From 1d4chan

>communist inflicts tedious edits lecturing on how problematic mocking SJWs is[edit]

Just disassociate this place from imageboards. I think Something Awful, Tv Tropes, or Spacebattles would be a more fitting patrons for the actual userbase of this wiki at this point.

And I think random IPs should disassociate themselves from here if they can't handle this thing called "nuance". Guess which one of us is going to get what they want, red-baiter. --Newerfag (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Found the binary brainlet.

"This article doesn't mock them hard enough, it had to be written by communists" is the exact kinda galaxy brain-level analysis that warrants these additions in the first place. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:545F:D59B:AEBA:D054 02:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

    • While the whole "On the Other Hand" makes a few good points, it has an air of trying to whitewash the left, SJW's and pandering to them. I say cut that whole section. User:Flufflion.
That "heterosexual white men" lines, and the lines about LGBT and women being part of the population seem pretty indicative there's a leftist agenda in this section.
You know what's special about people who hate SJW's? They do the exact same things without realizing it. You're so determined to seeing what's wrong that you have no clue on what's really neutral and what isn't, and if you see a 'leftist agenda' in a brief summary of why 1950's writers didn't include women as a leading character then you really need to take a step back. Likewise getting triggered at the words "heterosexual white men" while ignoring how they were used (pointing out that there are more people demanding for other stories) is the same as some SJW immediately writing you off just because you said words they didn't like. -- Triacom (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely am left-leaning, and that shows in all my edits to an extent. That said, my biased ass thinks that Triacom has an excellent point. This section has managed to stay relatively neutral with minimal skub all things considered. They provide a good analysis without being red army commie propaganda, even with the addition of praiseworthy female and LGBTQ+ representation. -- Kracked Mynd (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I find it sooooo funny that acknowledging what valid points SJWs have in order to point out how they get it wrong is somehow "biased". So many antiSJWs crow about debate when properly addressing and analyzing opposing arguments are the most basic facets of any debate remotely worth it's salt. -- 00:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Vro, if just stating facts and disagreeing were a problem, the entire rest of the fucking page wouldn't exist. The section exists as an analysis of things that they "get right," in theory if not in practice, and how these not-extreme examples relate to /tg/. If you're super upset about this, you might consider just leaving it alone and forget about it (remember, you are just on an article on a website about an imageboard about playing with toy soldiers). -- Kracked Mynd (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not even upset, I was just literally agreeing with you both. You may or may not be mistaking me for another anon. -- 01:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I find that very likely. Sorry for causing any offense. Either way, you might consider making an account, this is one of the reasons it's so useful. -- Kracked Mynd (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually have one, just 2lazy2log lul -- 10:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • How many people missed the part where I said "it has a few good points"? Also, User:Kracked Mynd, the fact that you give Triacom's rebuttal the stamp of approval having admitted to having a left-wing bias makes the implications look stronger. I didn't think it needed to be said that people who aren't heterosexual white men want to see themselves portrayed, because to me it's obvious that people of all types want to see someone like them depicted and portrayed positively. The term "heterosexual white men" gets thrown around too much in a pejorative way these days (I am not a white person, I'm mixed but would be considered a person of color). I'm also not sure this article addresses the problem of those among SJW's who champion tolerance and inclusive then proceeded to practice what some call "reverse discrimination" and pushing the pendulum the other way to demonize majority groups. I suspected a leftist agenda because it appeared to be a case of "they wanted to say more, but they kept it minimal." While there have been problems in media from before the 1950's, there have also been commendable films, for examples films with strong female characters or even leads before the 1950's - including the films Mildred Pierce (1945), Gone with the Wind (1939) and Queen Christina (1933). After considering what you said, I can see the point of the "On the Other Hand" section, I would still like the points I raised in this paragraph to be acknowledged please, can we do that? User:Flufflion.
Nobody missed that, just like how they didn't miss the fact that you deleted it anyway. Kracked Mynd wasn't the person who made the article so I've got no clue why you think there's implications from them there, and if that was obvious then it wouldn't needed to be stated. It's written there right now because you always come across people who write off anything that doesn't have a heterosexual white man in the leading role as 'virtue signaling' or 'jumping on a bandwagon' or 'having a SJW agenda', instead of thinking for a second that there might've been any other reason. It's the exact same thing the extreme-SJW's do to the stuff they don't like, and while yes the term "heterosexual white men" or better yet, "cis white male" is often used in a pejorative way, the context it's used in that section is certainly not. I'd also expect anyone reading this section to have thicker skin and be able to handle a phrase like 'heterosexual white men' given how often this wiki uses the word "faggot" (either directly, or in a portmanteau). The points you raise here (specifically about the films) also don't paint a good picture of what the time period that we're talking about was like and come across as more of an excuse. Were there films that you describe? Yes, were they in the vast minority? Fuck yeah they were, trying to use those to excuse the time period and/or what happened is no different than throwing in a token black character to appeal to a specific demographic, or to try and say your movie's politically correct, or if we're going to a more extreme example: "Hitler created a lot of jobs."
If you want to add onto the negatives of what SJW's are like and try to do, I doubt anyone would complain, but don't try to excuse the points the "On the Other Hand" section brings up, since it's important to explain why they exist and if/how they might have a point (while also how they commonly fuck up their points/message). -- Triacom (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The bulk of the article already covers that subject, Triacom. And if one cannot use "heterosexual white men" as a purely descriptive term without making the people it describes upset, how else are we supposed to refer to them short of something like "heterosexual males of Caucasian descent" or something equally obtuse? I would like to say more about my conjectures about the origins of the phenomenon and how the most fanatical voices within it became the loudest (as they are wont to do in nearly any group of people), but I choose not to because they are unprovable and because I lack the sociological expertise needed to test it myself. But to make a long story short, what you assume to be obvious is anything but that to the majority of people who actually make popular media. --Newerfag (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find it amusing that it all happens regarding pages about over-obsessive nuts who think they're better than everyone else and insist on letting the world know. TiamatRoar (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, people tend to react to those nuts but becoming nuts themselves. It's like a disease. --Newerfag (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

SJW's and the Left[edit]

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

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

That doesn't make much sense, Valvatorez. I was listing the groups that tend to get targeted by SJW's; I also mentioned the irony of SJW's attacking Christianity because the article said that the mostly Christian attacks on things such as Dungeons and Dragons were proto-SJW's (ironically the creator of Dunegons and Dragons, Gary Gygax, was a Christian). SJW's tend to be and support left-leaning causes and ideals, so I say there needs to be more about the left and SJW's. On a side note, how is that "catering to snowflake Christians"? And "Christians" is spelled wrong. Your words indicate a callous indifference to the humanity of certain people. We Christians (myself and others) may be comparatively well-off in Western society (for now), but Christians are a persecuted minority in countries including Pakistan and North Korea (to head off any accusations of playing "Oppression Olympics", every group has faced unfair persecution at some point). Should the persecution Christians face be addressed or not? -- User:Flufflion
The issue is addressing that begs the question of whether or not /tg/ actually cares that much about the subject (protip: they really don't). Speaking of, I'm gonna see if I can't compress it a bit more sometime tonight. --LGX-000 (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No, that is because it is playing Oppression Olympics and Whataboutism that whiny wypipo engage in. 1d4chan should know better than to give credibility to a Soviet Propaganda technique. Or whataboutery for our British freinds.(but that's what American Christians have been doing for several years now.) Those North Korea and Pakistani Christians are siding with tyrants who oppress the very people they share a country with. However this isn't about minorities in far off countries. If we're going to engage in whataboutery we may as well dedicate a section in the /pol/ article about the IRA and how they fault persecuted during The Troubles. Many here more than old enough have experienced that personally. Or if were going to engage in the both siderist nonsense. We could also mention NLFT, Nagaland and Eastern Lightning with paragraphs defending describing their POV as well. Not every view point is valid and 1d4chan shouldn't have whataboutery in its articles.--Valvatorez (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
And that about sums it up, really. --LGX-000 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question Valatorez; what is an anacap? Second, to everyone, just to clear the air, I wasn't trash talking Dungeons and Dragons or Tolkien, I wrote those points to elaborate on the reasons behind the issues (for the former) and some of the complaints raised (for the latter, however baseless they were). There's a difference between stating complaints and actually attacking people, so why was the bit about the Lord of the Rings removed? There seems to be a disproportionate leftist sympathy on this page (left-sympathetic concepts include secularization, catering to emotions and recently, a tendency towards suppression of free speech surpassing that of the right; all of which have appeared here). It is disingenuous to lump /pol/ with the right by association and attack both, but not also dissemble the left for its problems. It speaks volumes that this page was labelled flame bait; even Matt Ward's page hasn't gotten that label. In short, can we civilly discuss the left here as the /pol/ page here does the right? To briefly get off topic, there is so much wrong with what you said Valvatorez I have to break it into bullet points.
1) Oppression Olympics is often misused as an excuse to ignore the suffering of a group you dislike (which I suspect you are doing here); everyone get unfairly oppressed at some point, some more than others.
2) What or who are you accusing of a Soviet Propaganda technique?
3) Christians in North Korea and Pakistan ARE one of the oppressed groups; oppressed by an Islamic (former) and atheistic (latter) regime. They don't side with the tyrants, they're the ones being ground under their heel while other people approve it. The governments of those countries don't just let people leave (especially North Korea; people leaving is not common and difficult), they didn't ask to be born into a country ruled by a draconian regime that won't let people leave.
4) I wasn't asking to put that on the SJW page. I want to point out the irony that the SJW concept originated with those mostly Christian groups, and now SJW's are predominately left-leaning and the left has a history of anti-religious sympathies and Christianity is their preferred target among religions (note I said preferred not "only", and this issue is an elephant in the room regarding religious discrimination).
5) In closing, why should we care about your views and welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned, especially since you seem set on trying to suppress certain views?

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

Essentially what Namefag said, though you're not necessarily wrong about the types of white people both sides attract. --LGX-000 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you're missing that the right isn't being discussed civilly on the /pol/ page, it's as bad as this page is in that respect. I've been trying to tell people for ages that politics, especially American politics, are so emotion-driven and so prone to irrationality that there is no way on Earth that this page wouldn't attract those problems; that said, I think he may have meant anarcho-capitalism, which is a completely different kettle of fish that I think he may have gotten mixed up with libertarianism somewhere. I'm opposed to discussing politics anywhere on this wiki for the simple reason that nobody involved in it is remotely mature enough to do so without it devolving into a shitstorm.--Newerfag (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree Newerfag; the thing is this emotion-driven politics is a trait of the left rather than the right, especially the Alt-left. Also, thank you for explaining what Valvatorez may have meant by anacap. I was seeking to point out that this is often an example of the negative qualities of the left, but these days the left seem to be a protected class in the Anglosphere and online. What I would like to add to the page, which appears to have been edit-locked, is that politics in the UK have shifted from the hard-right authoritarianism towards the alt-left. If possible, I may clean up the page on /pol/ a bit. User:Flufflion
Take my advice, don't bother polishing the turd. --Newerfag (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

tried to do some clean up[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

Why does this page exist?[edit]

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

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

Because SJW accusation or references is more of a meme, and Happy Merchant would be a subcategory on the /pol/ page whereas we don't have a chanboard to assign SJW to. --Thannak (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Feel that this is less of a meme page and more of a rant a la our Matt Ward pages. Difference is that Matt Ward is far for more relvant to /tg/ as a whole and it just seems hypocritical for us to get rid of "Minorities In The Imperium Of Man" which is more about Social Justice and still have this page. I was thinking about expanding a section on /pol/acks and how they often mirror SJWs with their own BS either on this page or the /pol/ page for the sake of neutrality, although I fear that would cause a backlash since I'm sure more offended /pol/acks utrilize this site than offended SJWs. -X
Feel free, being informative and humorous is the point of the site. Just keep it trye enough to not be a personal rant, unbiased enough outside of jokes or generally agreed upon /tg/ mentality, and funny enough to be a good read. Or throw references to 40k in wholesale, whatever you have time for. --Thannak (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Should it be done here or on the /pol/ page however -X

Regressive SJWs[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly, this page should be deleted. We are not /pol/or tumblr. I don't care how progressive or regressive you are (okay, I kinda do in certain cases lol), but giving these people who sully their own ideologies attention isn't worthy of us. I only added the section on regressive SJWs because we can't just ignore one side of the debate. -X
Regressive SJWs are not the far-right on /pol/, they are the far-left "progressives" beginning to resemble the far-right through horseshoe theory. As in the people who want to "regress" and reinstate segregation to protect minorities from white people instead of the other way around. These terms were mentioned, but not used correctly. The far-right are usually just called bigots or neo-Nazis. People know about the far-right as a stereotype, while the new far-left is... new.-- 03:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really the horseshoe theory only really works on a surface level, often the far left and the far right will dislike something for very different reasons. Good example, Isreal, the left or sjws will not like it for being an apartheid state, while the far right would hate it for being Jews (and like the apartheid state)


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

I am conquer in that it needs to go. At most the page should just say "SJW means Social Justice Warrior and has no bearing on /tg/" as it stands now it is just bad and should be gone, there is no real way to salvage itDragoon508 (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I trimmed it down to that.-- 00:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Its a part of 4chan, and /tg/, history. Trolling is no less relevant than anything else. This is the /tg/ wiki, not the Warhammer 40k wiki. The page in fact is far more relevant than generic ones than Fail, and serves a similar purpose: to be linked to in text for a humorous effect. --Thannak (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the current policy regarding Linking Pages is that they must also be relevant to traditional gaming, barring a few very rare exceptions such as Skub and Derp. I've tried to make this argument in defense of Tubes, but it got shot down pretty hard. Mostly by Forgefather and his lackeys. I however do not see this page as being very useful at all for the In-text links as other pages such as Tubes, Derp, Rape, and DISTRACTION CARNIFEX. It really seems to just exist to cause butthurt, rather than to enhance any jokes. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Except that SJWs are barely relevant to /tg/. It's mostly the same kid of person always circle jerking. Considering many SJWs are of the hipster variety, many think trad games are "untouchable" or some shit. Besides, if we hate these people no matter their or our politics, we better not acknowledge them. ALSO, SJWs can't stand chan related stuff, so most SJWs we do "see" on /tg/ are going to be trolls to rustle our jimmies. Please Sig me properly by replacing this with ~~~~
If it happened, continues to happen, and exists within the culture it deserves an article summarizing what it is. We do not ignore what we hate, we mock or trivialize it. There is no legitimate reason to not have this page. There are multiple good reasons to have it, namely that it was something that existed on 4chan and /tg/, and anytime there's something to point out like the terrible writing in Ulrika the Vampire you can link this page as a joke. The only reason to mark this page for deletion is if it personally offends you in some way, which is even more reason to have it. --Thannak (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
But it HASN'T happened on /tg/, you yourself just admitted it. And we already have a page on trolling, thus making this one irrelevant. And your "multiple good reasons" thus far have utterly failed to hold up to any scrutiny- and you left out how you're only pushing this so hard because you made it in the first place. Conflict of interest much? --Newerfag (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I did no such thing! Do not put words in my mouth because you have no better reason to want this gone than your fear of te internet boogymen. It HAS happened, and somewhat often. Furthermore, I've made an extremely large number of fucking articles on this site, and have no less right to argue for or against than anyone. None of my arguments have been discredited, you simply do not acknowledge them. In truth, accusations of being SJW and references to them are more common than any actual ones, putting it in "Elf Slave, Wat Do" category (which need I remind you we also have). Regardless, as a meme in 4chan culture which has been recurring on /tg/, this page should stay unless you have ACTUAL objections. --Thannak (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
You mean besides the fact that the page is unfunny and terribly written? If you had the inclination to make this page even halfway decent, you or someone else would have already done so by now. But that obviously hasn't happened, and until now it's been little more than bitching about people who don't even show up on /tg/! And at least "Elf Slave, Wat Do" is actually a part of /tg/ culture, as opposed to a malignant tumor brought on by /b/tard rejects and the eternally paranoid. We don't need shit pages like this, so either bring this in line with a real 1d4chan article or GTFO. --Newerfag (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, guess what. We have a page for /b/tards too since they became part of the board culture. --Thannak (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like there's a lot of hubbub going on here so I'll pitch in my 2 cents. Did SJW's ever contribute anything of value to the world of /tg/? If not, then I don't see why there should be a page about them. Simple as that in my opinion. Remoon101 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Neither have Furries, we still have a page about them. Since accusations to SJW are lobbed around and they are made joming references to in addition to the actual trolling that has occurred, they are a part of board culture. --Thannak (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Since when is shitposting and bitching over irrelevant details board culture? --Newerfag (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Have you ever actually been on 4chan? --Thannak (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I consider those things to be less board culture so much as a lack of it. Especially because /tg/ has never been a haven for shitposting to the same degree as the rest of 4chan.--Newerfag (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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

