as smart as you). >”Or, to use a considerably more charged term, House N_ggers" OK captain shaky goalpost…

Arch also did everything he could to blame everyone else for the shooter's actions. "-unfavorably comparing nazis to the far left-" Actually that's one of the reasons people don't like him, because that comparison's outright bullshit and he knows it. "All that matters to you are manipulated screenshots from a dedicated group of communists-" Or I've seen the videos and know what he says, but just keep pretending I haven't, I'm sure reality will change to what you want. "-the idea that because his mods did something Arch is also guilty of it-" No, he's guilty of making them mods and keeping them as mods when that stuff came out. "and that he played as nazis in a game-" And I'm sure you'd tell me that the people who came out to protest in Charlottesville were also just roleplaying as Nazis. -- Triacom (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Bruh I'm kekking that you think playing as nazis in a game is the same as Charlottesville. Arch explicitly placed agency on the shooter and blamed him, simply explaining how certain things radicalized him. The nazis and far left are scum and an enemy to civilization, and I'm not gonna pretend they aren't just because one side MIGHT have good intentions. I clearly don't need to pretend you're out of touch with reality when you'll happily disregard hours of footage that debunks your argument, while trusting doctored evidence.

"Arch explicitly placed agency on the shooter and blamed him, simply explaining how certain things radicalized him." AKA he also blamed as many other people as he could for the shooter's actions. You don't get to go "He did a terrible thing, but you know who made him do the terrible thing?" As soon as you start trying to explain away somebody's actions based on what other people do, you're trying to put the blame on them. "I clearly don't need to pretend you're out of touch with reality when you'll happily disregard hours of footage that debunks your argument, while trusting doctored evidence." I find it funny you're mad about this happening to Arch, but fine when it happens to Vaush. On a different note, the evidence that you claim was doctored showed he said what he said, and the extra bit that you included made it worse. If you have more evidence like that, by all means, I'd love to see it. -- Triacom (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Congrats, you've found out what motive is. But I could say the exact same thing about you, Triacommunist. You expect me to believe you didn't know about Vaush's dirty laundry or didn't bother to look into him, despite him being Breadtube's most infamous member? To put so much stock in a vaush vid and a marxist subreddit, you'd either have to be gullible or one of them. The situation isn't even comparable anyway. A subreddit full of fascists isn't making false allegations against Vaush, and supporting these allegations with dubious screenshots, the character Vaush plays in an RPG, misinterpreting videos, or some edgy metaphor he made years ago. If that actually did happen, the allegations would be dismissed immediately because that type of evidence wouldn't pass muster and Vaush isn't guilty of wrongthink according to the woke mob. But you did get a gold medal in mental gymnastics for thinking that a screenshot that disproves your allegations automatically confirms your collection of screenshots are authentic. Congrats...

How long ago was that Vaush debate? I didn't look up anything of his before and still have no interest in his past videos, so no, I wasn't aware of it. "To put so much stock in a vaush vid and a marxist subreddit-" How many times do I need to say the only things I put stock in are Arch's own words? You keep saying that I only listen to outside sources when that's obviously not the case. "A subreddit full of fascists isn't making false allegations against Vaush-" They're also not doing it to Arch either. You also still don't know what a metaphor means. "But you did get a gold medal in mental gymnastics for thinking that a screenshot that disproves your allegations automatically confirms your collection of screenshots are authentic." Because it proves he said what they said he did, how does that disprove anything? -- Triacom (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The Vaush debate between him and Vegan gains was roughly 10-11 months ago. Of course you wouldn't have interest in what Vaush did but have an OCD obsession with Arch's actions, so much for not being biased. And quit lying about how you're not relying on outside sources. As you've already shown you're more than willing to ignore Arch's words when they don't confirm your views of him, and twist them to pretend that they do support said view. Sigmarxism is leading false allegations against Arch, because almost all of them can be disproven if you aren't a snowflake, can pay attention to what ACTUALLY happened, or have proper context. As an example you're stuck in this delusion of Arch being a nazi, but the full quote by Arch (that the sigmarxists conveniently manipulated to exclude context) shows that he's merely highlighting the ridiculousness of the communist thought process by switching the words with a widely hated ideology. But because you're operating off a clown world-tier thought process, lies become truth and fiction becomes reality.

"Of course you wouldn't have interest in what Vaush did but have an OCD obsession with Arch's actions-" Warhammer's my hobby, watching people complain about the government and get into online debates hours long is not. I take more interest in people who are a part of my hobby, as does every other person on the planet. "And quit lying about how you're not relying on outside source." Find proof of that happening. "As you've already shown you're more than willing to ignore Arch's words when they don't confirm your views of him-" You're one to talk, you outright ignore what he says when it makes him look bad. "Sigmarxism is leading false allegations against Arch, because almost all of them can be disproven if you aren't a snowflake-" You're the one getting triggered over it, and your only evidence was an additional sentence that made it worse. You keep saying there's all this evidence that can be used to disprove what they say, yet it's never shown up. Funny how that is. "As an example you're stuck in this delusion of Arch being a nazi, but the full quote by Arch-" And if that was the reason for the Nazi bit then you might have something, however it isn't, so that's unrelated to that accusation. "But because you're operating off a clown world-tier thought process, lies become truth and fiction becomes reality." Again, look in a mirror, Arch says a phrase so often it becomes associated with his channel and you lie to yourself that it's first a metaphor (it isn't) and that he only said it a few times, and that happened many years ago. You ignore how often somebody needs to say something for it to become associated with their channel, and you ignore how long it was used for, as well as the fact that he attempted to hide it and hoped people didn't notice. -- Triacom (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Fucking liar. From the very beginning you've used outside sources. You cite a Vaush video and trust it as if that dishonest communist prick is making an on-point analysis using nothing but his wit and the words Arch gave him. You use screenshots taken and manipulated by R/Sigmarxism to exclude the proper context, then go 'yeah Arch totally means all of this and if you don't actually think so then you're ignoring obvious racism lol'. And you'll trust that over the hours that Arch has spent bashing the ideas you accuse him of harboring. You'll argue at length about why the skeptics to these screenshots are wrong, but when a skeptic actually brings evidence the photos were doctored you'll ass-pull about how it somehow proves your point. Probably the same way you interpret a statement meant to ridicule an argument as an endorsement of a position. You can't even concede that something's a metaphor despite the very transcript fitting a definition YOU provided (and on that subject you dont even know how many times he used that metaphor even though you claim he uses it 'often'). Now that's a gut-buster. And what's this 'it's not the reason for this nazi bit so it's unrelated' bullshit? YOU were the one crazy enough to use it as an argument. You don't get to cut bait. This whole time you've thrown consistency and honesty out the window, and that's how you started this whole thing.

I've seen outside sources but I've never let them dictate my opinion as you claim here: "And quit lying about how you're not relying on outside sources-" My main opinion of him comes directly from his videos. "You cite a Vaush video and trust it as if that dishonest communist prick is making an on-point analysis using nothing but his wit and the words Arch gave him." Do you not get the issue here? You're literally saying "he's responding to what Arch said!" Yes, and the problem is that Arch said it. My opinion has also come from what Arch said, and what he said is pretty bad. "use screenshots taken and manipulated by R/Sigmarxism to exclude the proper context-" Except the context you gave made the image worse. If anything they did you a favour. "then go 'yeah Arch totally means all of this and if you don't actually think so then you're ignoring obvious racism lol'." If you think using the N-word so much it becomes associated with his channel means he's not racist, then you're denying reality. "'. And you'll trust that over the hours that Arch has spent bashing the ideas you accuse him of harboring." Could you point me to the hours he's spent bashing people who say the N-word? I can't seem to find them for some reason. "You'll argue at length about why the skeptics to these screenshots are wrong-" Wrong, I argued that there's no evidence these are Arch impersonators like you and Agiletek claimed. "but when a skeptic actually brings evidence the photos were doctored you'll ass-pull about how it somehow proves your point." Because not only does it demonstrate it wasn't an Arch impersonator who typed that, but he actually did say what they claimed he said. "You can't even concede that something's a metaphor despite the very transcript fitting a definition YOU provided-" Saying something is something else isn't a metaphor, saying something is like something else without using "like" or "as" is a metaphor. Arch didn't say something was like something else, he said something was something else. If you don't know the difference then you failed English. "what's this 'it's not the reason for this nazi bit so it's unrelated' bullshit? YOU were the one crazy enough to use it as an argument." Again you weren't paying attention, the Nazi bit doesn't come from what you cite, therefore that bit is unrelated to the Nazi bit. How much simpler do you want me to be? "This whole time you've thrown consistency and honesty out the window, and that's how you started this whole thing." Says the guy who got mad that Vaush was responding to words Arch said, and is acting like Arch never said them. You've repeatedly ignored the fact that my opinion comes straight from Arch's own words, that Arch used a word so often it became associated with his channel, that he was proud of this, and that he tried blaming other people for the actions of a mass shooter. You repeatedly insist on things that aren't true, namely in regards to my argument, and you even ignore basic facts, like what is a metaphor and what isn't. That's something that isn't up for debate, it's a fact that saying something is something else means you're not using a metaphor, and like everything else, you pretend that's not the case because it would ruin your argument. -- Triacom (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Enough with your damn lies. Vaush takes a vid where Arch explicitly condemns Brenton Tarrant and somehow comes to the conclusion Arch is defending/excusing Tarrant. You believe him. Screenshots of out of context single quotes were provided by Sigmarxists. You believe them. Even after I showed evidence the pics aren't trustworthy, you'll still defend their veracity and expect me and Agilitek to prove they're doctored, as if that's how using screenshots as evidence actually works. No reliance on outside sources my ass. Your segue into semantics is a trainwreck: making a comparison without using like or as is a metaphor. YOU said that, but now you wanna stray from a definition YOU gave. And to the surprise of no one who can see through your shit, you can't even follow your own standards either. Supposedly you claim that Arch's own words prove your point, but upon bringing up his anti-SJW rants that compare SJWs to nazis and his debate against a literal nazi you go 'NUH UH!' And this is after I gave you evidence. So all you have now is guilt by association and him making an edgy metaphor which you claim he did a ton of times, despite no evidence beyond thinking an acknowledgement of infamy for using that term and deleting vids where the term popped up is taking pride."Sorry anon, but pointing out motive is deflecting blame. Who you play as in a game is who you are IRL. And switching the terms in an argument is the same as endorsement." Miss me with your bullshit, Triacommunist.