The ridiculously huge ever-growing size of the page does seem a wee bit obsessive. TiamatRoar (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be better all around if this page and /pol/ were simply redirects to the Skub page. Any relation to /tg/ they may possess is, in my opinion, thoroughly overshadowed by the cesspit of edit warring they are. These are pages the wiki frankly doesn't need and I'd argue the only reason anyone would want to keep them is as a soapbox from which they can announce their own opinions. At least that's what these pages have turned into. Redmaw (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I feel that there is an option to just keep removing the soapboxing.--Namefag (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks to keep coming back faster than it can be removed. Improving this clusterfuck is a lost cause, plain and simple. I've added the redirect, because I have no confidence that anyone will be able to polish this turd at any point in time. That goes for the /pol/ page too.--Newerfag (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure the chaos needs to be fixed. Nothing is more appropriate for the subject than a clusterfuck of fighting and edits. Its a meta article in the most wonderful way possible. --Thannak (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Believe me, it does. The longer it stayed, the more pointless arguments and bitching it created, which were all too prone to spilling over to the rest of the wiki. Any comedic and informative value it might've had long since died under the torrent of shitposting it attracted. --06:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Why not restore it to being a basic summary then, while reverting it back to that any time someone wants to bitch about it? Giving up is the worst possible response honestly since it turns the entire thing from parody into reality. --Thannak (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
We tried that more than once. Every single time, someone would turn it into their personal soapbox and any sign of parody would vanish. Preserving it was a valiant effort, but ultimately a futile one. I am not thrilled about it either, but it is the only lasting solution short of locking the page entirely. --Newerfag (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I was working on a genuine attempt to fix the mistakes made here (many of which were mine, I won't pretend otherwise), but I suppose I can live with blank-to-redirect, if only because it gives me even more time to step back and think about shit. The whole "chaotic" thing IS thematically apropos, but it does come at the expense of cooler heads far more often than I, Newerfag or most people would like. So while it's not a move I necessarily fully agree with, I can perfectly understand it and will be willing to work with whatever result this produces. --LGX-000 (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Well, we've tried and tried and almost managed to salvage this damn thing. But once again I have to wonder if the best solution is to delete this, then protect it so nobody can recreate it again. Random shitters here simply can't be trusted not to keep their delusional paranoia to themselves, and I'm sick of having to keep cleaning up the mess. --Newerfag (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The lock to prevent IPs from dicking around is a sufficient stopgap for now, although I would have hoped it would last at least another month. --Newerfag (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

White Square[edit]

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

THIS. Those SJWS weren't offended by the square, they were offended by the cartoonist's politics who by drawing that square, was making it clear that he hated political correctness, which the SJWs immediately guessed. That image only gives SJWs power. Please Sig me properly by replacing this with ~~~~
Yes and no. They were offended by the implication that they would be offended and resorted to creative name-calling.-- 03:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Who gives a shit? We shouldn't have anything to do with their slapfight either way. And Thannak, just because you can make gratuitous links doesn't make them funny, and in fact drives the joke so far into the ground that you can see it poking back up in China. The fewer of those pages that exist solely to be linked to, the better.--Newerfag (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh for fucks sake, the white square is a joke, if its unfunny then just delete it rather than yip on about it. As for gratuitous links, there's plenty of worse memes that merit far more scrutiny. Just look at the Meme category and take your pick. This one is actually relevant to 4chan culture as it currently stands, unlike Illustraded manual for example. This is once again a case of people leaving pages and redlinks in need of work in the dust when they can quibble over minutia on a "hip" page until Wikifag steps in and decrees "I don't care". --Thannak (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Or when they realized that you can't polish a turd of a page like this. And I don't see you working on redlinks either, hypocrite. --Newerfag (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, FUCK you. I wrote almost all of the fucking Warhammer Fantasy pages and did heavy editing to most of the rest. Not to mention overhauled who knows how many pages into at least not being a clusterfuck of strikethroughs and first person arguments on the page. Not even going into creating pages for old games and model manufacturers. --Thannak (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
So is that an excuse for holding onto this cancerous shitpile then? Nobody cares what you did in the past, only what you're doing right now- which is anything but inspiring confidence in me. --Newerfag (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I think Newerfag's tone is doing violence to his point; that this page is only-tangentially-related to traditional gaming and the board thereof at best, and that it is creating a lot of stupid drama and "No YOU!" page editing. I'm not normally a guy who tags things for deletion, but I'm just not sure this is worth keeping around. --SpectralTime (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Wait, why is him pitching a hissy cause for deletion? Isn't that literally giving in to the basic SJW attitude? They shriek and whine until they get their way using baseless attacks and flimsy arguments? --Thannak (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I can ask the same thing as to why "board culture" justifies making a page about whatever you want. Or to be more accurate, your highly distorted form of "board culture" that seems to have very little to do with /tg/'s actual board culture at any given time.
Because this is a wiki about /tg/. Unless you feel like going through the meme category and trimming the fuck out of it (not a bad idea). --Thannak (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Now this I agree with. --Newerfag (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
At least one can make the argument that furries are /tg/ relevant via Iron Claw, minotaurs, centaurs, and similar shit (in addition to how the mass furry posting on /b/ supposedly led to Warhammer Wednesdays and the creation of /tg/). SJWs can't even claim that modest shred of relevance to the board. And don't act as if you've been a saint here either, Thannak. You're the one screaming about how anyone who doesn't agree with you is as bad as the SJWs themselves. I'm only trying to point out the flaws in the page that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
If it has appeared regularly on /tg/, it is part of board culture. Period. For fucks sake, TES is in no way connected to traditional games and we still not only have a page about it here, but 24/7 Generals. As for "screaming anyone who doesn't agree is an SJW", I made a (fairly apt) rebuttal to the point that deleting a topic because it triggers someone who complains is ironic and leads towards a bad road. Way to take it out of context though, you should consider politics. --Thannak (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
That's because people actually made it into a (relatively) functional RPG and a Warhammer port (see Scrollhammer), thus adopting it into /tg/ albeit only partially. With this, it was never used for anything productive and as far as anyone can prove its only use is as just one more insult, in which case I may as well make pages for " idiot", "retard", and every other thing someone has ever called someone else on 4chan ever.
Even if I overlooked the relevance aspect, I can still say that the page in itself was never funny, makes only the bare minimum of effort needed to connect it to the board itself, and until it was cut down it was prone to rambling about the same political claptrap that it was ostensibly meant to condemn. As it stands now, I'm not happy with the page but can accept it if it goes this far and no further. It tells everything one needs to know, and as far as I can imagine anything else would just make it as bad as it was before.--Newerfag (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought we were arguing about this page being deleted. Yeah, it was bloated as fuck and not funny (although not every page needs to be funny, since only the ideal state is both funny and informative-if not both, something has to be one of the two). I'm saying the page belongs, not necessarily in the curresy state. Also, the point is that the loudest voice is not the one who needs to be catered to. --Thannak (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
While I would indeed prefer deletion, I would settle for aggressive culling and a full rewrite that illustrates what they are without dwelling on the subject long enough to imply that their position is legitimate (e.g. something like what we have now). THencenature is inherently political, which means that trying to make fun of them will only turn it into shitflinging as people flock to one banner or another and completely miss anybkind of joke being made in the process. And any kind of information worth knowing about them can take uup a couple of paragraphs at most without repeating itself or straying into opinions.
Hence my push to delete or shrink the page- the more attention you lavish on them, the more they can claim they're anything but a bunch of whiny simpletons and the trolls attempting to imitate them. The very act of acknowledging they exist makes them worse, and so logically ignoring them is the only correct option to deal with them. You earlier said we shouldn't ignore what we hate, but I say they don't even deserve to be hated.
And speaking of politics, a very similar debate to this took place on the Communism page in which it was pointed out that any page that taps too deeply into real world politics/ideology will generate flamewars simply by existing, so if one cannot delete it then its /tg/ links (which here are still anything but substantial unless you can show me an actual tabletop game featuring a SJW or undeniable evidence of their influence on the hobby) must be emphasized and the political content neutered to the point at which it simply cannot generate further flamewars. For the time being, I question if such a feat is even possible without simply redirecting the page to Shitposting. Which in my opinion would be just as accurate as what's currently present, if rather on the excessive side. --Newerfag (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Potentially relevant info actually concerning tabletop & SJWs[edit]

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

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

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

I should probably remind you that SJW's are generally not welcome on this wiki, or on /tg/. If and whenever they show up on /tg/, they're always met with cries of Sage and constant reporting for off-topic bullshit. Here on the wiki, they're met with outright hostility from nearly every major editor, myself included. We don't entertain them, as our job here is not give them even a single inch. Because if we give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this recent events should at all be placed in the article, because that is another case of just giving them the attention they want. Remember, they're no different from caustic trolls that still occasionally plague the wiki and the board, so treat them no differently than their original, classic form. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
And on top of that, giving them said attention also makes them seem legitimate- in their minds, people wouldn't be trying to argue against them if they weren't absolutely right. So we don't. It's simply a battle that cannot be won unless they are wholly starved of attention. Let the idiots jerk each other off, we don't need or want to be a part of it. In fact, I still question the wisdom of having this page on the wiki but can not currently muster the effort needed to re-engage the debate on whether or not to delete it.--Newerfag (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Before that happens, I feel like it needs a picture. Something too comedic to be taken as controversial, like the Venture Brothers one on the /pol/ page. --Thannak (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Seconded on both counts because holy shit. --LGX-000 (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

PETA's letter to GW[edit]

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

Matt Ward responded to that:

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

Shitty page is shitty[edit]

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

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

Yeah Salty is a fash, btw its not ok to be white

^This user right here should reread the rules for the website. We do not allow racism on our website. PS: Sign your shit neckbeard --2601:CF:8200:52A3:A542:A245:6515:D28A 18:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Did what I could[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


We speak English here, try again when we can understand what you're trying to say. --Newerfag (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Lazifag here,done,if you want to integrate the photo and / or rearrange the explanation about Errant Questor painting would be a good argumentation
OK, so who is this person and why should we care? He sounds like just another nobody, and we have better things to do than act as a mouthpiece for random chumps. Not to mention that Knights have nobody with visible skin color anyway, which makes the whole thing completely pointless. --Newerfag (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
yes becouse "SJW end with "It should be noted that GW has been somewhat addressing these issues themselves, in Age of Sigmar anyway; several human models have non-white skin tones, the first unhelmed Sigmarine is black, there's a model for a Sigmarine woman, and the most promoted faction other than Sigmarines and Khorne is the mostly female Sylvaneth" and this is a good analisis that can be added to the meaningless black skin tone of the errant-questor presentation poster,born feom leftist mental illness
  • Doesn't change the fact that it's just a quote from a random nobody (possibly yourself, as I cannot find anything else about this person) who can't even use the right language on this wiki properly. Tell me why he shouldn't be dismissed as the attention whore that he is. --Newerfag (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

For people that claim sjws are easily offended[edit]

You guys get offended by nearly every, I mean a woman on the cover?! And 38,000 years later humans may have different pronouns!

What next you guys realized the founder of Ordo Xenos in the Beast is a lesbian?

I thought 40k was a "your dudes" yet you get upset when canon does it?

btw before you do the tried "agenda pushing" GW agenda is to make money and they're clearly doing so by finding new demographics because the same neckbreads whales isn't working anymore and a proven tactic is to include members of that demographic.

plus its more creative

SJW detected, go be triggered elsewhere. --2601:CF:8200:52A3:A542:A245:6515:D28A 18:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything okay? You seem to be offended. TiamatRoar (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. It's like you're first day on the Internets or something. -- 21:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
>GW agenda is to make money they're clearly doing so by finding new demographics because the same neckbreads whales isn't working anymore and a proven tactic is to include members of that demographic.

You mean like Age of Sigmar or what SEGA did with Dawn of War III? Tactical Mehren (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: the picture being added by Thundercicle[edit]

Neither the graph nor the website affiliated with it have any actual connection to the SJW phenomenon beyond pointing out the obvious fact of political extremism being involved in it, which is not something that particularly requires illustrating. It doesn't even say anything about the issues that are associated with the phenomenon beyond political correctness, which is a different issue entirely and one with no relation to /tg/ at all. --Newerfag (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

this is a page about SJWs. who SJWs are and what they think is a very important part of the page, which the image and caption address directly. who they are, how many there are, and what they think is of prime importance to the article. SJWs are a tiny minority (about 8% in the USA) of overwhelmingly white, ideologically homogeneous, highly politically correct, politically active, leftists. i frankly cannot understand any legitimate reason why that information would be irrelevant to the article. the only reason i can think of why someone would want the information removed is to suppress it, and i think that is exactly what you are trying to do here. for that reason, i am reinstating the image and caption.--Thundercles (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
That 8% number you seem to have pulled out of thin air isn't even on the picture you're linking, and from the site itself I can conclude you are taking the picture itself completely out of context. I'm not trying to suppress it, it simply isn't informative. And weren't you the one who told me they weren't progressive despite their holding views that are identified as being politically progressive?
In any case, I expect you to drop your persecution complex long enough to explain where exactly on your picture says there that political correctness is the sole relevant trait SJWs have. Or where we're even supposed to get your 8% figure by looking at it at that matter. --Newerfag (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
1)The size of the circles in the image is based on the size of the population of that particular group. It IS on the picture and it IS informative, you are just not willing to see it. Additionally, the 8% number is in the link that is in the accompanying caption.
2)progressives are not liberals. those are 2 different things with 2 different epistemologies and completely divergent intellectual traditions. you are intentionally conflating words, and intentionally lying about what i said. that is why i more strongly believe that you are not acting in good faith.
3)I never said that political correctness is the sole trait of SJWs, you saying that i did is a lie. However, debates on political correctness and "hate speech" are the most important issue surrounding the SJWs. Everyone from across the political spectrum, can see that clearly. And that is exactly the relationship that the image portrays, as it should be, because it is important to understand the largest issue.
--Thundercles (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Obviously it isn't clear at all if you had to say all of that just to explain it, and looking at that very picture the sizes aren't clearly indicated as meaning anything at all. And apparently you aren't using the same definition of "liberal" that's used in much of the world today (e.g. the American sense of liberal as synonymous with left-wing)- whether you personally approve of it or not, they have been conflated to the point that it would be pointless hair-splitting not to do the same. And on the page as it is now, hate speech isn't even mentioned as a SJW issue even once. Nor should it be since it's not an issue in tabletop games outside of Racial Holy War.
And let's not forget that the report you're using has been found by actual political scientists to be riddled with serious flaws in its methodology, like never actually defining political correctness, and all of these classifications are purely invented by the authors of the report with no basis in how people actually identify themselves. If anything, the conclusion I've seen being drawn by these people is that the report is a load of baloney and can be dismissed accordingly. And really, do you really need to be told that fanatics of any type are rare? I could go on for a while and even link you to my sources which blow your "valuable information" out of the water, but I have a feeling you are too unwilling to back down to admit you might be wrong. Even if it is correct, nobody cares about "the larger issue" here. Except for you, it seems. --Newerfag (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
2) the fact that SJWs are a tiny minority is extremely important information. it is critical to understanding them and their tactics.
3)you are not posting your sources so im ignoring anything you say about the study being flawed until you do.
--Thundercles (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
1. The text was so tiny I couldn't see it. Stop projecting your paranoia onto me.
2. That should be a given, as is the case for any extremist. Do we also need to tell people that water is wet and that the Imperium of Man is not a nice place to live?
3. Here, and I'll even give relevant quotes seeing that you seem to hate reading anything that doesn't contradict your holy book: "The political scientists I asked about the report emphasized the limits of cluster analysis as a statistical tool. It can point to patterns and groupings in the data but can’t tell you how meaningful those patterns actually are in the real world. Someone might fit this report’s definition of being a Passive Liberal in theory but still vote no differently than a Progressive Activist in practice. The best way to understand this is to look at reports in the past that have used similar methodologies. There are a whole lot of them, and they’ve come up with radically different groupings than the “Hidden Tribes” authors used." "nobody thinks of themselves as a member of the Devoted Conservative or Passive Liberal subgroup. These are made-up categories for analytic purposes, not identities around which anyone is organized. Politicians can’t appeal to the exhausted majority because it does not exist as an identity group."
This Twitter thread, showing how the report's way of asking about political correctness was seriously flawed: "I suspect that this 80% finding wouldn't hold up if you gave respondents a competing option and guess what—it doesn't!" "Research design can also create problems. For instance, what if you’re given a multiple-choice question where none of the answers work for you? More in Common used a well-known set of either-or queries to determine the authoritarian inclinations of interviewees. If asked “is it more important that your child be independent or respectful of elders, obedient or self-reliant?” I’d have no problem saying independent and self-reliant, the anti-authoritarian answers. But if asked “is it more important that your child be well-behaved or creative?” I’d say “both!” Same if asked “is it more important that your child have curiosity or good manners?” If forced to choose, I’d say creative and curious, but they’d be 60-40 choices — meaning the study would count me as an anti-authoritarian absolutist when in truth I feel some ambivalence." "To state the obvious, More in Common was never going to release a study showing that Americans have very little in common. And this bias shows up in some aspects of its survey design — most conspicuously, in the authors’ decision not to define “political correctness” for their respondents. A supermajority of the American public would (almost certainly) agree that “special interests” have too much influence over the federal government. But that unanimity would disappear the moment one started naming specific interest groups (say “Evangelical Christians” or “environmentalists”). Similarly, while 80 percent of Americans might abhor “political correctness,” the Exhausted Majority would likely splinter when asked whether that oppressive phenomenon keeps politicians from telling the “truth” about, say, the violent nature of Islam."
From your own source, the above. Notice anything different despite it asking what is essentially the same question? "A major premise of the report is that polarization is driven by groups on the extremes, leaving groups in the middle “exhausted,” when they could otherwise bring us together. The echoes of Richard Nixon’s “Silent Majority” are unmistakable. But a chart from the executive summary actually undermines their argument. Figure 0.6 purports to show "The Exhausted Majority: Less politically active and partisan than the wing segments." But it shows nothing related to partisanship, and two things entirely unrelated to politics — donating blood and donating money at a place of worship."
And again, I'm not being obscurantist or persecuting you, I'm pointing out your information is just plain wrong. Get over it. --Newerfag (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

People don't come to fucking /tg/ wikis of all things to get a full rundown of what constitutes SJWism, why do you think it makes the point of sticking to /tg/ relevant matters and noting at the end that hyperfocusing on them is only gonna make you miserable. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:55B9:638C:6E89:3D6E 21:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Population of LGBTQ+ People[edit]

The inherent problem with finding the number of LGBTQ+ people in any area is that it has to be done by admittance of the people themselves. This is the reason why younger people are more likely to identify as LGB than older, and also why there have been a seemingly odd number of older LGBT people since the early-mid nineties in the West. In the US, for example, there are approximately 44 conservative leaning or majority states where the overall philosophical ideologies of the majority could potentially endanger the out-person's job and housing. This is not accounting for more fundamentalist issues in regards to family (like a very traditional Christian or Islamic parents who would ostracize a child for their sexual orientation or gender identity - in the US LGBTQ+ people are 120% more likely to be homeless than their heterosexual counterparts, and if you want to look at hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people, look at the FBI report - there's simply too much data to discuss here and would cause too much skub). The best place right now, really, to look, is Germany. YouGov did an interesting survey using the Kinsey scale (which reveals much more than personal identifications like bisexual or homosexual does), which found that only approximately 73% of the population was exclusively heterosexual (assuming that the "incidental homosexual attraction" was just curiosity or experimentation), making the number much bigger than self-reported orientation.

All that said, Britain reports LGBTQ+ people as about 1/16, the US as about 1/25, and Japan as a little less than 1/10 (keep in mind gay marriage isn't legal in Japan and trans people can't change their legal gender until they've had government regulated SRS), so honestly, for simplicity, if not 100% accuracy, 1/20 is a-ok.

On an unrelated note, the tl;dr for the "Do SJWs Have a Point" is fucking massive. It really needs trimming down. I won't touch it because I think that I am inherently biased here, but it really needs to be less than two full ass paragraphs. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Simplicity argument heard, figure it's not a big deal in light of that, so we're good there.
As far as length, it probably COULD be cut down, the real question being "by how much"? Media rep's a bit of a wordy subject by its nature, and I don't wanna risk cutting corners (i.e. weaken the presentation) simply for the sake of brevity. --LGX-000 (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
And the information itself is important in order to provide context. Most people don't even think about the subject- there wouldn't be so much bitching about it if that wasn't the case. --Newerfag (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems legit to me, I'll leave it be. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Dissenting Opinion[edit]

Do SJWs have a point? No.

Modern Social Justice Warriors are a form of troll.

While there are genuinely some people that are interested in pushing progressive ideals onto the hobby -- the fact that they are should immediately disqualify them just like the "Alt-Right" pushing conservative ideals would be -- the vast majority of SJWs are actually a form of troll that discovered if you pretend to be speaking up on behalf of some marginalized group, no one is allowed to call you out on your bullshit. Or worse still, they are people who realized if you pretend to be a feminist, the cute girl with rainbow colored hair might touch your dick (or at least trust you enough to so you can spike her drink).

With this in mind, the reason SJWs do not have a point is because they are inherently not arguing in good faith. The people demanding Female Space Marines would never be caught dead in a gaming store buying plastic crack, painting it, or playing Warhammer 40k. The people writing Genderfluid Shapeshifting Elf Sluts into D&D 6.0 are doing so because hopefully the cute intern with tidy-bowl hair will like it. The people spouting crap about "problematic gender roles" have spent the past 8 years being indoctrinated by Identity Marxist professors and are literally preaching their religion to you.

You realize the whole concept of "Cultural Marxism" is literally Nazi propaganda updated for the modern era, right? (Look up "Cultural Bolshevism", it's the same thing.) On top of that, Marx himself and the vast majority of Marxists never gave a shit about culture, as they assert the only social division that matters is that of class. To my knowledge they never said anything about sexuality or gender roles either.--Newerfag (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
"One of the artifices of Satan is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist: another, perhaps equally fatal, is to make them fancy that he is obliged to stand quietly by, and not to meddle with them, if they get into true silence." - John Wilkinson. Cultural Marxism absolutely is a thing. The Frankfurt school examined Marxism after it got BTFO'd in the 70s, decided that it we take the class struggle and restructure it to other class groups it might work. Suddenly instead of the rich vs the poor it's the majority vs the minority, pick your favorite identity group -- whites vs everyone else, straights vs LGBTQP, what have you. Yes, I'm aware the Cultural Marxists investigated Cultural Marxism and found that it's a conspiracy to mention Cultural Marxism. But it exists. To pretend otherwise is gaslighting. And no, pretending disagreeing with progressives is "nazi propaganda" won't work. People stopped caring if some tool on the internet called them a Nazi ages ago. KiTA (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Long story short stipulating that all the social and political changes which happened from WW2 Onward in the "Western World" happened because of a few academics which did not like Jazz which propose one framework by which modern film studies guys and gals use in various degrees and ways to examine media is not a rational position to make. The world is a whole lot more complicated than that. Also the Burden of Proof lies on one making a positive claim. I don't have to disprove a claim that there is a 50 meter tall statue of a Space Marine on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. It could exist, but there is no evidence of it. Similarly claiming that the Frankfurt School has the reach that you say it does is a positive claim. Also the claim that it Covers up Evidence of itself from the masses is a positive claim on top of that. None of which are substantiated. Nazism however did like to accuse things it did not approve of as being Cultural Bolshevism ( ), this is a well established part of Nazi Ideology as part of their wider reactionary and antisemetic policies.--A Walrus (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Well it's a darned good thing that I didn't stipulate that, isn't it Walrus? Tell me, does the straw-manning come naturally to ya, or do you have to work at it? If you have to take my argument and turn it into an absurd absolute that I didn't say to attack it... is my argument the problem, or is it that you don't want to admit that I have a point? SJWs are trolls. Or at least, some SJWs are trolls. The ones that aren't trolls are activists. Neither should be taken seriously for hobby matters because they are inherently not acting from a position of good faith. Consider this -- if /pol/ showed up and started demanding their own version of IRL politics be added to 40k, like say ethnonationalist IG sects or it being cannonically mentioned that the Emperor killed all the Jews, there's no way anyone would put up with that. They would have JUST as much right to do so, since they'd be internet activists pushing their politics, just like the tidy-bowl crew is. But demanding the lore be toned down in other ways because some purple haired loon on twitter or the latest 40k General finds depictions of an authoritarian theocracy, or a male exclusive military "problematic" is somehow not called out. It's a "natural cultural evolution." Nonsense. KiTA (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Firstly those people did show up and did demand that, we saw a shitload of it when Trump was made president. Secondly you are stipulating that, just look at the other paragraph you typed out at the same time as this one. -- Triacom (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The even bigger irony is that "Cultural Marxist" as a term was originally used by actual Marxists as an insult because of the lack of connection that the Frankfurt school had to more typical Marxist thought (compare with the similar terms "Jack Mormon" and "fast-food Christianity"), which you'll be surprised to learn isn't a hivemind. You'll also be equally surprised to learn that an obscure philosophical school whose main figures are all long dead isn't even remotely influential in the modern world.--Newerfag (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, because Neo-Marxists totally aren't using White-skinned people vs Brown-skinned people, Straight people vs LGBTQP, Men vs Women, Sane people vs Trans people, et cetera, et cetera, in the same vein as old school Marxists used Rich vs Poor. Again, pretending Cultural Marxism isn't real is gaslighting. Neo-Marxists just switched from economic theory to identity politics when it became abundantly clear in the 70s that Marxism is a failed ideology that kills people every time someone tries to push it. KiTA (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out the dog whistle "LGBTQP" being used here, meant to associate the LGBTQ community with pedophiles. And we've been dividing groups of people into "Us vs. Other" since the dawn of civilization, long before that bunch of old farts ever put their ideas down on paper.--Newerfag (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you get the difference between "cultural marxism" (Nazi propaganda) and cultural paradigm shifts. You seem to think that any change in thought or argument is somehow influenced by a particular school of thought instead of being what just naturally happens over time as people and culture evolve. If people never changed and culture remained stagnant, then we'd all still separate people on the bus based on skin colour, and it's not because of the frankfurt school that we've seen a change in culture and society as a whole. -- Triacom (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd be careful with that one, because it sounds like KiTA might actually advocate for segregation, given their seeming sympathy to old /pol/ "infiltration tactics" (at least it sure fucking looks that way with their loose understanding of gaslighting, which condemns freedom of expression and action in things such as gender and sexuality which exonerating fascists). I think the real kicker is that we'd be banging fucking rocks together and struggling to plant more than one kind of seed without cultural change and exchange (although the Italians would still be fucking pissed about their cheese). --Kracked Mynd (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget his inability to distinguish different forms of Marxism from each other. It's a family of political philosophies that squabble with each other on a regular basis, not a single monolithic one. Violently too, just look at Trotsky's fate.--Newerfag (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The argument is as such: If they can fix the "problematic" media, then they can fix the people who enjoy said media. And even if they can't, by ruining something "problematic" they've inherently made the world better, even if it sucks for anyone who enjoyed it. Especially since it sucks for anyone who enjoyed it, because according to SJW logic, if you enjoyed problematic media you were problematic yourself.

This is all documented in academic works such as Adrienne Shaw's "He Could Be a Bunny Rabbit For All I Care," wherein a Marxist researcher discovered that hobbies such as Video Games (this piece spawned the "Gamers are Dead" media blitz that helped spark GamerGate) or Tabletop are inherently meritocratic, which means that tokenism and progressive guilt can't find a foothold. To wit: Your genitals won't make you win any more games, therefore the scoring system must be broken.

Why does the Imperium need Female Space Marines? Because it drives SJWs nuts that there are people out there who don't think that the Imperium needs Female Space Marines.