My arguments are based around Arch's own words, not Vaush's assumptions. Everything I claimed Arch said I can cite a video for, or use a screenshot that you've helped prove wasn't made by imposters. Let me know when you're no longer pretending I'm some kind of Vaush puppet, because nothing I said to you would be any different if Vaush never made a video on him. "Even after I showed evidence the pics aren't trustworthy, you'll still defend their veracity and expect me and Agilitek to prove they're doctored, as if that's how using screenshots as evidence actually works." Because it is how it works, Agiletek claimed they were made by imposters, you helped prove that wasn't the case. "Your segue into semantics is a trainwreck: making a comparison without using like or as is a metaphor." And Arch didn't say something was like something else, he said it was something else, that's not a metaphor. If I said "You are a fucking moron" then that also wouldn't be a metaphor since I'm not using a means of comparison, instead I'd be saying you are something else instead of you are like something else. "Supposedly you claim that Arch's own words prove your point, but upon bringing up his anti-SJW rants that compare SJWs to nazis and his debate against a literal nazi you go 'NUH UH!'" You didn't cite a link for this debate you claimed to have cited, and comparing SJW's to Nazi's is supposed to mean... what exactly? "And this is after I gave you evidence." You mean like that debate you never linked or Arch calling SJW's Nazi's, which you also never linked? "So all you have now is guilt by association and him making an edgy metaphor which you claim he did a ton of times-" And the roleplaying bit you mention is pretty bad, and he still tried to blame other people for a mass shooter, and you don't get your channel associated with a phrase without saying it a lot, but since you don't know what a metaphor is I can't blame you for not figuring that out. "Miss me with your bullshit, Triacommunist." If you blame other people for somebody's motives then yes, you are blaming them at least partially for somebody else's actions. If you roleplay as Nazi's and make Nazi's sympathetic, then you can't complain when people call you a Nazi, and if you replace what somebody's endorsing with something else, you will make it look like you're endorsing it unless you take extra steps to mitigate this. None of this is hard to comprehend. -- Triacom (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Aside from showing Arch making an edgy metaphor years ago that you think he made every other day (and yes you retarded goalpost shifter, saying 'or to use a more charged term, _____' is a metaphor) and the screenshots, you've provided fuck-all. Your entire argument otherwise has hinged on Arch RP-ing nazis in a game, and what YOU think he actually meant when he speaks or makes videos. Screenshots are only usable as evidence if they're proven authentic. Seeing as you aren't doing a whole lot of thinking and haven't proven the authenticity of the screenshots, I have even less of a reason to think you aren't some communist brainlet slandering Arch on behalf of the woke mob. So go ahead, cite your 'proof'. I bet it'll be you ignoring or twisting Arch's words.

Saying "to use a more charged term" is a means of description, not a means of comparison. You don't get this, just like how you don't get your channel associated with that term by saying it rarely. The screenshots are also pretty bad, as is him spreading the blame for a mass shooter. "Your entire argument otherwise has hinged on Arch RP-ing nazis in a game-" Except for everything besides that point. "Screenshots are only usable as evidence if they're proven authentic." And you helped prove imposters didn't make them, so thank you for that. "I bet it'll be you ignoring or twisting Arch's words." I don't need to, Arch himself realized it was a terrible look which is why he changed his mind on his own term and tried to hide the fact that his channel was associated with it. -- Triacom (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm done negotiating with your retarded viewpoints on what you think Arch did, what you think counts as authentic proof, and what you claim constitutes a metaphor. Show these 'incriminating' videos.

The ones that immediately come to mind are the gnoblar and shooter videos, both linked above. Have you not watched them? -- Triacom (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A video where Arch condemned the shooter is your evidence? You've gotta be kidding me...

Do you not get that he blamed everyone he possibly could for the shooter as well? -- Triacom (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

In others words: 'Dude, trust me'

Not at all, he blamed other people in that video which you'd know if you'd watched it. -- Triacom (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You must not be very smart if you think I'm going to buy your explanation of the video after I spent over a week arguing against it...

So you didn't even watch it? -- Triacom (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I did. Are you gonna offer something more concrete or are you just hoping I'll give in and take you at your word?

Did you somehow miss the part where Arch starts talking about other people and how they are also at fault? -- Triacom (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dude doesn't know what examining motive is

Unless Arch is the shooter, he wouldn't be able to accurately do that. -- Triacom (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

What the hell kind of a rebuttal was that, Tarrant's manifesto was literally online for the world to see.

And believing him is another matter entirely. -- Triacom (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That changes nothing. Attempting to figure out the motives of someone isn't shifting blame, and you thinking otherwise isn't evidence for your claims.

He wasn't attempting to figure out motivations, he was outright blaming other people. -- Triacom (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I stutter? A left wing talking point that only other left wingers believe isn't evidence.

You didn't stutter, you lied. Arch outright stated other people were also at fault. -- Triacom (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, Arch pointed out Tarrant's motives and you're pushing the idea that he's blaming others. Come back when you have something concrete.

No, Arch started blaming other people for Tarrant's motives. -- Triacom (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

According to what? Your opinion? A Vaush vid? Try again. And BTW, you claim there's tons of evidence but can only bring 2 vids.

According to Arch's own video. Have you watched it? -- Triacom (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

'Dude trust me'

So you didn't watch the video? -- Triacom (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

'Dude trust me'

You could just admit you didn't watch it. -- Triacom (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I did and none of what you said holds up outside of leftist echo-chambers. AKA 'dude trust me'

So you missed the part where he starts blaming other people, or "examining motivations" as you called it? Funny how you'll pretend you didn't get to the part you were referencing. -- Triacom (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There would have to BE a part where he blames other people for your point to be relevant

He did, are you somehow missing the article he cites in the video? -- Triacom (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Dude stop trying to shill this idea, I watched the same vid you did and I'm literally never gonna agree with your opinion on it

If you watched it you'd see where he claimed the stuff he cited was at minimum partially responsible for making the shooter. -- Triacom (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If you knew the difference between shifting blame and pointing out motive this wouldn't be an argument. Next?

When "pointing out motive" has you go "these people are partly responsibe" then you're shifting the blame. They are not mutually exclusive. -- Triacom (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It is mutually exclusive. If pointing out motive meant shifting blame then either the sources of motive would also face charges or they alone would face charges while the original perp went free. I shouldn't be shocked that you can't distinguish between finding motive and shifting blame tho.

Hold on, do you seriously think people can get charged for that? If somebody's partially responsible for somebody else's motive then they do not get charged for what that other person does, because there's no law in the world that punishes a different party based purely on the motives of somebody else. "I shouldn't be shocked that you can't distinguish between finding motive and shifting blame tho." There isn't one when 'finding motive' is 'shifting blame'. -- Triacom (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No shit sherlock holmes. I'm trying to get it through your thick skill that finding out motive isn't the same as shifting blame.