And like any troll, the best way to deal with a SJW is to ignore them. And if you can't ignore them -- because they're doing their best to get hired and destroy your favorite game -- then the next best thing is to mock the everloving shit out of them.

Ironically, much of this opinion is trolling in itself, especially since Shaw's work is being completely misrepresented here. Why this is worth preserving on this talk page is a mystery to me. Also, it takes some real insecurity to interpret the logical step of expanding a demographic as being done to "destroy your favorite game". Honestly, it's like the original writer thought the big corporations whose interests start and end with money actually care about what one person thinks. --Newerfag (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes yes, disagreeing with trolls is trolling. Heard it before. And no, I don't think GW or WoTC or any of them give two squirts of piss about what any of us think -- but I do also recognize SJWs are performing a tactic called Entryism where they get positions where they can influence stuff, like forum mods or game designers, wherein they start pushing their shit tier politics. As for Shaw, you'll have to forgive me if I got the exact article wrong, she did the research and then did two different papers on it with the exact opposite conclusion, because she's a Marxist and thus inherently dishonest and dumb. KiTA (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Haha, the irony is so strong considering that is exactly what neo-fascists do all the time (eg, dog-whistles). As Newerfag pointed out, you're conflating some kind of organized coup of your precious entertainment by some illuminati left with natural cultural evolution. Please just think through what you're saying before you say it, bot every dogshit idea must be given a prose-form. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes yes, the neo-fascists that exist in your head are scaring you again, I get it. Remember the motto, call everyone to the right of Mao alt-right Nazi Russian bot Neo-Nazi white supremacist fascist neo-fascist. What magic word that means "bad guy, not of tribe" will you use when people laugh at Neo-Fascist, I wonder? "Natural cultural evolution" doesn't require deplatforming and activists joining companies just to spread their dogshit politics. Which is absolutely what the SJWs have been doing the past 5-10 years. KiTA (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
That's actually the normal rate at which culture evolves. --Newerfag (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you get that this sort of name calling and victim playing is exactly what you're doing KiTA. - Triacom (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Your sheer paranoia is astounding, and you severely overestimate how effective entryism (which you seem to have confused with normal gradual changes in culture over time) actually is. And you're only proving my point about misrepresenting her work, given that you're too busy red-baiting to even explain what it is she said in it. --Newerfag (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not playing the Gish Gallop game with you, Mr. Fag. You know as well as I do that Shaw stated very clearly in her work. "Gamers" as an identity do not value shitty progressive cultural marxist ideals like forced diversity, tokenism, and fear of being "problematic," so "gamer" as an identity has to die. KiTA (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
If you actually read her work you'd know that the claim specifically referred to the idea that all gamers were single straight white guys, which is the polar opposite of what you seem to believe she was saying. I'm sure you could cite a passage from the work if I am incorrect. Oh,and your "media blitz" was nothing more than simple reaction pieces that are exactly what one would expect from the normal media cycle. Or what someone who doesn't think everything must relate to them would expect, at least.--Newerfag (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
b-b-but you don't understand, man, their ideology is Automatically Correct!!1! And they don't have to justify it because they're already right!! it's not their fault the Cultural Marxist Elite has brainwashed everyone into oh god I can't even keep this up. Seriously, all this new red scare pathology and they have the nerve to call out wishy-washy Dems for abusing the Russia-bot angle? --LGX-000 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I kept it because it seemed like the poster wanted to make a point, that's pretty much it. -- Triacom (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to memorialize every brainfart a random user has, especially when it seems purpose-made for shitstirring. --Newerfag (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it was made for shitstirring, which is also why I figured that just removing it would likely lead to an editwar I didn't feel like getting into. If somebody feels like they have a point then writing them off as a troll and deleting the topic outright isn't going to make them go away, moving it here at least helps prevents an edit conflict. -- Triacom (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
His additions thus far have convinced me that it was indeed for shitstirring purposes. In fact it's turning into outright conspiracy theorizing now. --Newerfag (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
And having this argument here is still better than having it on the main page. The problem I have with conspiracy theorists is it's impossible to tell when they're shitposting and when they're legitimately trying to explain their crackpot theories. -- Triacom (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
My thought on it (and why I initially left it on the main page) is that this viewpoint that everything any tabletop company does that alt-right (which is clearly what the editor is) /pol/fags don't agree with is pandering to the liberal Marxist is absolutely present on /tg/. It's just Jordan Peterson distilled into a *chan format and forged into the burning hot assmad we have all come to know and love about the reactionary right. Because the opinion (with a few revisions) isn't so god awful that it might drive people away from the wiki and, although the basic facts are clearly unintelligible nonsense, the case is at least pretty well presented. I see no reason why this shouldn't be represented somewhere in it's raw form (minus the racism and homophobia that usually comes with the posters) that is shown on /tg/, at least somewhere. I think it's also worth mentioning that KiTA has thus far been mostly just adding standard material to standard 40k articles. They seem to be a good editor, so I'm inclined to believe that this edit was in good faith. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
My issue with presenting it as is on the main page is firstly because it's arguing against the previous topic, and arguments should not be fought out on the main page. Secondly, the basic facts are unintelligible nonsense, as you point out here. They can't debunk the existing topic on why SJW's can sometimes have a point, since it's very easy to look back at older media and point out that it's very definitely wrong by today's standards. This is something the article addresses, and points out that it's also possible to do this the wrong way, by making it some sort of call to arms reactionary bullshit when they want to make a mountain out of a molehill.
TL;DR: the part about whether SJW's have a point or not is already covered very well and adding a topic that argues against it with little more than actual Nazi propaganda (Newerfag's right on that) and is so badly worded and presented to the point that we couldn't even agree if it was a shit post or not shouldn't be done. -- Triacom (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I have noted that previously and question why he has suddenly deviated from his original editing patterns to something far more counterproductive. While I would like to believe that he is simply a regular editor with a one-track mind on this issue, his recent activity is making it uncertain if he can remain productive. In any case, the recent arguments made in its favor have done more to damn it than exonerate it. --Newerfag (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Not that I'm disagreeing here, but I do think KiTa believes in what they're arguing, which is why I'm not writing it off as trolling. No matter how stupid it is, I think they genuinely believe in it. -- Triacom (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Are we really going Godwin's law here? "Actual Nazi propaganda"? LOL. Listen, just because people don't agree with Progressive nutjobs and their SocJus cult doesn't mean they're "Nazis" or even right leaning. SJWs are a form of troll, and pretending they aren't is gaslighting. KiTA (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
If you don't know the history of what you're arguing for/about, don't complain when people bring it up. You didn't do the research on what the term meant, it's not our fault if you're too ignorant to know literally using Nazi propaganda in your argument. -- Triacom (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
If I may join this discussion, I don't think that SJWs should be classified as a form of troll because trolls aren't trying to accomplish anything other than making people upset. SJWs are people who are actually trying to push their beliefs onto other people because in their minds it is the right thing to do. If a person is only pretending to fight for social justice to make other people upset, then they are a troll and not a true SJW. I think that the worst SJWs are actually a modern form of religious fundamentalist extremists because they can't tolerate the existence of people who don't agree with them and refuse to recognize their own hypocrisy. And just like religious people, SJWs consists of a wide spectrum of people from decent dudes to delusional monsters. And also just like religious people, sometimes SJWs do have a point when they make an argument about something. It isn't simple, don't treat all people you disagree with like they are all the same thing.-- 23:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think they are. How many SJWs do anything other than harass people on twitter? A few percent? If that? For every Big Red you have 1000 unhinged lunatics ranting about how all men are a hive mind and the cause of all the evils of the world. That's trolling, not activism. They found a way to be shitty to people online and if anyone complaints, well, they're "nazi propagandists." KiTA (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Got a source or is this just another one of your assumptions because you've convinced yourself that the 'evil left' is out to get you and your hobby too? -- Triacom (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
These are points made in the article and they're also why I didn't just immediately delete the dissenting opinion and call it a day. Anyone who's trying to write off all SJW's is making the mistake that the more radical SJW's make of writing their critics off as sexist/homophobes/insert term here. -- Triacom (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The "article" shouldn't be on the page. It's a discussion piece. If it's on the front page, then a dissenting opinion should follow it. I'm all for moving my dissent over here... but the "do SJWs have a point" needs to be moved over here too, because to do otherwise is silly. Also: Yes, SJWs like to call people names. But don't forget "nazi propagandist" or "/pol/fags" or whatever -- the second I criticized the soapbox, Kracked Mynd et alia sure were quick to trot out some tired old chestnuts about me. KiTA (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Arguments do not go on the main page, simple as that. If you think it's a discussion piece, discuss it here. If you have a dissenting opinion, post it here. If you think you can improve on what's already on the main page, then feel free to do so, but don't try to post a load of bullshit on the main page while claiming that it's just a dissenting opinion. The reason why the bit about them having a point is on the main page is because it's relevant to the topic at hand, and because it's relevant to the topic at hand it should remain there. Also the reason you have people calling you out for using Nazi propaganda is because you're literally using Nazi propaganda, did you not think that would get this kind of response? -- Triacom (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Modern third-wave intersectional feminism, which forms the core of the social justice warrior ideology, is very Marxist in its beliefs. It takes the Marxist 'haves vs. the have-nots' class-war framework and applies it to multiple cultural things (like whites as a united class vs. everyone else united as the "people of color" class), and mostly avoids economic class to make people not look at how well-to-do the core of the Twitter mobs are. The influence that social justice warriors have is not a Nazi conspiracy theory, though it does get exaggerated depending on what sources you browse. It comes from college campuses and is vomited out onto the internet. Of course Nazis are not going to like Marxists. That does not make the Marxists a figment of propaganda.--Namefag (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
You lost any credibility the second you claimed intersectional feminism forms the core of the social justice warrior ideology. If anything it's the other way around, and I'm not sure you even understand the cultural marxist bit we've been talking about which literally is modified Nazi propaganda. I also can't help but laugh whenever anyone talks about the 'influence' of SJW's, as if people are going to boycot something just because a popular SJW doesn't like it and cause it to fail as a result, or they'll go to see and rate highly the things that SJW's like. That's not going to happen, it would be like saying DC fans have a ton of influence because of the thousands of perfect reviews that are released whenever a new DC movie comes out, and the fact that they always do pretty well. -- Triacom (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that gender studies classes inform keyboard warriors more than keyboard warriors dictate academic literature, though there is certainly a feedback loop. The Frankfurt guys invented intersectionality before intersectionality was a thing. While it was Nazi propaganda that they were taking over, it is simple fact that they held ideas very similar to the core of modern social justice. I'm not going to argue about the level of influence and power.--Namefag (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

>I also can't help but laugh whenever anyone talks about the 'influence' of SJW's< Are made-up gender pronouns in 40k stories not SJW influence? It's not like authors have difficulties keeping their agendas to themselves.-- 17:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have the interview where the author talks about how SJW's put a gun to their head and forced them to add those? No? Then it's an author adding it in based on their own personal thoughts and beliefs. Claiming that it's the SJW's out to change/ruin your books is like claiming the anon's editing the page is proof Sargon of Akkad is targeting the wiki. It's laughable. -- Triacom (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Clearly someone has some problems putting two and two together. Non-SJWs do not identify themselves as "Whitecishet. He / him". Is he a BL author? Yes. Does he push his views through BL books while ignoring English grammar? Yes. Is he influenced by modern pseudo-marxists or is himself one of them? Yes. Or what, you're gonna pretend the answer to any of those questions is a "no"? -- 20:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Let me guess, you never actually looked at what the Frankfurt School actually said either right? And Gav Thorpe was never good. --Newerfag (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Where did the BL author tell you where to think? Oh they didn't? Did they say that they were forced to use those pronouns from the SJW's? No? Are you imagining you can see inside their head and are one of the chosen few who knows about this grand conspiracy to ruin the hobby using pronouns you don't like? Yes? Well then I'm going to call you a nutcase. -- Triacom (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
You could at least try to read what others write, m8. The part about straw man specifically. You're also rejecting the fact society as a whole and nearest entourage both affect the person. >Did they say that they were forced to use those pronouns from the SJW's< Can you say for sure that Mao was forced to learn theory of marxism from COMMUNISTS? -- 17:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
And you should stop assuming you know what caused them to write what they wrote. It makesyou look like a nutcase. -- Triacom (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and calls others "toxic ciswhite males" like a duck, then I'm a nutcase. Sorry for expressing disagreement with you on that, oh great all-knowing pillar of wisdom. -- 18:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
If you imagine it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and calls others toxic ciswhite males then yes, you're a nutcase. It doesn't take a lot of wisdom to know that you cannot assume to know what other people are thinking, or what influenced them unless they directly tell you. -- Triacom (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait, for realsies now, in all seriousness, do average people use made-up pronounces in their everyday life in UK (or USA, for that matter)? Like, you come to the store, and cashier asks you "What are your pronounces, fellow human-being?" Let's leave your inability to draw conclusions from people's actions aside for now. -- 15:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
No of course they fucking don't. Some "influence" you're worried about isn't it? -- Triacom (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
If they would ask? Definitely. Do you know that some particular words rise a certain flag above the speaker, right? Oh is that concept, too, a bit hard for you to grasp? But Lord of Lemmings is right, I should cut it out. -- 19:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
If they would ask, then they would ask. Fact is they can ask, but they don't. -- Triacom (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Let the dead horse lie. Stop talking about this. Its not a forum. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, this is the kinda obvious "bad faith" argument that undercuts a lot of anti-SJW arguments - anyone who engages with the idea for more than five seconds at a time wouldn't have to make this kind of out-there assumption about pronoun usage, and that goes back to the use of SJW as a snarl via invoking a boogeyman that you aren't meant to think about beyond opposing them uncritically. --LGX-000 (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, there's absolutely No Way Whatsoever that the author made a few goofy decisions regarding one character without participating in some grand conspiracy to destroy a long-running franchise because question mark. --LGX-000 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Twitter points. That is all the scheming it takes.--Namefag (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
>some grand conspiracy to destroy a long-running franchise< Nice straw man. We're talking about SJW influence on hobby, not some conspiracy. I highly doubt those authors stick together snickering and murmuring something like "And than we will make a transAstartes chapter, bwha-ha-ha". That still doesn't make them any less "left-leaning". -- 22:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Unless SJW's are forcing the author to do it, they aren't exhibiting influence over the author. -- Triacom (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It's like the authors might have actually chosen to do all that shit entirely on their own for reasons which need not have anything to do with random idiots on the Internet!--Newerfag (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, that just begs the possibility of said authors being 'left-leaning' as a result of personal evaluation of their views as opposed to being 'influenced' by SJWs (not to mention the vagueness as to what that influence is). --LGX-000 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Personal evaluations can not be discussed while discarding the environment the person lives in altogether, no? And once again, I personally fail to see how one can come to idea of using "new and improved" pronounces all by their own. Those simply do not exist in everyday life outside of certain communities, as Triacom so kindly pointed out. -- 19:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Except I didn't point it out, but before we get into that, do you really think authors of all people have trouble making up words and terms? If they're writing sci-fi, then that kind of thing might as well be a part of their job description. As for talking about personal evaluations, you're not doing that, you're imagining you can see inside somebody else's head and that they're having influence exerted over them by "the left". -- Triacom (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, but you did. The argument that "they could do it" is invalid as technically they can also stab your guts. Those both, I believe, are not common occurrences. If you're so delusional to think Gav actually "invented" that pronounce - no, he took the one he had found most suitable (I wonder where exactly did he take them from... But I guess it counts as "imagining you can see inside somebody else's head", not "sane thinking process" in your book). You can find it on his Twitter. Don't get me started on how retarded the idea of "he invented something that fits alphabet-soup pronounce-friendly community so completely as if it was taken from it" is in the first place. You may as well start arguing Tolkien invented ye alde English, because in some edition of Hobbit the Middle-earth map he draw is marked as written in dwarven despite it being plain old English. -- 20:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's your own argument that you're calling invalid. You're claiming that they have the influence to make other people use certain pronouns, yet nobody uses those pronouns in day-to-day life and there's no evidence other people were forced to use those pronouns. They can use them, and they choose not to, so why are you freaking out about the possibility of them using them? I do like that you think effect=cause is a rational thought though, because you're not using cause and effect, you're looking and the end result and assuming you know what caused it. You're the one freaking out about what people could do, and now you're saying your own point is invalid. -- Triacom (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Your thesis was: SJWs have no influence on hobby. We have a specific case in one book (let's drop the other). Made-up pronounces are part of the agenda of those who call themselves "left" and are called "SJWs" by others. Now you suddenly start diluting the topic. > you're looking and the end result and assuming you know what caused it Occam's razor is a bitch. When faced with two options of a) Gav learnt that shit from someone (he said it himself) b) he somehow invented queer theory that aligns with existing one all by his own, one has to be pretty special to answer "b", yet here you persist. > You're the one freaking out about what people could do I'm freaking out about English language vandalized in the book I bought. It's not like reading a book in English is a smooth ride for me even without something that looks like editor's error. It's ok to invent new shit, it's bad to blatantly push your agenda in the book you write. Simple as that. And FFS, stop using the verb "force" and start maybe reading what I write, like a sensible person or something. -- 20:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
My argument was that they exert no influence over the hobby. To do that, they'd have to force authors to use their pronouns and nobody forced anyone here. You say I should read what you wrote, when you don't even seem to know what my argument is. I will also continue to say "force" and "forced" because they're central to my argument: if I'm forcing you to write what I want, then I'm exerting influence over you. If you're writing what you want based on your own personal opinions and beliefs, then regardless of how they're formed, you're not being forced by SJW's to write what you do. I also don't think you get that authors (especially BL ones) push their agenda in books all the time, ADB is a prime example of this because he repeatedly changes how the setting works so that he can do what he does, regardless of how it doesn't work in the larger setting as a whole (and then other people take his books as fact and the setting as a whole starts changing) and if you're fine with people making up new shit, you shouldn't complain about "the English language being butchered". I will say I'm glad that you finally admitted you're not using cause and effect though. -- Triacom (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