When you claim other people were responsible for their motive then you've shifted the blame. -- Triacom (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No, when you do that you're pointing out motive. This accusation is dismissed. Next?

No, when you're blaming other people, you're blaming other people. -- Triacom (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

N e x t?

I like the part where they conveniently didn't address the fact Tri mentioned Arch's own videos as proof. Don't you just love the smell of copium? --LGX-000 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"Agiletek claimed they were made by imposters," No, I said screenshots of text are too easily faked to be proof. I made no statements on if they were valid or not, merely that it was so easy to fake it's worthless as "proof". Your reading comprehension is terrible. --Agiletek (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I got your arguments mixed up, the anon was the one who first tried that by posting the transcript of Arch and others suggesting imposters wrote what he wrote. That's my bad. -- Triacom (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I like the part where you pretend we didn't already address Arch's videos, did you pass english class?

Not sure someone who thinks clearing the "barely above sea level" bar of condemning a mass shooter is definitive proof someone isn't a racist has any ground to lecture about comprehension, lul.
Also I say that to say you keep harping on about Vaush when 1) as stated, he basically just used Arch's own videos against him, and even without that 2) Vaush being a self-aggrandizing grifter of a "leftist" doesn't mean he can't be potentially correct in calling a shovel a shovel. Broken clocks and all. You also haven't provided anything remotely resembling "proper context" to refute the screengrabs being asserted as false - casting aspersion on a position doesn't obligate others to instantly believe the other side. --LGX-000 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you I already did prove that the screengrabs were manipulated to exclude proper context. Arch's own words in the christchurch video prove he was condemning the shooter as a terrorist. I think in this case I can lecture you about comprehension, given that you'll ignore stuff if it suits your argument.

The screengrab you posted made his argument worse, since it makes it seem like he's talking up fascism as his favourite ideology in comparison to people talking up communism as their favoured ideology. You also can't say "I condemn this guy" while doing everything you can to blame other people for his actions. -- Triacom (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Pack it up boys, switching the terms in a stereotypical argument automatically means endorsement...

It is when your argument is "I'm going to do what they're doing to the thing I like!" -- Triacom (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Imagine not being able to distinguish when someone's switching words, and then using that to support your allegations, just lol

That's what I said happened, he switched their preferred system with his preferred system. If that wasn't his intent then he really fucked up in bringing that across. -- Triacom (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

TFW fascism isn't his preferred system

Then he would not have used it as such in that example. -- Triacom (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong said this on twitter: White people are only fit to live underground like groveling goblins. They have stopped breeding and will all go extinct soon. I enjoy being cruel to old white women. Candace Owens decided to switch the word 'white' with 'black' to point out the absurdity. Does Candace Owens hate black people?

If she has a history of favouring racist ideology, then perhaps. -- Triacom (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool so then we're in agreement, neither Arch nor Owens are racists. Good talk.

Arch said the N-word so often it became associated with his channel, and used it in regard to servants/slaves. That's a history of racism. -- Triacom (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Your very limited and deliberate vocabulary on this subject, only able to say "associated with", suggests you are parroting a single (or very limited number of) source. --Agiletek (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I say associated with because those were the words Arch chose to use to describe the relationship between is channel and that phrase. -- Triacom (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason guilt by association is a fallacy, but it's not like I'd expect you to understand that...

Except that's not guilt by association. I'm not blaming him for associating with somebody who said the phrase, he said it directly enough times for it to be associated with his channel. The only way you can claim this could be guilt by association is if you're trying to claim Arch and his channel are separate people, but anyone could call bullshit on that. -- Triacom (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you even know how many times he used the term or are you just gonna keep claiming he used it regularly?

Unfortunately I didn't think to count how many times he said it in his videos before hiding them, but like I said, you don't get your channel associated with a term without saying it a lot. -- Triacom (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
"Source: Dude, trust me." --Agiletek (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The source is Arch proudly stating the term is associated with his channel. -- Triacom (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What you think Arch meant when he spoke isn't a source. How often did he use the term?

Often enough that it was associated with his channel, by his own admission. -- Triacom (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You were just asked to provide your basis to this claim and responded words to the effect of you were sure he's said it a lot, rather than actually substantiating it. --Agiletek (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Bit hard getting all the videos he's hidden, so I figured his own admission that he said it a lot was enough. -- Triacom (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You're contradicting yourself. You said he's proud of it, but now you're saying all of it has been hidden by him? Pick one. --Agiletek (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
He was proud enough to brag about it right up until he started getting consequences for it. Hiding it because he doesn't want the backlash doesn't mean he isn't still proud of it. -- Triacom (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
"If he went 6 months after that without any racist jabs on discord, his videos or social media then I'd be happy to include that as well." --Agiletek (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You'll remember that came after the following condition: "If Arch came out today with a video where he apologized for associating his channel with the N word-" But you do make a point, that should at least be mentioned on the main page. -- Triacom (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

And how many videos did Arch take down? Do you even know if Arch used the term in those videos either?

Unfortunately I didn't bother to make a playlist using my powers of precognition so I would know how many videos he's hidden when he took them down. -- Triacom (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

So you were able to find a years-old video of Arch using an edgy metaphor but you can't even tell us how many videos he hid?

Yes, because I remembered that video as being the start of when he was proud his channel had been associated with that phrase, and I do not have all of his videos in either a playlist or my watch history before he hid them. -- Triacom (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

If Arch had other videos where he used the term the sigmarxists would've gotten a hold of it. I think you're just overplaying your hand.

They didn't link the Gnoblar video in their threads either, but I'm sure they'd be happy to provide links if you ask them. -- Triacom (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Me? It sounds like you need to get that proof more than I do...

You're the one who wants it, I have all the proof I need with Arch's admission. -- Triacom (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Just like your 'proof' that Arch was trying to shift the blame for Christchurch, I assume?

The proof for that is in the video where he outright starts blaming other people for the shooter's actions. -- Triacom (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Gonna say it for the millionth time, what you think Arch said or did isn't evidence

Except I'm only commenting on what he actually said, and you acknowledge he said it above. -- Triacom (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You claim Arch regularly used the term with no other evidence than what you think he meant when he said something. Bring something concrete or not at all.

Arch himself said he said it so often enough it was associated with his channel, you're arguing against the guy who you're trying to defend when you say he didn't say it a lot. -- Triacom (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Arch never said he regularly used it, he just acknowledged that he's infamous for using the term. You're trying to fill in the blanks with something you can't definitively prove. Why do you always insist on pushing flimsy evidence as fact?

"Arch never said he regularly used it, he just acknowledged that he's infamous for using the term." That's like saying "I never said it was raining, just that water was falling from the sky." Him admitting he got his channel associated with the term by saying it so often is not flimsy evidence. -- Triacom (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I have all pandemic, Lemming. Until your buddy Triacommunist actually brings evidence instead of his own opinions, he has absolutely nothing.

Funny how you say this, then jump back and forth on your own ideas. You'll claim that Arch doesn't blame other people for Tarrant, but then say he was "examining motivations" when I point out that he blames other people for Tarrant's actions, then you'll deny that later. -- Triacom (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Funny how you think your opinion on something is automatically fact. Get better sources.

My sources are the guy you're defending. It isn't opinion that he said what he's recorded as saying, that's a fact. -- Triacom (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your sources are you attempting to extrapolate from Arch's words to create a narrative. Your buddies might be gullible enough to fall for it but I'm not.

My sources are stating what Arch said himself, you've been assuming that he didn't mean what he said, or that he didn't say what he recorded. -- Triacom (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, even though you can only guess how many times Arch used an edgy metaphor and are accusing Arch of deflecting blame even though only one group of people has made that accusation with no evidence other than - wait for it...- assumptions

It's not a metaphor, but admitting that would be like accepting Arch's admission: you'd need to realize you were wrong. Same thing goes with his shooter video, blaming other people for what happened is not "figuring out motivations". -- Triacom (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What you said would be true if not for the fact that A: you're once again getting the definition of metaphors wrong B: Arch explicitly blamed Tarrant and pointed out stuff that motivated him according to his manifesto and C: you yourself admitted you don't know how many times Arch made the metaphor. And while you're still at it, what happened to all these other videos that you claimed were incriminating? You only have 2, which is very telling how little proof you actually have.

A metaphor is not a definition, it's a comparison and Arch never used it as a comparison, come back when you understand that. Next, the things he claimed motivated him were also other people, which he blamed. Next, not knowing the exact number is meaningless when Arch admits he said it enough to get his channel associated with the non-metaphor term. Finally, what do you mean by this? "what happened to all these other videos that you claimed were incriminating?" Where are you getting that from? I said before that Arch's own admission was enough, especially since he hid the rest of the videos where he used the term. -- Triacom (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No one said a metaphor is a definition so congrats on being unable to read, again. Arch looking at Tarrant's manifesto and claiming those things ended up motivating him is not deflecting blame. Every single news publication that knows the motivation for a crime that makes the headlines will do this. And knowing the exact number is important since you claimed he used it every other day, even though saying it just a couple times could be enough to acknowledge you're infamous for saying something. Now don't play dumb when I ask you what happened to all the incriminating evidence you said you had. You were the one that made all sorts of accusations, but when you're trying to back them up I'm finding out you're relying on flimsy evidence and ass-pulls.

You said a metaphor is a definition because you keep saying a definition is a metaphor. "Arch looking at Tarrant's manifesto and claiming those [people] ended up motivating him is not deflecting blame." Yeah it absolutely is. He claims that the people who wrote the article he cited and everyone involved with the headlines he shows is partially to blame for what happened. "And knowing the exact number is important since you claimed he used it every other day-" Bullshit it's important, I said he used it often enough to get it associated with his channel, he said the exact same thing, and you just don't want to admit it. You don't need to know whether he said it 105 or 112 times. "Now don't play dumb when I ask you what happened to all the incriminating evidence you said you had." Could you cite what you're referencing? I suspect you had some kind of episode because I've got no clue what you're referring to. "You were the one that made all sorts of accusations, but when you're trying to back them up I'm finding out you're relying on flimsy evidence and ass-pulls." Directly quoting Arch is not an ass-pull or flimsy evidence. The only thing I've seen from you is lies and denial. -- Triacom (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You clearly can't read if you think I said definitions are metaphors so I'm just gonna dismiss that. Inferring motives based on a manifesto absolutely isn't deflecting blame. If someone says they were motivated to do something because censorship and I find an example of what they were referring to, I'm citing that as motive. Literal smoothbrain take. And don't downplay the importance of how many times Arch used a term; YOU were the one that tried to make Arch seem like a racist because of your unbacked claim that he used it regularly. YOU were the one that claimed Arch said the Imperium was a utopia and that his videos endorsed fascism. All you have to show for it is conjecture and circular arguments. Either find something solid to back up your shit, or don't bother. But don't go around inserting your opinions and passing them off as fact. Oh and by the way, if Arch is racist for saying house n_ggers, are you and your mod team homophobes for regularly using or having the term 'fag' for certain titles?

You keep calling a definition a metaphor, how else is that supposed to read? When you're inferring other people are responsibe for somebody's motivations then you absolutely are deflecting blame. "If someone says they were motivated to do something because censorship and I find an example of what they were referring to, I'm citing that as motive." That's exactly what Arch did with the article he cited, and everything else he posted including the people behind the female doctor who. How is it you don't get that's deflecting blame, since he said they helped make people like the shooter? If you're saying that somebody isn't wholly responsible for what they did, you're also saying that other people are partially responsible for them. "And don't downplay the importance of how many times Arch used a term-" Have you read what you've fucking written? You were the only one doing that, you claimed he used it rarely, even when Arch states that's not the case. "YOU were the one that claimed Arch said the Imperium was a utopia-" Weird, I don't recall saying that and it's not shown on this page. "-and that his videos endorsed fascism." How strange, that's also not on this page. "All you have to show for it is conjecture and circular arguments." Aside from direct admission of course, but who needs that? "Oh and by the way, if Arch is racist for saying house n_ggers, are you and your mod team homophobes for regularly using or having the term 'fag' for certain titles?" Well seeing as how it's almost always the person calling themselves that, I'd say no (in the same way a black person isn't racist for calling themselves the N-word), however if that makes you feel better then I'm not going to waste time changing your mind. -- Triacom (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You utter troglodyte, Arch rejected the article's claims that Tarrant was radicalized by online meme culture, and instead claimed that Tarrant was radicalized according to what his manifesto said: mass immigration and the censorship of those who rail against it. And what the fuck are you talking about 'reee Arch blamed female Doctor Who'? Arch mentioned those articles including the female Doctor Who one as proof that companies don't sweep 'toxic users' under the rug. It was proof to refute the pro-censorship article claiming brands do nothing against said users. Arch pointed out that constant censorship against people who weren't even toxic to begin with would turn them toxic, just like Tarrant's manifesto suggested. Arch said the shooter was counting on further censorship to bolster this feedback loop and radicalize society. That's not deflecting blame you tard. And how the hell do I need to 'read what I say', you can't even answer a simple question without giving a vague answer based on assumptions. On September 18th and 19th you literally rejected the idea Arch denounced the Imperium based on sigmarxism screenshots. Now unless you and the entire mod team are gay, you just gave me yet another non-answer.

Yet he goes back on that near the end of the video, also he criticized the article for taking the shooter at face value before doing exactly that. "Arch mentioned those articles including the female Doctor Who one as proof that companies don't sweep 'toxic users' under the rug." No, he did quite the opposite, he used it in his examples of companies lashing out at 'toxic users', a behaviour Arch thinks helped create the shooter. "Arch pointed out that constant censorship against people who weren't even toxic-" If they weren't toxic they wouldn't be censored. "That's not deflecting blame you tard." Sure it is, when you go "here's some examples of stuff that helped make the shooter" then you're deflecting blame. "And how the hell do I need to 'read what I say-'" Because you've been trying to downplay Arch using his definition for this entire argument, then you claimed I was the only one downplaying it. "you can't even answer a simple question without giving a vague answer based on assumptions." And admissions, but I see how that's inconvenient for you. "On September 18th and 19th you literally rejected the idea Arch denounced the Imperium based on sigmarxism screenshots." Where did I say Arch claimed the Imperium "would be a utopia"? "Now unless you and the entire mod team are gay, you just gave me yet another non-answer." We could be, we could not be, you don't know, and I don't think you care. Point is, I don't recall any editor ascribing that word to anyone but themselves, so it is not used in the same context, even without the origins of its use on this wiki. -- Triacom (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah the classic reply to accusations of hypocrisy: 'It's ok when we do it!' If being censored automatically means you were toxic, then the Pro-Hong Kong movement in Overwatch was toxic. Jesus Christ you are a bootlicker. Arch criticized the article for taking the manifesto's shitposting and memes at face value (and opinion that censoring memes was the right approach), not the entire manifesto itself. You might try and deny accusing Arch of saying we'd be better off with the Imperium, but I pointed out the exact dates that you did. It's also on his page that YOU helped make: 'He's also somebody who seems convinced that if the Imperium of Man were real, everyone would be better off.' Sound familiar? Still no proof. BTW I never accused you of downplaying how much Arch used that metaphor at any point, I asked you to give concrete proof he used it more than the 2 times we saw, without your scuffed view on what you think an admission is. You are not slick, and you're lucky your life doesn't depend on how well you can tell a lie.

That's not hypocrisy, Arch was not using that term in regards to himself, and he was using it as a definition, that isn't the case on the wiki. "If being censored automatically means you were toxic, then the Pro-Hong Kong movement in Overwatch was toxic." Except those people were not being censored for being toxic. "Arch criticized the article for taking the manifesto's shitposting and memes at face value-" Before doing that himself. The entire manifesto is a shitpost, you cannot pick and choose which parts are good and which are bad, furthermore he didn't say there were parts in the manifesto you shouldn't take a face value, he said you shouldn't take it t face value, period. "You might try and deny accusing Arch of saying we'd be better off with the Imperium, but I pointed out the exact dates that you did." Which date did I say Arch called the Imperium a utopia? "BTW I never accused you of downplaying how much Arch used that metaphor at any point-" Oh I see, you were just accusing me of downplaying the importance of how often he used the term, even though you were demanding exact numbers and ignoring Arch's own admission that he said it often enough to get his channel associated with it, got it. "I asked you to give concrete proof he used it more than the 2 times we saw-" That proof would be Arch himself who stated proudly that the term was associated with his channel. Also it's been a bit now, but I'm pretty sure he said it more than twice in the Gnoblar video alone. -- Triacom (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh really? Where did Arch take the memes at face value? What were the circumstances behind the users who were banned for 'toxicity'? Did you even read my response that explicitly pointed out the dates Sep 18&19 where you claimed Arch endorsed the Imperium? How about the section on Arch that YOU made? And again, where is your hard proof Arch used the metaphor more than the 2 times we saw in the Gnoblar vid? You can keep making shit up and lying but I'm not convinced.