To idiots changing the "Do SJW's have a point?" section[edit]

You do get that you're everything you claim SJW's are right? Let's go through your points:

  • They demand change just for the sake of change, and then move on to a new thing to brigade and get professionally outraged over.
Anti-SJW's to a tee. That's what you're doing here, read what's actually on the page and consider it? Fuck it, what's on the page doesn't agree with you, better change it.
  • Any attempt to cater to these people is essentially self-defeating as a business strategy as they are not really interested in whatever it is you're selling in the first place.
Once again, dead-on. Anti-SJW's talk a lot but never back it up, anytime something they like comes out it's never good enough because they always say it's ruined by the SJW's, or it goes poorly and the blame the SJW's for not buying it, even though they didn't go buy it themselves.
  • And by catering to their demands, you will inevitably change or lower the quality of your former product and thus completely alienate and lose the respect of your former fanbase.
Once again, another perfect example of Anti-SJW's. Practically everything they want is edgelord level shit and any attempt to cater to them is to destroy your reputation in the eyes of the public.
  • Worse even you do cater to them and it only causes them to stir into a further frenzy, like sharks that smell blood in the water.
This sentence is incomprehensible, its meaning known only to the brainlet who wrote it.
  • SJW's are malignant whiners at best and social terrorists at worst. And like all terrorists, the best way to deal with them is to never give in to their demands, especially when their demands are not ground into any kind of reality and based entirely on emotion.
Says the little bitch who keeps editing the page because they don't like what it says. Can't find a good argument to use against the page? Just delete it all because it doesn't agree with you. -- Triacom (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Why is there a /pol/-style, hitlerian argument added to the section now? Even though the SJW article is volatile, stick to global rule #3, faggots --Taufag (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
but someone is "wrong" on the Internet and That's No Good™ don't you see??? --LGX-000 (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Genuine Question Here[edit]

What I don't understand is this. Clearly, there are a few SJWs (I have a few problems with this term, but I will ignore those for the sake of this discussion) who take things too far. There are people like that in any group. What I don't understand is why we say that SJWs and /pol/luters are equivalent. Isn't there a key distinction between people who may be taking things too far but who have good intentions and people who are FUCKING NAZIS!? Like if one day the all the people on /pol/ were given complete and utter control of the government, with no checks and balances to oppose them, what do you think would happen? I am pretty sure that most of my Jewish or Black or Muslim friends would be dead, and considering that as a transwoman, my odds of being raped or physically assaulted at some point in my life are already about 1 in 2, I have a feeling that I would not be doing too well in this scenario either. Now suppose you took the SJWs on tumblr and did the same thing with them. What do you think would happen? I would imagine that whatever they do, it will be better than if /pol/ and the alt-right is in charge. I mean, it's right in the name: Social Justice Warrior.

TL;DR: why are we depicting SJWs as being just as bad as /pol/ when /pol/ is literally FUCKING NAZIS!

Because no, it wouldn't be better. Many of the SJWs are FUCKING COMMUNISTS, aka the people that have killed more than the Nazis ever did (and before you come back at me claiming I must be a Nazi if I said that, I'm not, I'm a Centrist. Nazis are scum, as are far leftists).
Just because their name sounds good, it doesn't mean they are. Anyone from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would confirm that for you. -- 02:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The "Communists killed more people" line is a bad point of comparison. Remember that the Nazis were in power for 12 years, six of those years was them consolidating their position and feeding Germany their worldview and prepping for war and were limited to within Germany, with their dominion over europe being even shorter given the invasion of France and the rollback after Barbarosa failed. During that timespan they wiped out about 30 million civilians. Compare that with Stalin which was in power for more than twice as long and killed between 6-9 million of his own people, and that was the USSR at it's absolute worst. Mao's figures were higher due to famine but China also had more people. This is not whitewashing the USSR or Mao, but the saliant point is that the Nazis set out with systematic extermination as an end goal (the Holocaust, Generalplan Ost) and had a limited window to do it's vile deeds before it was ultimately stopped and stacking up bodies is not the best way to determine who's worse than who.
But that aside, most SJW stuff has nothing to do with Revolutionary Marxism/Marxist Leninism at any level beyond the superficial. It's not about class warfare or violent revolution or seizing control of the means of production. We're talking about people who want certain ideas promoted in the media such as inclusiveness, avoiding stereotypes and whatnot who sometimes get support from people in existing capitalist framwoks.--A Walrus (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I am a right-leaning person and I actually think that most far-leftists are actually less evil on average than Nazis, but are more dangerous. I believe that most of the far leftists responsible for the atrocities like what happened in the USSR and what is currently happening in countries like Venezuela and North Korea do not actually believe in the ideas of leftism and are only concerned with personal power. The common people who support them are mostly not evil, they are just heavily brainwashed by false promises that supporting those dictators will make their lives better, or they are simply too afraid to defy them. Nazis are much worse. It wasn't just the dictators who were evil, the common people were evil too and wanted their dictators to commit those atrocities. This is part of reason why the far left is more dangerous than the far right. The far right openly embraces evil and hatred, while the far left is run by villains who make promises of wanting to help everyone but really are filled with hatred for anyone who disagrees with them. Nazis are easy to thwart because they are true evil. Far leftists are a mixture of evil and misguided people and so they are harder to fight against.--2602:306:B88B:FB60:F09F:B872:86DE:7182 02:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
You might want to read up on horseshoe theory (and the actual history of the Third Reich, the Nazis hid a lot of their shadier shit from the people until they were in a position to start hanging everyone who spoke out against them). Put simply, the extremes on both sides are more closely related to each other than their moderate cousins. And I've yet to hear of a single tyrant or despot who didn't sincerely believe that he was doing anything but the best possible thing for his people, in this era or any other. The exceptions exist only in Saturday morning cartoons, and "evil" out here in the real world is very much dependent on where you stand at any given time.
But in any case, a handful of people grumbling on the Internet about how a faceless corporation portrays its characters are not even remotely capable of anything on the scale that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or their kin have managed to do and do not possess any inclination to do so either. And Anon #2 (or so I must call you because SIGN YOUR POSTS, DUMBASS), it is increasingly common that many "centrists" are in fact alt-righters using the term as a flimsy cover, I could tell because of your false equivalence of SJWs with Stalinist communists despite their only ties existing only in the minds of a few paranoid individuals. And let's ignore the fact that a lot of other communists didn't approve of any of the shit the USSR was doing either, Trotsky could've told you that before he got an ice pick rammed up his eye socket. I swear, it's like I'm the only person on this site who didn't sleep through their high school history lessons. --Newerfag (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
My favorite part is when people trot out the idea that all leftist are part of some great big Communist Hivemind right alongside the usual rhetoric of "the left eat their own" which... cognitive dissonance much? Almost as if they're not as ideologically uniform as you might think. Shit, we've established they're not even uniformly communist, nor are commies uniformly leftist, but then that'd inconvenience the narrative. --LGX-000 (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
From what I've learned, any time anybody ever says "I am a centrist" it's just code for "I'm on the right." If it wasn't, then you wouldn't find all of the 'centrists' giving right-wing speakers a platform, parroting all of the right-wing talking points, and not giving left-wing speakers the time of day. -- Triacom (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It's that the left wing speakers don't have anything to contribute. There's been studies; when asked to answer questions like the opposition, conservatives are better able to answer questions as liberals would than liberals can answer questions as conservatives would, because conservatives understand the liberal viewpoint more than liberals understand the conservative viewpoint. Left wing speakers keep beating out the same notes from the same harp, we've heard it all before. Piroko (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
They only have nothing to contribute if you refuse to listen. If they never had a point then we wouldn't have the section on the main page that explains they do occasionally have a point. Also what you're referencing isn't a study. -- Triacom (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
You may have misunderstood some of the statements I made. Although that is my fault because I worded them poorly. When I said that Nazis openly embrace evil, what I actually meant was they openly embrace racism extreme nationalism and other evil stuff like that. And also some of the generalizations I made weren't very clear. I actually have read about horseshoe theory and I agree with a lot of it, but I actually prefer to avoid using it because I think it can be misleading sometimes. Leftist extremism and Nazism are both full of evil people, but they aren't the same kind of evil. Nazism is a more destructive kind of evil, while far leftism is a more deceitful kind of evil spawned from some ideas that in theory are good but don't work in practice because human evil or incompetence always ruins them. No good person would support Nazism if they actually understood what it is, but there are good people who support far-leftism because they believe in the good ideas that inspired far-leftism and don't expect evil people to ruin it.-- 03:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The centrist comment was by me. And while yes, Trotsky and such weren't evil people, the overwhelming number of communist countries ended up falling to insane despots. Communism is great in theory, but collapses in practice. As for the whole 'false equivalency', need I remind you that the modern far left in America literally claims to be Communist while bashing anyone who doesn't agree with their own ideals?
TL;dr: The alt-right and /pol/ are absolutely horrible people and, at the moment, worse than their equivalents on the left. But just because one side is utterly evil doesn't mean the others are immediately good. -- 03:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is saying they are good just because their opposition is really shitty. The reason that they get equated to another a lot is because they both have a habit of trying to ruin what other people enjoy, that's the main reason. Remember this image? That applies to both if you just swap what's being shit out and what's being said. Now that I've gone over that though, /pol/ is definitely worse in this aspect as they generally have less self-awareness than SJW's, which is one hell of an accomplishment. They don't even realize what they're doing, and if they become a target of actions like what were done to them then they cry and run away, learning nothing from the event. -- Triacom (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
No. No, Triacom, we are FULLY aware what we're doing. When I call Trump the God Emperor, I fucking mean it. I absolutely want him to unleash the thunderwarriors and bring about planetary grimdark. Why? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE OTHER SIDE TO WIN. Period. The only reason you don't call us bad people, the only reason you stoop to pretending we don't know exactly what we're saying and doing, is because you know WE DO NOT FUCKING CARE. You can call us Nazis, you can call us whatever the fuck you want and it has NO power over us. And that terrifies you.Piroko (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Piroko, you need to calm the fuck down. I was, and still am a conservative. But generally speaking, I avoid forcing my politics where they don't belong. But buddy, I also know that wanton for some Authoritarian figure to destroy the left, and I still regret it. The left is not inherently evil. I think you need to take some time to think about what you said above.
You want an entire group of people purged for simply believing differently than you. That's oppression. That's the opposite of what you should believe. And don't try to pull some "there is no compromise with the left" or whatever, because that's crap. Is called extremism. Fuck, the Nazis used it, North Korea uses it, and ISIS shitheads literally survive due to it. You need to really think about whether or not this is the person you want to be: angry, hateful, pissed, or if you want to take the road less traveled.
I don't expect a response. Hell, I don't expect you to care. But it settles my morality to have at least warned you the path you have set yourself on. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
They started it. And I have no reason to take the high road. That's not how deterrence theory works. They go low, you go lower, it stops when they stop.Piroko (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Really? They started it? You're using a 4-year old's argument? Maybe it might work if it was remotely accurate, nothing was happening until the edgelords "started it" or do you not know why we're arguing in the first place? -- Triacom (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes. If one side uses nuclear weapons, and you have them too, you fucking use them. Because they started it.Piroko (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
First of all, that's not what deterrence is, that's mutually assured destruction. Secondly you clearly don't know who started what, because the people you're arguing against didn't start this shitshow. -- Triacom (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The threat of mutually assured destruction IS deterrence. They attacked me, I attack them back. I know I didn't attack them first. Done and done. Piroko (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
There you go, you figured it out! Now you know that nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction are two related but separate ideas, congrats. In this case however, nobody attacked you before you arrived, you just decided to jump in for your own reasons so don't pretend like you were wronged in some way. -- Triacom (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I actually was attacked by SJWs in the real world for no reason.Piroko (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Who gives a shit? It didn't happen on the wiki. -- Triacom (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
And that random youtube video of someone declaring war in Futurama didn't really do anything to verify what you were claiming. Are you sure that someone wasn't just attacking you because of your charming personality? TiamatRoar (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
It puzzles me, that's what I'd say the anti-SJW's do. When they cry about something like safe spaces but they're only doing it in places and with people already favourable to them, I get puzzled at how they don't realize they're literally in a safe space while crying about safe spaces. I've seen anti-SJW's complain about money that people donate to others (calling them idiots for doing so), and then they'll end their video/stream thanking people who donate to them and plugging their Patreon. I've seen anti-SJW's complain about "triggered snowflakes" but the second anyone brings up something like new pronouns they all lose their minds. They're hypocrites, that's what they are and they're completely blind to the context of their own actions, that's why I don't care for them in the slightest, same with the SJW's. If you consider yourself one of them then I don't want power over you, why would I? It would be like bragging that I have power over a small anthill, except the ants are more productive than anti-SJW's will ever be. -- Triacom (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I am a conservative too and I understand how much anger you must feel because of America's shifting to the left make you feel unsafe. I don't feel safe either with our country shifting to socialism, but what really scares me a whole lot more is the hatred and toxicity taking over politics. Hatred makes it easy for wicked people to control you. It causes people to lose their self-awareness and be driven to destroy what they think is evil while not recognizing the evil of their own side. I am extremely concerned that the increased acceptance of political hatred in America could easily lead to our country being taken over by a demagogue far worse than Donald Trump, and they could come from the far left or the far right. That is a much worse scenario that America just getting taken over by socialism. With less political hatred, America would simply bounce back to the right after seeing that socialism isn't working, but with a lot of political hatred, America could collapse into civil war and never recover.--2602:306:B88B:FB60:182A:ADFA:751F:FA5E 03:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's such a stupid hill to die on too. Imagine for a second there is a civil war, is this the kind of way you want to be remembered? "Yes Timmy, many brave souls fought and died so that other people wouldn't use certain pronouns. The only pronouns we want people to use are cucks/retards/faggots, and all the others aren't good because we didn't make them up." You also shouldn't use 'socialism' as a catch-all term for suggested changes like universal health care, it's just a scare word that's being used to prevent very necessary changes for anyone in danger of losing everything they had because they need to go to a hospital for something like a car crash or cancer treatments. -- Triacom (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't want universal health care. I genuinely, literally, want poor people to suffer and starve in the streets like they did in the 1800's. Why? Because the removal of social safety nets illustrates why I am a better and more successful person than they are. Life being shit for people who are down makes me look better.Piroko (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, so you don't get it. Poor people are not the only ones dying, everyone below the upper class are the ones dying. The only thing that separates you from a person crippled by medical debt is a car accident, that's it. -- Triacom (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Fuck you. If I was crippled, I'd commit suicide. I have dignity and a minimum acceptable quality of life.Piroko (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
As I said, a single car accident is all that it takes for you to join them, especially since you want them to die. You're putting an awful lot of faith in both yours and other people's driving that you won't be on the road ahead of an drunk (or otherwise impaired) driver, and any system that runs purely on luck is not a good system. -- Triacom (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes I acknowledge that I am putting a lot of faith in me. I don't want a "good" system. I want maximum upside for maximum downside, not the mediocrity of average outcomes. Piroko (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
You're putting a lot of faith in yourself? Are you literally every driver on the road? No? Then you're not putting a lot of faith in yourself, you're trusting everyone else not to mess up. If you want the maximum upside vs maximum downside, then you should sell everything you own and buy lottery tickets. If you're not doing that, then you don't want maximum upside vs maximum downside, you want average outcomes. -- Triacom (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Warboss, let's work out a good deal! You don't want to be responsible for slaughtering thousands of people, and I don't want to be responsible for destroying the Orkish economy - and I will. I've already given you a little sample with respect to Pastor Warzug. I have worked hard to solve some of your problems. Don't let the galaxy down. You can make a great deal. General Yarrick is willing to negotiate with you, and he is willing to make concessions that they would never have made in the past. I am confidentially enclosing a copy of his letter to me, just received. History will look upon you favorably if you get this done the right and humane way. It will look upon you forever as the chaos god if good things don't happen. Don't be a tough guy. Don't be a fool! I will call you later. Sincerely, God Emperor Trump. TiamatRoar (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I am perfectly fine with being responsible for a lot of things as long the mess does splatter my boots.Piroko (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Whoosh. TiamatRoar (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Gee, sure hope you don't expect to be regarded with integrity after outright admitting you'll side with anyone just to Own The Libs!! --LGX-000 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I should make an account on this website. For some reason my IP address keep randomly changing every few hours so it can be hard to tell which posts are mine. Anyways, I have one other thing I want to make clear, I actually don't believe SWJs are the same thing as far-leftist extremists, but their is a lot of overlap between the two groups. SJWism is more about being way too aggressive with pushing political correctness onto other people. You can be far leftist, leftist, centrist, or even on the right and be an SJW. I was actually accused being an SJW once when I got into an argument with some people who thought it was impossible to have no desire for sexual intercourse without being mentally damaged in some way. So I guess the comments I made on my opinion on far-leftism were kind of off topic.-- 03:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I was definitely off topic. I didn't completely read the question that started this discussion until just now so the stuff I said wasn't really answering the question.--2602:306:B88B:FB60:F09F:B872:86DE:7182 03:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you should. In any case, the experience you had should have been a sign that the "SJW" term is all but meaningless. And for the record, I believe that what you call "political correctness" is just a very fancy way of saying "politeness" that got too much baggage attached to it for its own good. Also, I know an actual person who identified as far-left, and he's told me that the far left has never not been mired in internal conflict. Acting as if they all agreed on something couldn't possibly be further from the truth. If they couldn't even agree on anything when Marx himself was still alive, what makes you think that they'd be different now? --Newerfag (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that the Satanic Panic existed whether or not it was indicative of mainstream Christianity or not. Likewise, social justice warriors and their crusade of the week certainly exist whether or not they have taken over whatever. This page seemed to simmer in a state of 'bullshit homeostasis' for months before this argument flared up... and it now seems to be back how it was at that point. So, good.--Namefag (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If the recent edit wars and talk about this page have taught us anything, is that: a) skub is eternal b) amerifags will never learn that they're not the center of the universe c) all this shit needs to be nuked, and all mentions of SJW should link to either skub or troll. --Taufag (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