I mispoke when I said he took the memes at face value, since he didn't, the article he cited didn't, furthermore, where did Arch say you shouldn't take the memes in the manifesto at face value? It certainly wasn't in his video. "What were the circumstances behind the users who were banned for 'toxicity'?" Pick a user and we'll discuss it. "Did you even read my response that explicitly pointed out the dates Sep 18&19 where you claimed Arch endorsed the Imperium?" Again, where did I say Arch claimed the Imperium was a utopia? That's what you claim I said, so I want to know where I said it. "And again, where is your hard proof Arch used the metaphor more than the 2 times we saw in the Gnoblar vid?" The proof is in the Gnoblar video, the first time Arch uses the definition, not a metaphor, he says it was already associated with his channel. That means he used it in the past, even without trying to find the videos he hid you can glean that. -- Triacom (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You did more than misspeak. You either didn't pay attention or lie, which seems to be a recurring theme. Arch explicitly said in his video that it was stupid to take the manifesto's shitposting at face value. Refer to your section on Arch and your responses on Sep 18&19 if you still think you can pretend you never accused Arch of supporting the imperium. What you just presented isn't hard proof, it's assumptions. Show where Arch used the metaphor aside from the Gnoblar vid. Now again, what were the circumstances behind the ban of those users and where is your proof they were toxic? I'm not going to ask again.

What I meant is he did exactly what the article did, which is take it at face value, aka what he said you should not do. This is rich though: "You either didn't pay attention or lie-" You're one to talk, you said he was criticising the article for taking its memes at fact value when he never said that, so you either didn't pay attention or you lied, which seems to be a recurring theme. "Arch explicitly said in his video that it was stupid to take the manifesto's shitposting at face value." Except he didn't, I don't know what video you watched but it was not the one he uploaded. "Refer to your section on Arch and your responses on Sep 18&19-" Where in there did I say he called it a 'utopia'? I want to know. "Show where Arch used the metaphor aside from the Gnoblar vid." It's a definition, not a metaphor, and are you really refusing to believe Arch, the guy you're defending on this? "Now again, what were the circumstances behind the ban of those users-" Pick one and we'll discuss them. -- Triacom (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool so you don't have any evidence that the users were banned because they actually were toxic. You wouldn't be asking me for examples if you did. If Arch took the manifesto at face value he'd be calling Candace Owens alt-right and advocating to censor meme culture, while suggesting things that further divide and radicalize society (just like what Tarrant wanted). He also explicitly warned against taking the memes at face value at 4:56 in video. I'm not addressing any of the other retarded conclusions you try to draw from the video, since it's clear they all come from you either lying or ignoring key details. It's also clear you can't follow basic instructions. I'm telling you exactly where and when you accused Arch of endorsing the Imperium for the 4th time now. The collapsible hit-piece section you made on Arch and your Sept 18-19 responses in this section. 'Are you really refusing to believe Arch' Are you really refusing to give any hard evidence?

I asked you to pick the users so you couldn't accuse me of cherry picking the worst ones that are definitely toxic, but since you don't want to pick any, I can find a bunch who were banned for spouting out racial slurs if you want. "If Arch took the manifesto at face value he'd be calling Candace Owens alt-right and advocating to censor meme culture-" Are you Arch? You wouldn't know what he'd do unless you are him. Also this bit's just stupid: "while suggesting things that further divide and radicalize society (just like what Tarrant wanted)." He'd only be doing that if he agreed with it, and there's a big difference between taking something at face value and agreeing with it. "I'm not addressing any of the other retarded conclusions you try to draw from the video, since it's clear they all come from you either lying or ignoring key details." They all come directly from Arch, but I've noticed ignoring the guy you're defending when what he says is inconvenient is a habit for you, as is lying about what he said or did. "It's also clear you can't follow basic instructions. I'm telling you exactly where and when you accused Arch of endorsing the Imperium-" No, you said I claimed Arch called the Imperium a utopia, and I want to know where I said that, now where is it? "Are you really refusing to give any hard evidence?" Hard evidence is him owning it, how do you hear him say "Or, to use a considerably more charged term for which this channel is rightly famed" and then go on to assume he never said it before? -- Triacom (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You mean you're finally gonna back up your claims with hard proof like I asked instead of stonewalling? Great! Now can you do the same for how much Arch used that metaphor and his endorsement of the Imperium? Can you also follow basic instructions and go to the areas that I pointed out instead of continually asking 'where is it'? And one last favor: can you stop insisting that your retarded viewpoints on the Christchurch vid are supported by Arch's statements on it? Just because you lie about what he says and then use that lie to back your claims doesn't mean it's actually true. Also I'm kekking that you think I'm wrongfully assuming what Arch would do even though you've done that for months.

Even Arch is smart enough not to call a definition a metaphor dude, and as for your proof, here's companies banning toxic behavior (and the people who use it). Now if I could find his Araby, Chaos Dwarf and Hobgoblin videos he's hidden I could count up how many times he used the N-word, since I know he used that term in both when referring to the Hobgoblins, and he called Arabians "sand-ni**ers". Unfortunately unlike the Gnoblar video, I can't find anyone who has a link to those other three. That being said, you cannot pretend somebody saying their channel is "rightly famed" for using a term means they've never used that term before. "Can you also follow basic instructions and go to the areas that I pointed out instead of continually asking 'where is it'?" Point out where I said he called the Imperium a utopia and I will. That's what you claimed I said, so show me where or admit you lied. "Just because you lie about what he says and then use that lie to back your claims doesn't mean it's actually true." I'd never do that, lying about what he says, ignoring his words and misrepresenting him is your job. -- Triacom (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As usual, Tricommunist types another response that shows he has no signs of intelligent life. I ask you for proof that most users on social media and gaming were banned because they actually were toxic. Instead, you post 5 links that just explain how companies are clamping down on racism and 'hate speech', and some of them actually have examples as to how users are being wrongfully banned or are otherwise screwed over by these policies. The whole point is that just because a company's woke policy or automated system bans you for 'hate speech' doesn't automatically mean you're guilty of it (the definition of which has its own set of problems). Now read my comment that explains where and when you accused Arch of endorsing the Imperium. Do not bring it up again until you find it where I told you and you back the accusation with sources. I'll be waiting for your hard proof that Arch regularly used the metaphor, too.

Those five links are showing why those companies are banning users, and furthermore I did what you asked. You asked for proof users were being banned for toxic behaviour, and I asked you to pick a user to discuss. You didn't, so I said I could find users being banned for racial slurs. You seemed to think that was fine so I responded with them, and now you're whining that you didn't get what you were insinuating you wanted. I suppose I shouldn't expect you to remember what you were asking for, you can't even remember the definition of 'metaphor', and you definitely don't have a clue what a communist is. "and some of them actually have examples as to how users are being wrongfully banned or are otherwise screwed over by these policies." seeing as how you don't mention any articles where this happened I'm going to say you're lying and making that up. "just because a company's woke policy or automated system bans you for 'hate speech' doesn't automatically mean you're guilty of it" The only way you can be banned for a racial slur is if you use the racial slur, the end. "Now read my comment that explains where and when you accused Arch of endorsing the Imperium." Now find my comment you claim is real where I said Arch claims the Imperium is a Utopia. Where did I ever say that? Do not bring up anything else, you said that I said this, and I want to know where. "I'll be waiting for your hard proof that Arch regularly used the metaphor, too." That's in the video where he announces his channel is 'rightly famed' for the term, not a metaphor. Maybe you can open a dictionary after you find that utopia comment. You can also look up what a communist is while you're there. -- Triacom (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder what's deeper: the hole you're digging for yourself or the bottomless pit where your brain should've been. What isn't a wonder is that you can't even read your own sources. In the NYT and R6 article there were literally people complaining they were wrongfully banned and demonstrates how retarded you are to think anyone banned by that system deserves to be banned. The others just explained how their banning system works. That is not evidence that most of the people banned actually were toxic, and isn't an arbiter for proper online discourse. Now I already know what a communist and (unlike you) a metaphor is, but I'll pick up a dictionary when you can find the hard evidence for how much Arch used an edgy metaphor and can follow basic directions.

You fucking liar. Nowhere in those articles are people wrongfully banned. The games banning people for using racial slurs only banned people for using that slur, and nowhere do those articles mention people who were wrongfully banned. Come back when you've actually read the articles and know what your favourite buzzwords actually mean. -- Triacom (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You're a neurotic and illiterate sperg who literally needs information spoonfed to them. The R6 article has a clickable link of someone named Daniel complaining about a wrongful ban. On the NYT article there's literally a black dude opposed to removing the terms and uses them just for points, which is a mentality shared by others. And since you apparently have laser-guided amnesia when it comes to accusing Arch of endorsing the Imperium, you won't mind if that accusation is erased on your page. Can't blame you, not even the mighty Triacom could bullshit his way out of an argument like that.