    • Much as I agree, is there any kind of consensus we can use to get politicsposting out with fifty fatguys going UHM AKSHUALLY in eternal edit wars?
Again, perma-protecting it would solve the problem. Also Taufag, it's a bitch move to edit what other people say on the talk page to make it look like they're saying something different. -- Triacom (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

On Article Deletion[edit]

This is absolutely a magnet for shitheads to vent, mostly right-wingers stuck in 2016 and /pol/fags with nothing better to do. However, it is absolutely relevant, both to /tg/ and tabletop in general. Still not a day goes by without there being accusations of ESS JAY DUBS fucking up 4chan, and there are legitimate complaints to be made developers resorting to tokenism to appease the ravenous crowd of suddenly-interested non-consumers. This article generally does a good job at explaining the history of the use of the term and its relevance to /tg/. Editblocking was absolutely a great thing to do, but deletion seems counterproductive to me. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I gave the article a re-read and fuck me, it's really self-aware and predicts everything that's happening on this page. The definition stays objective. The examples are fine. *What Do?* could use an minor edit, as "nothing" is contrary to the paragraph - it suggests to "do your own thing", instead. The skubbiest part would be "do they have a point?" - it's a fuckhueg (around 40% of the article, by a glance) essay that will piss off majority of the readers, regardless of the answer. Deleting that last section and permanenlty locking the article might be the final solution (save for adding more examples in the future, if needed). Should people try to bring it back, or add anything even veering towards a personal opinion, ban them --Taufag (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Said essay is also critical for informing people that ESS JAY DUBS are not in fact doing it just to censor or whatever it is that they're supposedly going to do to media. Removing that would make this just another screed against the big bad blue haired Boogeyman. --Newerfag (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
AKA the other reason I put so much into it - what's the point of casting them as a potential Threat to Things We Like[TM] and then conveniently skimping on details that would put the nature of said "threat" in context? The problem is, as seen here, the more we acknowledge the depth of the matter, the more reactionary hornet's nests we kick up. --LGX-000 (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
How else would you go about it without just sweeping that nuance under the rug? It seems to me that the best solution there would be to just restrict editing as we have now so said hornets will find that they cannot sting. --Newerfag (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I can see the case for that, certainly - but then how can I not, I put a lot into trying to rehab this thing and make it somewhat more objective, which is why I'm surprised no one's thrown the SJW accusation at me personally (although I suppose that's a benefit of speaking from personal experience not talking completely out of my ass). ANYWAY, the next hill to climb there would be figuring out what bits can be properly "de-personal-essayed" and integrated elsewhere into the article. --LGX-000 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
If this keeps up, I wouldn't be surprised if we suffered a minor raid from /pol/ in the near future. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
If they do, fuck 'em. Anyone who actually reads the article will come to the same conclusion you lot have here. The skubbiest part is the part that asks if they have a point, and it has to be addressed no matter how much it sucks to address it. As I said before, perma-protecting the page would prevent something like this from happening again, and if /pol/ wants to come in with their hypocritical bullshit then that'll prevent any of it from sticking. -- Triacom (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure they already did.--Namefag (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a necessary article, but shoving politics into it like you're doing now (Kracked Mynd) won't do anything but add more fuel to it. There's a number of people equally annoyed with the other side of all this. I'd say just zap it entirely. Whatever your beliefs are this shit ain't relevant to /tg/ or any game discussion. Keeping it up and arguing about it in politically-charged ways will only prompt more shitposters, right and left, to get angry at each other. There's enough platforms more relevant than 1d4chan to do that on. TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"shoving politics into it" ...did ...did you think SJW was an apolitical term somehow...? Like I get what you were trying to say possibly, but... --LGX-000 (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
In a sense yeah. There's a lot of people right, left, and center who don't like that crowd. It's got political connotations for both detractors and defenders but it's ultimately not exclusive to any political ideology I'd say. At least, not as blatantly as saying "mostly right-wing/left-wing shitheads" would cause problems with it. TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think LGX-000 was talking about the "crowd." Nobody likes whiny college grads, left or right, but the term SJW is now used pretty much exclusively by conservatives and pretty much exclusively as a snarl word. The fact is most every vandal to this page has been some stupid /pol/fag who gets angry and feels the need to express their toddler rage by messing with the article. And just to reiterate what I initially said, "SJW" is still thrown around quite a bit on /tg/ (although noticeably less so than it used to be), and there are pretty much daily threads about morality being shoved into games, authors creating dumb token characters, and non-fans of a franchise getting assmad about not being represented (or, more often, getting assmad about someone else not getting represented). So yes, this article is probably not absolutely necessary, but it is absolutely relevant and helpful to the average reader. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Spot on in that regard - I wasn't exactly speaking to matters of it being exclusive to any particular ideology, but it already has political connotations by default, and acknowledging responses that arise as a result of those connotations isn't "shoving" politics into it so much as pointing out what already existed (though ultimately specifying who we'd "think" would cause problems with it doesn't help much - there'd be many different reasons for people taking issue, and now all of them will be as tunnel-visioned and predictable as the bunch we have so far. --LGX-000 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, to start, I suspect It'd be best I state my own allegiances first, lest accusations are thrown right, left, and middle. As stated on my own page, I'm a devout True Neutral Paladin of NoFuningus, and to me, everything is Serious Business. Further, I'm an actual, true-to-life academic philosopher (trained in the analytical school, but by matter of research, more interested in what is classically considered continental philosophy - even if I wouldn't call Derrida and his ilk "philosophers" if my life depended on it). I mention this, not only to try and make a point out of my own competence at neutrality as such, and as regards the matter(s) at hand, but also show that I entirely lack any sort of self-awareness, and have my head so far stuck up my own arse, I've folded in on myself and become a singularity (of narcissism). I also wantonly appeal to authority, so long as I am the authority, of course. As such, I mostly stand outside of the debate, as I'm - quite literally, which isn't uncommon amongst my kin - an anti-democrat - and, to blow the minds of the amerifags around (and I have to say, good one earlier, Taufag), economic socialist. Indeed, I'm anti-democracy on the authority-scale, but pro-socialism on the economy-scale, and at the same time, a libertarian on a personal - as opposed to intra-personal - political level (neo-Plationian Elitist, if you must know). Further, to pre-empt any amerifag personal attacks, no, that does not make me neither Chinese, nor a communist; it's literally right there in the name, "socialist", not "communist" (and due to my own befuddlement and curiosity, I have to say, to the earlier non-namesigned comment (by 2602:306:B88B:FB60:182A:ADFA:751F:FA5E 03:27, on 17 October 2019 (UTC)), that... Socialism "doesn't work"? Ever heard of, say, quite literally all of Scandinavia - which, in the UN index of citizen happiness, again quite literally, all beat the US by a country mile? (Turns out tax-paid/"free" education, up to and including university-level, tax-paid/"free" healthcare, social safety-nets, and five weeks of paid vacation per year mandated by law, makes people somewhat more agreeable... Who knew?)).
Now, all of those ridiculous and ultimate useless things being said...
The discussion on the talk-page here has derailed immensely, and almost ironically, turned into an actual political debate. I'm not necessarily pro-deletion; I am, however, pro-neutrality; as has been said before, the article is inherently political, yes, but not inherently leaning towards either side of the traditional political spectrum. Thusly, whilst I acknowledge that the majority of the essay on the page leans somewhat left, I don't think that is really the problem; but rather, the fact that is explicitly takes a side - and a pro-SJW side - in having a section called "Do they have a point?", and ending it all by saying, in essence, that "Yes, yes they do" (and even the excusing part at the end of the TL;DR is, well, excusing; it states, in a rather sly way, that even the "bad seeds" are actually right, they just make their points poorly; thusly, SJWs at large, are correct, and the opposition, if any, is wrong). As such, I will now make a change - and proclaim, loud and clear for all to see, here (again, singularity of narcissism with no self-awareness) - which simply changes the TL;DR/ending to be "YYMW" ("Your Mileage May Wary" for all my newfags out there), and discusses both sides of the coin a bit more, without explicitly taking one side. If this is disagreed upon by anyone, I recommend you revert it, followed by the only rational course of action; i.e., finding me IRL and stabbing me to death with an icicle. incassum (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Or modify it, as needed. The way I see it, it's mainly meant to provide a counterpoint to the common 4chan opinion that the entire SJW ideology and its source are pure evil, and while there are a few who could be called genuinely fanatical among them that point could be made about any ideology on Earth. I will make a change trying to do what you're planning to do first, and if that is insufficient you can make further additions. --Newerfag (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, you seem to have beat me there. Still, I cut it down because it was way too big to be a TL;DR summary. --Newerfag (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
It would seem that you tried using "Quick Attack", but failed due to my "V-create", Newerfag - but, followed by you using "Cut", which was super-effective. Now, I changed just the one word, so as to avoid it saying that they are right (which was the whole point of changing it to "YMMW", however much I failed at making it TL;DR (which I arguably did)) again. "Merely" being a counterpoint to popular opinion is highly reactionary, which I tend to find is newer good, as even at the best of times, it only serves to create counter-counter-reactions, and so on and so forth, ad nauseam. Hopefully the state of the TL;DR as of my latest edit is something we all find agreeable. incassum (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hm, I think my newest change works better- when I said "wrong", I meant it as "incorrect" (i.e. the points they make are reflective of issues that exist and aren't simply made up out of whole cloth) rather than it being indicative of any sort of value judgment. And it's not like the people who would be likely to add counter-counter-reactions will care about nuance in the first place. --Newerfag (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
And upon further consideration, I decided the whole rhetorical question was an invalid one to begin with- it lends itself too readily to a yes-or-no answer and falsely implies that it's a judgment of who's "right" or "wrong". I've re-titled it to "An Alternate Perspective". --Newerfag (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Personally I'm not a fan of calling it "An Alternate Perspective" because it's not really an alternate perspective. It doesn't give new insights that are at odd with the rest of the page, and it also makes it sound like it's going to be arguing against what the page as a whole says, when it's really not. I'm having trouble figuring out a better topic title than "Is there a point?" Or something along those lines similar to what we already had, and I'm just not getting one. It also doesn't help that "An Alternate Perspective" is really a nothing title, it says nothing about the section it's supposed to represent and I really do think anything else would be a better option, even the question of "Do SJW's have a point?" -- Triacom (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Tell you what, that actually works way better. I like. --LGX-000 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Approaching this without bias, regardless of our personal beliefs, is the way to go. We shouldn't be defending SJWs, or attacking them. No sides should be taken no matter if you're right, left, or in between. That said, I still feel the article has no purpose, or could be trimmed down considerable. Incassum is correct that in its current incarnation it takes a decidedly pro-SJW side, which is unacceptable, though as would be an anti-SJW side. /tg/ doesn't profess any particular ideology, political wing, etc. We talk about games and judge games. What you believe about real-world politics doesn't mean shit in those discussions. For that reason, I still say nuke the article entirely, because ultimately you're going to get angry people who claim it's just a shitpost topic for /pol/fags or tumblrinas, and it's just going to make people mad at each other because no one will ever like the content of it. If it must absolutely be kept up, rewording it to be as sparse and neutral as possible is the way to go. It could all be reduced to one single section even. SJWs are a source of intense skub and either the best or worst people ever depending on your political beliefs. That alone could make the entire article. TheBadageBoys (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

As someone who is absolutely biased (both having been called an SJW (on here and the boards) and putting a bit of time into cleaning up and maintaining this and several related articles (/pol/ and Female Space Marines come to mind)), I'd like to attempt to explain exactly why I think this article is explicitly useful (rather than merely relevant) and why it kinda needs to be so long winded. Again, I am absolutely biased, but being the person that desperately wanted to trim down certain parts (primarily the tl;dr) a minute ago for a lack of usefulness, I might kinda sorta understand your reasoning.
First, on its usefulness. Back to relevance (hypocritical fool, I know), if there are constant skubbed views on both the board and the wiki, it deserves an explanation. What an SJW is, and why people get assmad over crucifying or defending them, could absolutely be reduced to a paragraph or two. What couldn't, however, is the context and complexity of the issue. For the depth of context, I might redirect you to Talk:/pol/, but or the sheer complexity and depth of the issue, it would probably be best to reread the "Do They Have a Point" section. I have hidden an exerpt below this paragraph for ease of reading and to help keep this ridiculous fucking talk page slightly tidier.
I may act like a shithead (actually, I think I kind of am), but I do genuinely think through what I do, and I try not to let my biases not get the best of me. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Nah, I think you're being totally civil, aside from the opening comment anyway. For that matter I'm biased too. Personally, I'm deeply opposed to SJW thought and the things they claim, but I don't hate the people themselves. We can't ultimately get rid of our own biases, that's inevitable, but we can work together, agree to disagree on a personal scale, and cooperatively ensure that the content we put up fits the bill of neutrality on issues where neutrality should be the focus. I think this talk page, if anything, is a good sign of that. Whether you love, hate, or don't care about SJWs, we can still get together to put the information up there in an impartial way. I still feel it could be cut down to just about one or two paragraphs, but hey, we're making good progress on making it more neutral anyway, and that's all that matters at the end of the day. You can't please everyone ultimately, and people on either side are gonna get pissed no matter what the article says, but we can mitigate that if not remove it entirely. TheBadageBoys (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Quite, folks, quite; we've been civil, thus far (and let those amongst us who are not, know themselves). However, it troubles me greatly that the page changes as of late - specifically, after we (pseudo)agreed to change at the very least the TL;DR at the end to something a bit more YMMW - have all been variations on saying "Yeah the SWJs are right". As I said, I'm fairly anti-deletion on this article as a whole, but if the options are solely "have an article that clearly takes a political stand and/or stance" and "have no article", I'm leaning towards the latter. Even beyond the TL;DR, the argument I cited in my original edit (with the not-so-short (ok, long) TL;DR), could be added into the essay. That argument, for those that didn't see it, goes thus;
one fundamental problem with SJWs is that they're pro-censorship, in the sense that "if you want to change the arts - make art". That, then, as opposed to changing art and /or artists. If you want to e.g. see more Hindus in videogames, then make a videogame (with Hindus in it) - don't attempt to force current artists to change their art to suit your own egotistical needs, but rather, create something of, and on, your own (or with others - I presume we all see what I mean, here). That is how art evolves (as opposed to stagnates), after all. And to be clear; the argument as such points out that many an SJW is trying to do specifically that - change the art of others, which is, no matter how you try and twist and turn it, a form of censorship, in addition to being reactionary, lazy, a way to try and silence and deny opposition, and severly egotistical. One of the main reasons this is valid, is because... It's true. People aren't all out there, trying to create their own art - though some folks are, of course, which is good (as to /tg/-relevance, in my original TL;DR that sorely needed a TL;DR of it's own, I mentioned amongst others, Onyx Path Publishing, whose writing-stable (at the time of writing) literally consist solely of self-proclaimed SJWs, who parade and take pride in their putting real-world politics into their games (whether they do this successfully or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand)). People are actually trying to get, for one example, more representation in the art of others, as opposed to their own. Even if you're ok with censorship - which some people are, and if so, fair enough, I don't use it merely as a buzzword that is intended to provoke, there are many a philosophical position that would support specific forms of censorship, or censorship in certain areas (e.g. not having vaginas, penises, excessive realistic gore, and so on, in movies intended for children) - they are trying to change what the artists themselves are putting out/creating, literally enforcing their view upon creators, whilst not creating, themselves (I don't say "usually not creating, themselves" here, as I've yet to encounter any actual artists that both create themselves, and try and force others to change their art (again, using OPP as an example, their stance (at the time of writing) is that they're going to change things, by being the change they want to see in the world, as opposed to forcing others to comply or be *BLAM*'d)).
Now, that is... Many, lines of text, to make what is perhaps a rather simple point/argument; however, I am a philosopher, and I must spew forth catastrophic floods of words, lest I cease. Well, and, to make it as clear as possible, be as exact and specific as I can be given the limitations of current human language, and leave as little room for interpretation as possible (there is a reason philosophy-books and essays tend to be twice as thick as the books and essays of other academic disciplines - and as to why we're so good at defining things, including our own arguments and positions (when we're all not busy patting eachother on our respective backs, of course)). This is just one argument, off of the top of my head, that still stands (at least in academic and public discourse, I've yet to hear anything even remotely resembling a proper reply to it (sans those who are actually pro-censorship and/or silencing opposition, of course, who can get away with merely saying "Yes, that is correct - and?")). Even then, it's just one example; one example, that in saying "it's complicated", the reply might be that yes, it is - and saying "So this or that side is definitely right in everything they're 'trying' to say, they just sometimes say it poorly or are being misrepresented by The Evil Ones™ (i.e. whichever group "we" do not support)", is not acknowledging that claimed complexity. Indeed, it instead does the literal opposite of that, and boils it down to "It's actually very simple; this or that side is right".
My oh my, I should never speak of anyone else writing "essays" ever again, should I... Well, I never said it was a bad thing, to write essays; come, kettles, and celebrate our common blackness with me! Ahem. Either way, let's at the very least try and not make the TL;DR say "X is correct", yeah? I'll attempt a change, as an attempt on my life has yet to be made; when it is, I'll know I've slightly upset someone. incassum (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Edit; Addendum. Ah, let us also be clear that, yes, whilst it might be impossible to wholly, fully, and entirely let go of each and every single last bias that you may have, that is no excuse not to strive for it (or, put another way; no, we can't be perfectly neutral, but we still must attempt to be, lest honesty itself is thrown out the window). Indeed, the internet is srs bsns (with no fun allowed!). incassum (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Cutting through your sea of text, I'll be brief by comparison: "not incorrect" is not the same as correct- I would have expected a philosopher to understand that distinction. It's like the difference between saying "the world is flat" and "the world is round": neither is true (the world is in fact an oblate spheroid, or a geoid if you want to split hairs), but the latter is still less incorrect than the former. And contrary to your unstated assumptions, not everyone has the skill or the resources to make art of their own, so your argument about "if you want to change the arts, make art" is fundamentally flawed- what are they supposed to do, be sullenly resigned to what scraps they can get as they lament their lack of talent/money/opportunity to dedicate themselves to their art?
They do, however, have the ability to relay their interests to the people who make said art so they know the demand exists and have the opportunity to fulfill that demand. While it certainly can come with financial incentives if the demand is sufficiently high, it's not censorship- that requires the ability to directly enforce said demands with law or some other form of equally powerful authority (e.g. a religious institution or corporation). No SJW, even in the most blatant stereotypes, even comes close to having that form of power.--Newerfag (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The reason why it seems like the discussion has turned to "yeah the SJW's are right" is just because of the context of what we're discussing. Do the SJW's have a point? That's something you can't address without bringing up how they do have some valid criticisms, and if you're entirely against them from the start then admitting they have any points at all feels like you're conceding the whole argument, even if you're just trying to be fair. That's why it's also important to mention that the points they make are distorted/ruined by somebody acting with an agenda, as plenty of their points in a vacuum are actually good points that they'll then take and twist to their advantage. To give an example, somebody pointing out how some words like nigger are no longer acceptable to be used in the public as a whole (barring people with darker skin tones) and using that to try and censor Mark Twain's work is somebody who has a legitimate point that would be perfectly fine on its own, but they're using it to push an agenda and ignoring the reason for why Mark Twain used it. They don't like it, so they cobble together an excuse to remove it. I'm also not seeing why we shouldn't address the inherently political nature of SJW's in the page itself, that's kind of a big thing about them that we'd be ignoring if we were to cut out everything political about the article. -- Triacom (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hence my pointing out how "not incorrect" does not mean they are 100% correct. Plus, the majority of so-called SJWs aren't as zealous as they're commonly depicted, that's just the weak-man fallacy at work. (It's related to the strawman fallacy, you look through a group and showcase the ones with the worst arguments to make it seem like they're representative of the group as a whole.) And that's before you begin tracking how much of it is actually trolling in disguise- remember "#EndFathersDay"? --Newerfag (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
But it's not up to us to say they're correct or incorrect, that alone is taking sides. Both sides could argue SJWs have no point at all, or all valid points. Making a claim either way is inviting trouble and killing off any chance at neutrality. We don't have to have a /pol/ excerpt on why they're horrible, but we also don't need a tumblr blog on why they're amazing. Just don't say anything about how right or wrong they are. Sum them up as briefly as as impartially as possible. Or better yet just remove the article. Arguing about SJWs rarely goes further than either "ur bad" "no ur bad" on /tg/ anyway, and it's not even that relevant in the first place. There's nothing to say and nothing lost by just not talking about it in general. Besides, who would this even be for? I don't think you'd find anyone posting on a chan who doesn't know what an SJW is, and the majority of them would already have their minds made up on what they think about them. If it's not informing anyone, and no one's going to be happy with the content, why even have it? TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Context matters, and just because you personally do not appreciate it doesn't mean nobody else does. If you are not happy with it, you are free to not look at the page. --Newerfag (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
What context though? I wouldn't say "SJW" being used on /tg/ sometimes warrants a whole article, not when it's obviously not working. This has caused problems and arguments from day one. It's either too pro-SJW, too anti-SJW, too /pol/, too tumblr, for anyone to be satisfied. Why not just remove it? What do we lose? TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The context is in how they use their arguments. Addressing that they have legitimate grievances is not saying that they're right in demanding censorship on what they do not like, that's the context you're missing. Furthermore it doesn't matter if the users already know what SJW's are, general knowledge of something is not a valid reason for requesting an article to be deleted. If it was then the wiki would not exist beyond tactics pages. -- Triacom (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Saying they have genuine grievances is, implicitly, taking a side, particularly when the article words it in such a way, as pointed out above, to say "They have genuine grievances, even if they're misguided." It's a line that shouldn't be in there in general. Last I checked the /pol/ article didn't say they had genuine grievances either. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
This isn't Futurama's Neutral Planet, and unlike /pol/ they do have grievances based in reality. What's so hard to understand about that? And someone who supposedly isn't taking a side wouldn't be this worked up about a matter like this. --Newerfag (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
No, but it's also a game site based around a game board, not politics. If anything, it's pretty telling that you'd say /pol/ has no legitimate grievances but SJWs do. Not that I agree or disagree either way, but it indicates to me you may be letting bias slip in if you're implying that SJWs have the potential to be right while /pol/'s various groups don't. That is exactly what we're trying to prevent in this article. It should not be written, if it even has to stay up, with the pretext that SJWs are vaguely correct. It shouldn't say they're right, wrong, anything like that. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Politics inevitably make their way into the games, which is why this page exists. These people make their way into the forums, into the comments, and into playergroups which is why we have to address them. The important thing is that we address it fairly, which includes addressing their legitimate grievances, and explaining how they can try and twist real issues to get what they want. -- Triacom (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Then we need to do the same for the /pol/ article and address their grievances as well. Fair is fair. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
We did. If you want to expand on that then that's your own perogative, don't expect us to do your work for you. -- Triacom (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Your sealioning is slipping. Either take ten fucking minutes to read the page and understand what the greivances are or be silent. Oh, and I'm no stranger to the balance fallacy.--Newerfag (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
So you're saying /pol/ has no grievances, but SJWs do, and saying otherwise is a "balance fallacy" (gonna assume that's a fancy of way the old "enlightened centrist" accusation). You're saying your personal opinion, that SJWs have legit grievances, should keep the article one way, but the idea that anyone else may not agree, or may think /pol/ has legit grievances, is wrong. Also, be aware that "sealioning" was also used as a common attack on Gamergate guys by, you guessed it, self-avowed SJWs - not a label given to them by anyone else, but one they openly chose to take. So that's another thing. "You're just as bad as SJWs if you complain about them" is an age old fallacy from SJWs themselves. And none of that even matters. The article should be neutral, and that's literally that. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It is already neutral. Seeing that now you're seeing SJWs in every single person who disagrees with you and are the sole person advancing the argument that the section be removed, you're in no position to call yourself neutral. Now quit the bullshit. --Newerfag (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
If it has to remain this way for fairness, is it not fair that the /pol/ article has the same treatment? You yourself said you're not neutral, this isn't Futurama, and you don't think /pol/ has legit grievances but SJWs. Stop pretending I'm not the neutral one here. Fair is fair, no matter what your personal political ideas are. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Alright then, go ahead and add one of those grievances to /pol/'s page, preferably one that isn't just another conspiracy theory. Go ahead, I'll wait.--Newerfag (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we'll start with how the political sides affiliated with various gaming and journalism companies have begun exerting greater control over entertainment, to the point criticizing a movie or a game will get you bashed as a racist, a Nazi, or some other term, or how two of the most prominent members of the anti-GamerGate crowd petitioned before a UN council that it should enforce censorship online because they were being told, quote, they were "dumb and ugly"? TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The report written by members of old Lyndon LaRouche's political cult? ([1]) Or the "greater control" that apparently doesn't seem to exist outside of a few people's personal complaints? And it's funny that you think video game "journalism" has every been anything other than badly veiled advertisements. Your discrimination is just what happens to every unprofitable market. --Newerfag (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Got sources, or is this just more of the 'I'm right because I'm right' kind of argument we've seen so often from you? -- Triacom (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
No less "I'm right because" than saying institutional sexism is still a problem, because problematic problems or something, your evidence is bigoted, etc. I've strived for neutrality, but obviously that's not what you or Newerfag want. He even said it himself, he agrees with SJWs and feels treating the opposition in the same fair way isn't acceptable. By the way, throw me more fish. Arf arf. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I can't help it if you're not smart enough to understand the information that has been spoonfed to you. --Newerfag (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
So in other words, you don't have sources or evidence backing you up, just opinion? -- Triacom (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