Look at you changing the story. First it was that the story contained an example of somebody being wrongfully banned, then it had people complaining they were wrongfully banned, and now they link to a different person saying they're wrongfully banned. Well I've gone over all the links within the story, and I've gone over their comments, and I can conclude that you're a fucking liar. Did you think I wouldn't check? You even changed your Scrabble claim, going from "it has people being wrongfully banned" to "a black guy wants to use racial slurs if it means winning". While I'm glad you actually did change your story to what's on the page, fact is you still lied about it earlier and aren't admitting to it. "And since you apparently have laser-guided amnesia when it comes to accusing Arch of endorsing the Imperium-" I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that you're a fucking liar who claimed I said Arch said the Imperium was a utopia, and that never happened. Come back when you have some form of dignity and can discuss articles without lying about them, I'm not interested in arguing with a worm. -- Triacom (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright now that I'm done laughing at what you thought would be a banger of a response, I'll set the record straight for you again. My story never changed. I have and will continue to say that people were screwed over by the policies of those companies who never deserved to. The links and texts in YOUR sources corroborate that. Read it and weep. But do you wanna know how I know for a fact you never bothered to check your sources? Because they never answered my original question, you proved yourself incapable of getting your facts straight on the Arch vid, and you only acknowledged the wrongful bans/censorship in those links after I mentioned them to you. Having bad reading comprehension is your schtick. I also like how you still vehemently deny accusing Arch of endorsing the Imperium, even after I told you multiple times when and where you did it. Class act.

I asked you to name a single person that had been labelled as toxic and wasn't, you didn't. Under your logic, this means you can't. The links and texts in the stories were about people who get banned for typing in racial slurs, and it's automatic. If you don't use a racial slur, you don't get banned for them, the end. You proved to knowingly lie about the Arch vid and made assumptions about him you couldn't possibly know to be true, and you claim I said stuff I never did. When pressed you refuse to admit you lied and instead backpedal, going from "You said Arch called the Imperium a utopia!" To "You said Arch likes the Imperium!" And I've grown tired of it. I'm not interested in seeing you make up facts about the stories everyone can see aren't true, I'm not interested in getting you to admit you lied about what I said, and I'm not interested in seeing you eventually look up what a metaphor/communist is. You can keep living in ignorance, because I'm sure if you bothered to look those up you'd either make up what the definition is, just like how you made up what I said and what was in those articles, or you'd argue the dictionary is against you. -- Triacom (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, when I point out all the bullshitting you've done for a month just go 'NO U!' Excellent comeback by Triacommunist.

Is it even worth it to continue arguing with this anon? It seems to just keep going in an unending circle. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely not worth it, but by this point it's like having a morning coffee. I'm curious how much longer this could go on for. -- Triacom (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
And we should listen to the opinions of someone who doesn't sign their posts, much less actually make a coherent argument because...? We have better things to do than deal with you. The information on Arch is absolutely correct. I dislike him, but if you bothered to look at the edit history on the page (unlikely in itself), I am willing to defend him from unfair criticism, and I am certain this wiki is too, but he isn't some angel. Now either cope with it, or go to r/Archwarhammer and whine about it, we have better things to do. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh Lemmings, if only it was that simple to send Anon away to a place where he won't bother us, but unfortunately, r/Archwarhammer is now occupied by the Sigmarxists. Apparently one of the last mods of the page got fed up with all the bs from Archie's fans and just gave control to the Sigmarxists. Now its a page dedicated, no pun intended, to Warhammer Arches/ Architecture. --Bear Eater (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
At least something good came out of it, that's hilarious. -- Triacom (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Does Triacom do anything on this wiki besides edit war bullshit? --Agiletek (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite a lot, most of my regular edits are on tactics, 40k battles pages and discussion pages. -- Triacom (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I can back him up on this. Mostly cause he bails me out a lot when I screw up. So yes, Triacom does offer a lot to this community. GreySeerCriak (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I always consult him on things I don't know totally about, and the guy has proven himself to have knowledge on both lore and tactics that are correct, even as far back as 5th edition Grey Knights codexes. So yes, he contributes more than Edit war nonsense. It seems more like that's all he does because he has to deal with idiots like anon all the time, more than I have to.--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
How about for a new person for some contacts who exact did Arch's Try to say was responsible in absolve the gunman in the Christchurch shooter ? I am entirely unfamiliar with the case. RatMan 9:51 PM
To sign your post, hit the tilde key (~~~~) four times. As for absolving the shooter, Arch tries to weasel his way around that, first by saying the shooter is responsible, then by saying other people are also responsible. Here's a link. My favourite part is where Arch criticises an article for taking the manifesto at face value, before taking the manifesto at face value. He also claims the Shooter was radicalized by things like people allowing immigration in Europe, and he blames articles like the one he cites as being part of what convinced the shooter to go on his shooting spree. He also lumps in anyone who feel they need to apply any form of censorship (aka "you cannot call somebody the N-word") as being a part of radializing the shooter. He finishes this by lumping in a bunch of other people with them, including the female Doctor Who, and by claiming that this lead to the shooter feeling isolated and that is why the shooter did what he did (also he claims rejecting people for being shitty people leads to them becoming like the shooter). In other words, he starts off by trying not to absolve the shooter, then ends by absolving the shooter. -- Triacom (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, at this point I'm tempted to move this whole debate off into to its own page. Would the combatents care to comment on this suggestion? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It's already collapsed, so I'd vote no. Anyone curious has to click on it to see what it is, and it's not like they're without warning. -- Triacom (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the page[edit]

Since you asked SaarlacFunkel, I've already put in a request to protect the page on both Root's talk page and AssistantWikifag's talk page. If you'd like to voice your support there it would be appreciated. -- Triacom (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Something, anything besides that Arch idiot[edit]

Are there any good writing video people besides TWA? Most of the ones I've seen focus on linear writing structure, which are not very useful for /tg/ purposes. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen Hello Future me? I'll happily reccomend him, he breaks down how certain ideas work in certain works like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks okay to me. Since I don't know him, I'm not going to write an entry for him, but he looks like a good inclusion. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Scenery creators[edit]

Rather than go back and fourth over some person I've never even watched youtube channel I thought I'd add some scenery makers to the page as I got into scenery making myself during lockdown. Rather than flood the page with dozens of links I'd start with these three;

Lukes Aps; wanders a bit in his videos but very good scratch builds and easy to follow instructions: https://www.youtube.com/lukesaps

Black Magic Craft; bit commercial but really high end detailed scratch builds that make me cry with joy; https://www.youtube.com/c/BlackMagicCraftOfficial

RP Archive; newish channel which does modular stuff for RPGs that could be used anywhere; https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0l_deKneitQOvD9dNPktMg/about

Anyone else people use that they'd recommend for starters? --Tvrfvby (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think scenery creators would be a great addition to the page, I can't recall the name, but MiniWargaming has a creator they use for their terrain that would be worth linking. -- Triacom (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I will take a look. Not sure if they have a dedicated channel/playlist or if it is just mixed in with their other stuff. --Tvrfvby (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a good addition to me. Go right ahead and add them. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

OK thanks peeps, I'll get on with this and try not to flood the page with dozens of recommendations. I've really got into making stuff for my boards given not being able to play with anyone this year (I now enjoy it more than the models) and the lack of material on the wiki struck me. Might it be worth having a page or category sometime? There's a few bits and pieces on individual items, mostly GW scenery things like the Realm of Battle, but it isn't even categorised --Tvrfvby (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think he's funny.[edit]

What about Cody Bonds being added?That's a lot of hits while talking about legendary Wads for Total War Warhammer and he taught taught than amount about the historical games. With jokes can no one else is going to do what the fuff what about being overly political( Arch Warhammer)have a Link to his YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/user/Archangel565/videos.
    • There isn’t any rules about who gets added or not. If you think they should be included, put them on the main page.GreySeerCriak (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Plugging this boy[edit]

[1] (TableTopGuard) - Small channel. He's been making content very irregularly for a while for Ork and Necron stuff, but he's really stepped up his game around since 9th Ed has been announced and right now he's becoming a pretty good resource.

    • There isn’t any rules about who gets added or not. If you think they should be included, put them on the main page.GreySeerCriak (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Cheers

Arch, Again[edit]

So the current Arch section is crap. But it's crap that agrees with a certain segment of the fandom (the leftpol activist assholes at Sigmarxism), so editing it is apparently disallowed by the usual suspects.

Here are some concerns I have over it:

  • The Not Fully Recommended section in general -- "Not recommended by the majority of this wiki" in general rubs me the wrong way, since "the majority of this wiki" appears to mean "the usual suspects don't like these two guys." In short, the very idea of "not fully recommended" is crap and should be merged into the main topic, it serves no purpose other than to call out creators that a small subset of the fandom (and their wiki user presence) are assmad about.
  • Arch being proud of being famous for the phrase "house-niggers" is irrelevant, and IIRC clearly him being tongue in cheek. Pretending to be retarded about jokes does not in fact make the jokes serious statements. I will remind those reading this: We're on a 4chan wiki. You can say the gamer words, it's ok, no one's gonna take your tendies away from you.
  • Him running a VTM campaign where he "made nazis sympathetic" is irrelevant and ultimately the viewer's opinion.
  • The leaks of his discord have nothing to do with his video content, and are in dispute. In addition, they are literally a known spam posting from Sigmarxism that is posted every single time he's mentioned in fandom circles. Every single time he's mentioned, some idiot from Sigmarxism comes in to spam those two links. It's blatantly obvious.
  • Some of the leaks of his discord are out of context. Examples include him parodying the "real communism has never been tried before" statement by the functional retards that believe in Marx and him literally quoting a Chris Rock sketch. Context was provided which shows the Sigmarxism image macro was deceptive -- i.e., false.
  • There is evidence that Sigmarxism mods literally faked some (but not all) of the screenshots via leaks from their discord. There is as much evidence for this as there is of the supposed Arch comments.
  • (Note the above means that "the leaks are fake" and "the leaks were out of context" can both be true at the same time, please do stop pretending to be stupid.)
  • His moderator having some stupid opinion on pedophiles is irrelevant. I care exactly zero about Arch's non-warhammer opinions, I care even less than zero about his autistic Discord moderators' opinions. Half of Breadtube would be verboten if stupidass opinions on pedophilia was enough to get you purged; half of /tg/ would be nuked from orbit if DFC or Lolicon was enough to get you unpersoned.

As mentioned, the images provided are well known spam from Leftypol plebbit users from Sigmarxism. The URLs are directly copied from Sigmarxism. They get spammed every. single. time. Arch gets mentioned anywhere by Sigmarxism trolls -- and 1d4chan is no different. You can do a search for the reddit image link and get hundreds of examples, both on reddit and on known insane leftypol site ResetEra.

Similar to ResetEra, Sigmarxism is an extreme-left Marxist culture-warrior sub dedicated to trying to shove shitty lefty politics into the hobby. They hate Arch because he's a conservative, just like they hate everyone who disagrees with their shitty brain dead political takes. This is, simply put, beyond debate; 5 seconds of looking on their sub shows they're unhinged activists at best, trolls pretending to be activists at worst. Idiots or Assholes, feel free to pick which one you prefer to think of Sigmarxism users as.

In short: There shouldn't BE a "Not Fully Recommended" section. If one needs to be left in to placate certain people, the Arch Warhammer section needs to be cleaned up. I have done some basic work reframing and rephrasing things, but of course, this resulted in one of the usual suspects initiating an Edit War. KiTA (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel I should bring up a few things too before diving into this. First of all I try to avoid Reddit when possible, if there isn't a link somewhere else going to a specific thread then I'm not going there at all. I've got no clue what they're saying about him on Sigmarxism (quite frankly I couldn't care less about what they have to say about him in general, this isn't a Reddit wiki and I only care if somebody posts proof), however I have seen what they've said about him in other circles, and most importantly (to this wiki) /tg/.
That all being said I haven't seen anyone claim the main issue with Arch is that he's a conservative, and you don't post proof of that here either. You seem to be basing your opinion of the people who don't like him from Sigmarxism alone, and pretending as if that means the lore videos he gets completely wrong, the shooter commentary where he starts trying to shift blame off a literal mass shooter, the N-word used to describe slaves treated terribly (even in the full video it's not used as a joke, he uses it as a descriptor across the video) and allowing mods of his to openly talk about child porn, are all irrelevant somehow.
The links being posted often doesn't mean they're fake, I can post a pic from Ian Miles Chong (as a quick example) where he says he should be allowed to perv out over minors without being judged/called out for it, but that doesn't make the image fake (especially since Google's cache saved the tweet even after he deleted it, so I can prove it). You say it's blatantly obvious they keep posting the links, yet you miss the fact that their frequency is irrelevant. It does not matter how often they post the links, what matters is what he's said, both there and in many videos. If you want to add that Sigmarxism specifically doesn't like him because he's a conservative, then go ahead, just don't pretend anyone else cares about that.
"Some of the leaks of his discord are out of context." You might want to think about this one, because he said that if they're going to keep using the No True Scotsman fallacy with their preferred system, that he'd do the same with his. Not exactly proof that it's out of context, though I'd prefer if that image macro included the extra bits too, before and after so people could get a general idea of why he said that. Furthermore something being deceptive doesn't mean it's outright false, or this would be enough to prove Arch guilty on all accounts since he says they faked the image.
"There is evidence that Sigmarxism mods literally faked some (but not all) of the screenshots via leaks from their discord." Please post it then, I'd love to see it.
"Note the above means that "the leaks are fake" and "the leaks were out of context" can both be true at the same time-" They're one or the other, saying this is like saying something doesn't exist except it does.
"His moderator having some stupid opinion on pedophiles is irrelevant." No it isn't, it's his community and these are the people he's allowing to be mods. "Half of Breadtube would be verboten if stupidass opinions on pedophilia was enough to get you purged;" First of all, saying child porn should be allowed, as well as lowering the age of consent is not a stupid ass opinion. Secondly, do you really think it would be a bad thing if the YouTube pedophiles were purged from the site? Also if a mod cares, posting lolis on /tg/ will get you banned, and they even came down hard on other stuff like the movie Cuties.
Finally I am changing my opinion on the page on one issue, because I've thought about it a fair bit since the last time this has come up, but I agree with you that a "not fully recommended" section shouldn't be on there, that everyone should either be able to be recommended or they should be removed. Even Arch could be included in the recommended section so long as it doesn't lie about him, like claim the main issue is he's a conservative, or edit out issues people have (such as the phrase he associated his channel with). -- Triacom (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
> if that means the lore videos he gets completely wrong, the shooter commentary where he starts trying to shift blame off a literal mass shooter, the N-word used to describe slaves treated terribly (even in the full video it's not used as a joke, he uses it as a descriptor across the video) and allowing mods of his to openly talk about child porn, are all irrelevant somehow.
Well, no, I didn't say to remove the thing about his lore mistakes, that's perfectly valid criticism. As for the rest, frankly, they are irrelevant. I don't care if he has a nuanced or even bad take on some political thing, even if you really really hate the thing. I certainly don't give a shit about his moderators being idiots. The fact that they're all the bullet points from Sigmarxism's troll replies on Arch that they post everywhere about him is surely a coincidence and not part of a semi-organized harassment campaign. Surely.
> The links being posted often doesn't mean they're fake
Correct, nor did I say it did. It does, however, suggest that they're being intentionally spammed out in response to any mention of Arch. I feel that this is undeniably true. However, the fact that they had context removed (as proven), means they're deceptively edited. They're lies by omission. That makes them fake. The ultimate question becomes: If Arch is so damned bad then why do people have to lie so damned much about him?
> I can post a pic from Ian Miles Chong (as a quick example) where he says he should be allowed to perv out over minors without being judged/called out for it, but that doesn't make the image fake (especially since Google's cache saved the tweet even after he deleted it, so I can prove it).
And yes, you can do this. You know where it becomes silly? When every single time someone posts an IMC news article or blog post you see 3 or 4 people with Tankie tattoos and bad hair dye swarming in posting said image. Over and over and over again, completely derailing any discussion of IMC and what he's discussing, and then using that as an excuse to purge mention of IMC. Which is what's going on with Arch. For a similar situation, look at MundaneMatt and how every time he posts anything he gets harassed by trolls from the IBS clique.
> If you want to add that Sigmarxism specifically doesn't like him because he's a conservative, then go ahead, just don't pretend anyone else cares about that.
Then don't pretend that anyone else cares that Sigmarxism calls him a Nazi -- or racist. It's 2020. Drinking milk makes you a Nazi nowadays. Nazi just means "bad" or "disagrees with the radical left." Who cares?
> Please post it then, I'd love to see it.
Did you even look at my edit before undoing it? Here's the picture. I can't attest to it's authenticity, but it's at least as confirmed as some of the Arch leaks. I.e., not at all.
> They're one or the other, saying this is like saying something doesn't exist except it does.
Let me try again. There were several leaked chats in the image. Some were edited to remove context -- this is confirmed. Others were apparently fake. Both can true at the same time, because they cover different aspects of the leaked chats.
> "His moderator having some stupid opinion on pedophiles is irrelevant." No it isn't, it's his community and these are the people he's allowing to be mods.
Beyond the creepy conversation a European could have on that (there being as many ages of consent in the EU as there are member states)... This has anything to do with his videos... how?
> First of all, saying child porn should be allowed, as well as lowering the age of consent is not a stupid ass opinion. Secondly, do you really think it would be a bad thing if the YouTube pedophiles were purged from the site? Also if a mod cares, posting lolis on /tg/ will get you banned, and they even came down hard on other stuff like the movie Cuties.
I think it's a very stupid opinion, but you do you, I'm certainly not going to cancel you for it. As for the rest -- we've slid from "his Autistic mod had a stupid opinion" to "somehow this means Arch is also a pedo and thus should lose his channel." Um, ok? The lolis on /tg/ thing is irrelevant. Wake me when Arch is calling for legalizing child porn or seriously posting lolicon in his videos.
> Finally I am changing my opinion on the page on one issue, because I've thought about it a fair bit since the last time this has come up, but I agree with you that a "not fully recommended" section shouldn't be on there, that everyone should either be able to be recommended or they should be removed. Even Arch could be included in the recommended section so long as it doesn't lie about him, like claim the main issue is he's a conservative, or edit out issues people have (such as the phrase he associated his channel with).
Consensus, at least to a point! The best way I think we can handle this is to be generic. KiTA (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
How is any of that other stuff irrelevant when it's also why people don't like him? This page isn't just about a person's videos, it's about them in general. Furthermore, even if there was a harrassment campaign against him (which there isn't) how does that make what he said irrelevant? As far as the links go, people remember what people say, you ever see people post "this you?" On Twitter in response to what other people say, where they call them out either for being a shithead or hypocrite? It's what people do, even outside the internet you'll see it all the time in the news and regular television where people will remind each other what certain people have said.
"They're lies by omission. That makes them fake." Then Arch lied by omission when he tried claiming he didn't say what was in the macro images, which makes him wrong.
"The ultimate question becomes: If Arch is so damned bad then why do people have to lie so damned much about him?" Because people will always make people they dislike look worse, always. This isn't hard to figure out or even see examples of, just look at all the crazy lies that came out during (and especially after) the most recent US election.
For the IMC thing, that doesn't make it silly, you'll always find people reminding him that he's bitching about US politics despite living in Malaysia and never visiting the US, however that doesn't mean there's a targeted campaign based around it. Furthermore I can go to an Arch video right now and I can guarantee I'll need to dig really fucking hard to find people bashing him just for the sake of bashing him.
"Then don't pretend that anyone else cares that Sigmarxism calls him a Nazi -- or racist." I didn't pretend, because I've seen them call him both outside Reddit. Hell, I've seen them call him those on /tg/, and not without reason, using the N-word so much it becomes associated with your channel is pretty racist, this isn't some incidental flag in the background or some unfortunate symbolism an idiot would go after him for, it's something he was actively doing and was proud of.
"Did you even look at my edit before undoing it?" Holy fuck, if you're going to delete what I was replying to and pretend I was replying to something else (you said you had pics from the Sigmarxism server, not Arch's server) then we can take this to Root or AssistantWikifag right now. I'm going to assume you made a mistake and somehow didn't know what I was replying to, so I'll ask again: "There is evidence that Sigmarxism mods literally faked some (but not all) of the screenshots via leaks from their discord." So where is the evidence from the Sigmarxism discord? Posting a scrap from Arch's discord is not evidence since A) He isn't denying it there, he isn't even making any direct accusations, and B) That doesn't show any proof. I could be faking your reply to me right now, that doesn't mean there's proof that I am.
"Others were apparently fake." Weird how Arch and his mods don't seem to know that, and will say they're all faked or all out of context then. How strange, I wonder why they don't argue this point?
"Beyond the creepy conversation a European could have on that (there being as many ages of consent in the EU as there are member states)..." I imagine a European would talk about teenagers, whereas Arch's mods were talking about children in general. I think that both camps there would be bad, but the one that discusses filming fucking kids is a lot worse.
"This has anything to do with his videos... how?" His videos come with a community, and they influence what he makes. Additionally, if we cannot recommend a creator's community then we should specify this in their summary since nobody we're recommending is really on their own.
"we've slid from "his Autistic mod had a stupid opinion" to "somehow this means Arch is also a pedo and thus should lose his channel."" Where the hell did I say that? I think you're reaching pretty far here. I'm not calling Arch a pedophile, I'm calling his mod(s) a pedophile, and I'm saying that even after they were shown to be a pedophile he left them alone. "The lolis on /tg/ thing is irrelevant." You just used it in an example: "half of /tg/ would be nuked from orbit if DFC or Lolicon was enough to get you unpersoned." As soon as you realize you're wrong suddenly you claim your own example is irrelevant.
"Consensus, at least to a point! The best way I think we can handle this is to be generic." Generic does not mean forgiving, and your edit plays some hard defence for him, especially in terms of limiting the scope of people who don't like him to one Reddit group most people on the wiki (I'd wager) haven't even heard of. You also deleted several gripes about him, as if they never happened despite predating Sigmarxism. -- Triacom (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
> Generic does not mean forgiving, and your edit plays some hard defence for him, especially in terms of limiting the scope of people who don't like him to one Reddit group most people on the wiki (I'd wager) haven't even heard of.
And your edit plays hard offense against him, especially in terms of tossing in irrelevant and disputed stuff from the harassment campaign targeting him. So don't be surprised if people edit it away from that.
> "Did you even look at my edit before undoing it?" Holy fuck, if you're going to delete what I was replying to and pretend I was replying to something else (you said you had pics from the Sigmarxism server, not Arch's server) then we can take this to Root or AssistantWikifag right now. I'm going to assume you made a mistake and somehow didn't know what I was replying to, so I'll ask again: "There is evidence that Sigmarxism mods literally faked some (but not all) of the screenshots via leaks from their discord." So where is the evidence from the Sigmarxism discord? Posting a scrap from Arch's discord is not evidence since A) He isn't denying it there, he isn't even making any direct accusations, and B) That doesn't show any proof. I could be faking your reply to me right now, that doesn't mean there's proof that I am.
So you don't get it. This picture isn't from Arch's discord, it's from the Sigmarxism discord. Those are Sigmarxism moderators in the screenshot + someone having renamed themselves Arch. That's the point. They supposedly, according to that leak from the Sigmarxism discord posted to 4chan, faked screenshots of Arch being racist to puff up the image macro. This was seemingly confirmed (although anything can be deleted so it's not "real" confirmation) by people not being able to find certain conversations in the image in Arch's discord before he shut it down. KiTA (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
'""And your edit plays hard offense against him, especially in terms of tossing in irrelevant-" I've asked a few times, but you haven't said why any of that is irrelevant. Furthermore I've only brought up what he's done or there's evidence of him doing, and there wasn't a targeted harrassment campaign since, as far as I'm aware, Arch does not visit Sigmarxism and they don't attack his videos en masse.
"This picture isn't from Arch's discord, it's from the Sigmarxism discord. Those are Sigmarxism moderators in the screenshot + someone having renamed themselves Arch." I see now, though I'm going to need to see some proof on that since earlier in the year an anon (who was a hardcore Arch defender) was contending that was from Arch's discord. "They supposedly, according to that leak from the Sigmarxism discord posted to 4chan, faked screenshots of Arch being racist to puff up the image macro." Again, I'm going to need to see evidence. Saying something could've happened is very different to proving it did happen, and this is sounding far too similar to what the MAGA idiots in the US have been saying in regards to their recent election.
One more thing, even if everything in the image macros is faked, him bullshitting the lore, and everything he said in regards to the other topics (the shooter and racism as an example) is definitely not, and you still haven't stated why it's irrelevant, or how the main issue people have with him is that he's a conservative and not the things he's said. -- Triacom (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're both wrong. Given how contentious he is, something like "Not Recommended" or deletion are the only viable options. I don't care which, but the man is too damn skubby to leave in the main list. If we put him in the main list, we'll be getting more edit wars about him every week, rather than the every couple of months we have at present. I don't care about the guy, one way or the other, but I do find endless edit wars annoying. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleting his section will only make his fans and new people confused about why we don’t talk about him, which will likely cause more edits/flame wars. A Non-Recommended section sounds more feasible.GreySeerCriak (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
We could fix that by having people post suggestions on the talk page first, some people already do that and it would also get people to realize why he's not recommended. I'd be much happier talking about him than editwaring over him. Furthermore I'm also more open to removing him from the main page if it means we don't have an editwar every month. -- Triacom (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)