And then TheBadageBoys announced that he was Leaving and Never Coming Back™ on Root's talk page right after that post. I think that's a fitting end to his bitching, don't you?--Newerfag (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely. I'll be glad to see them gone, but it's also a shame. For a while it seemed like they could've been a genuinely good user before they got their head shoved so far up their own ass that they could see sunlight. -- Triacom (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Who are you kidding? From his last paranoid rant it's easy to see he was going to be a prick about this from the start. And what are we, short on idiots?--Newerfag (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Well we're all kinda pricks here, but you make a good point. -- Triacom (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I think now's a good time to mention that "enforced neutrality" is a form of corrective bias (i.e. still a bias), so iunno if that notion had much water to begin with. As for the rest of this, I'll get to it eventually, just that there's a lot to digest atm. --LGX-000 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't waste your time, it was basically one guy saying "how dare you say they have a point but don't extend that courtesy to /pol/!".--Newerfag (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Neither flavor of stupid has any points.--Namefag (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm talking about the general question of how in-depth this article should go on the subject and its presentation thereof, more than anything. And I was aware of the devil's advocacy for /pol/, which... sometimes not all "arguments" are equal. Some views just objectively lack merit. And IIRC the /pol/ article does at least mention how much of their ideology is purely reactionary towards misapplication of progressive ideals and policies, so... --LGX-000 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh my, it's starting to look like things are getting personal/insult-ish/political/non-constructive, again; heck, even I didn't come away unscathed (as per Newerfags insult of me, or at the very least, my professional expertise). However, I shan't let that deter me! Now, where to begin... Well, from the beginning/top-to-bottom of the messages that have been written since I came, I suppose.
Well, Newerfag (and anyone else that is interested, of course), indeed - "Not incorrect" isn't the same as "Correct", no; however, as a philosopher, I'm also well-aware that, looking at "Not incorrect" and "Correct" as logical containers (as in "Propositional Logic" (or "Formal Logic", depending on in which country you're studying/have studied philosophy)), they can contain eachother; e.g., something being "Not incorrect" contains the possibility of it being correct. This makes it vague, and unspecific - whereas something like "not all incorrect" is more specific, as specifying "not all" makes it so that the container ("not all incorrect") cannot contain "correct" (whereas "not incorrect" can contain "correct"). For this reason, there is indeed a rather huge difference between saying "not incorrect" and "not all incorrect". For this reason, I find it rather odd - as it implies rather heavy a bias - that even that slight edit, to include the word "all", is opposed; that smells heavily of bias, to me. Further, it implies that - whether the exact logical definitions were known before I made them explicit here or not - wanting to remove the word "all" from it, was due to the person in question (I have genuinely not checked who removed it) having some understanding of, at least, that "not incorrect" contains the possibility of "entirely correct", whereas "not all incorrect" doesn't; if that is not the case, then I - genuinely - cannot see why there would be any opposition to literally just adding the word "all" there. That reeks of extreme bias, to me, at least - even moreso if we're going to talk about degrees of correct and incorrect.
As to not everyone having the skill or resources to make art... Yes, they do - read out, to find out what I mean here.
As for the resources, it's qiute simple; if you have the resources to partake in twitter-campaigns, or really, spend time on the internet at all, then you also haev access to some kind of word-processor (even if it's just notepad or something equivalent - but more likely (thought not always), they also have access to full office-suits, due to e.g. Libreoffice existing) at the very least, and more than likely, also to paint (or something equivalent); so, yes, everyone that can partake in these sorts of campaigns, protest, discussions, etcetera, does have the resources. Not the exact same resources, perhaps (as in, a professional artist might have the latest photoshop, material connections, etcetera), but enough to actually create on their own.
As for the skills, then - yes and no. No-one is born skilled, not even professional writers/designers/drawfags/etcetera - they practice. And if you have access to paint - then spend time learning paint. Not everyone has the same amount of time, no; but if this is something that is as important to person X as this whole discussion implies, then they would arguably prioritize their art, so as to get decent enough for it to be spread. Further, with the age of the internet, it's easier than ever to get a crowd; not a Hollywood-scale crowd, no, absolutely not; but, a passionate crowd that partakes of, and adores, your art? Very much, yes. Just look at the number of webcomics, youtube-series/channels, etcetera, that exist today - and if you include the ones that are not entirely supported by their art, those already fairly high numbers skyrocket. Skill isn't something magical, that some people just magically get, and should be looked down upon, for; they got good, through practice. Through practicing their art. Even then, you don't need to be particularily skilled to get a following online; look at the number of people on e.g. Deviantart that have large followings - and yet, are mediocre, at best, at drawing. The same goes for certain webcomics, many a collaborative writing-site, and so on.
So, no, the argument is not "fundamentally flawed" (well, as far as I know - someone might be able to contest my above points, of course, but I cannot know that until I've seen a reply) - not to mention, that saying "dedicate themselves to their art" is itself something of a rhetorical trick, as you do not need to be solely focused on, and dedicated to, your art, to be able to produce it (just as people can have several hobbies, they can both do art (which can itself be a hobby), and do other things, as well). Heck, in certain areas of art - looking at you, book-writing - most artists actually don't make their living from their creations. There are a select few, e.g. Stephen King and George R. R. Marten, that live off of their writing, but the vast majority of writers, do not. They either have "normal day-jobs", so to speak, or do the bulk of their writing for someone else, and then do their own writing in their spare time (having the latter more as a sweet little bit of icing on the cake of their normal salaries).
Hm, I'll likely write this again, at the end of this soon-to-be-essay, but I wish to make clear that I don't intend to come off as insulting, or demeaning, to others; the climate of the discussion has, as stated, taken a turn for the worse, and gotten closer to insult-flinging and rhetorics, and I do not wish to be overtaken by said climate. So, to be clear, I'm writing this, as coldly and distanced as possible, as a discussion, without intent of harming anyone, in any way; thus, my apologies if it seems I do. I do not.
As to your second point, I'd say that you are severly "nice-washing" it. What has - at least as far as what I've read/heard/etcetera - been deemed "social violence", is very much a force of it's own, which can exert great influence. Just for one example, off of the top of my head; when it became widely known that the then-CEO of Mozilla Inc. had donated money to prop-somethingsomething (a proposition for banning gay marriage somewhere in the US), there were massive protests all over the internet, videos were made on youtube, people raged across twitter, facebook, etcetera. The fallout of this, was that he actually got fired; he got fired as a CEO, not due to some church, organization, corporation, or government, opposing it, making a law against it, or anything of the sort; he got fired, simply and entirely, due to the social violence exerted against Mozilla when that fact became known. This is not "relaying ones interest" in a beautiful and peaceful manner, as your post - at least as I read it - implies. This is a forceful, deliberate, exertion of power - from none of the instances that you mentioned. They enforced their demands against a corporation, and made it change, through their usage of social violence; not through casual, peaceful, "relaying of heir interests". To be clear, and avoid any accusations of me implying this or that; I put no stake, nor value, in what occured, there, and I'm not saying that it was neither right, nor wrong, neither by Mozilla (for firing him), nor the people exerting the social violence (for doing just that). It is a real-world example of my point, nothing more, nothing less, and I take no side in it. So, in short; no, it doesn't require laws, or the like; people, groups, can - and do - directly enforce said demands, and thusly, can cause censorship, as they do have that power.
Moving on, I find this sentence; "Do the SJW's have a point? That's something you can't address without bringing up how they do have some valid criticisms" to be baised, in itself - what it says, is literally that "you can't adress whether they're right or wrong without saying that they're right". To be clear, I'm not saying that they don't have any valid criticisms; what I am saying, is that saying that "in order to discuss X, you have to know that X is (at least somewhat) right/correct/valid/etcetera" precludes and invalidates the very questions it seeks to pose; if you're already certain that X is right, how can you discuss whether X is right? I'm also not sure about the point on the word "nigger", as it seems quite biased to assume that, by default, someone wanting to censor it in e.g. Mark Twains work by necessity has a legitimate point behind it, or that there lies a legitimate point behind it, or anything of the sort; not all points are legitimate, simply put. However, I do see the point of what Triacom is saying, and importantly, Triacom - as far as I can read right now - uses, throughout the article, words like "plenty" and "some"; i.e., the same as my point above, of saying "all". This is a good, and important, part, of neutrality; not saying "good points", but even something like "plenty X are Y" (which still claims, then, that there are many Xs that are Y), leaves room for that there are, at least, "a few X that are not Y" (as opposed to that all Xs are Y, and anyone stating anything to the contrary are just corrupting/twisting the Xs). This is a good thing, I'd say.
As for the next post by Newerfag, see my above discussion of "not incorrect" versus "not all incorrect".
Moving on, whilst I see the point(s) made by TheBadageBoys (I don't state this to target anyone, it's merely to be clear on where I am in the text/what points I'm addresing; for the sake of making it easier to follow what I'm typing), I'm still not convinced that the article should be deleted; SJWs do come up from time to time, both on /tg/ and here on the wiki itself, especially as some /tg/-relevant companies - again, my perennial example, Onyx Path Publishing - are very much a part of that (and use the word, themselves), for good or for ill: I'm still more for having the article here, but, ensuring that it's neutral (or at the very least doesn't clearly take a side); as written, "for good or for ill"; no side-taking, one way or the other. So I do find that something is lost, by not talking about it at all.
Moving on to the next post, by Newerfag, I'd say that ("just don't look at it) is an entirely invalid argument. If the /pol/-article was suddenly changed by some /pol/ack to specifically reflect, encourage, and spread the views of /pol/, and clearly be taking their side, I for one - and I very, very much suspect (and hope), "most" - wouldn't just say "well if you don't like it, then don't read it"; I'd want to change it. Unless the reader is of the persuasion that "no, even if so, then that article should be left alone, and those not agreeing should just not read it", then the argument "don't look at it" is invalid.
Onward, to the next post by TheBadAgeboys; no, saying that they have genuine grievances is not taking a side - or rather, not strongly taking a side, at least. Saying that they're mostly, or entirely, correct, that would be taking a side (and also happens to be what I'm against - including saying that they're mostly or entirely wrong). Merely saying that they have some, or at the very least, might have some, genuine grievances, is the more neutral option, as explicitly saying that they have "no legitimate grievances" is also taking a side, just the opposite one. This would be (just as) bad, or so I'd claim.
This not being the Futurama Planet of Neutrality is merely rhetoric, and irrelevant (again, this is not meant as a personal attack, merely a discussion of the points raised (I have nothing in particular against anyone in particular, here; I do have something in particular against bad discussions, though (see e.g. my - and the entire - history with/of the "DoWPro"-article))). Even if it isn't, we can still attempt not to take explicit, political, sides, I'd think.
Oh my, further down, it seems the discussion almost became something of a "throwing the word "fallacy around"-fight; I'd suggest that, instead of doing that, make clear points, and if someone does commit to a particular, well-known and well-discussed, fallacy, then sure, point that out - but also, explain how they do so, and what the fallacy is (e.g., I'm not aware of what the "balance-fallacy" is, and even if I could guess that it was another way of putting what I've heard as "bothsides-ism", guesswork isn't a good thing when trying to understand one-another (not to say that I'm always perfectly clear, in every single way, always; please, point out to me if I'm not, as I try to be, that none of what I write need be interpreted; my point being that we should all try to be as clear as possible). That includes using rhetorics, and value-laden buzzwords, like "cult". That being said - I, personally, certainly do not see that the article is neutral. And, for another point; TheBadAgeBoys, it does seem quite odd, that you'd keep making these points, and then... Not go and change the /pol/-article. Why not go and change it, then? Hm, though, to be clear - that's me directly addressing a person (as opposed to a persons arguments), which I am usually loathe to do, and to be clear, most folk on here, not just you, seem to have clearly taken a side, but I'm addressing you as you suggested doing something - changing the /pol/-article - which no-one seems intent on stopping you from doing, so I'm wondering why you don't do that (and saying that "they won't let me" is moot; you've yet to try, so do that first. If then, someone tries to stop you, we can all analyze the problem at hand, and then see, if something needs be done (a.k.a., "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it"). That is not me attacking you, or at least, I don't intend to; apologies, if it comes off as such.
Hm, Triacom, I have to say - in spite of my earlier point of addressing people directly - that I don't appreciate you implying that anyone has their head further up their own ass, than I. I'm hoping that's not what you were trying to say?
Hm, and I wouldn't boil it all down the TgeBadageBoys being some matter of idiot, standing alone, and ranting against the article; as I hope is clear, I do have a problem with it (in it's current state, as opposed to inherently), as well; and one that I hope is made somewhat clear by my essays.
And again; I'm not trying to "attack" anyone, here - merely discuss points, as such. My - sincere - apologies, if it seems I'm "out to get" someone in specific, or the like; I'm not.
Now, I'll try another slight edit; if it's unappreciated, as usual, revert it, and well - as to what to do to/about me if one finds me disagreeable, my first essay gave a suggestion. incassum (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
First, I chose my words because they would be less awkward than "has a 50%-75% truth value" and because using "all" would then open up the question of which parts were incorrect- which I do not have time to clarify myself (and neither do you, I assume). Second, TheBadageBoys later revealed themselves elsewhere to be arguing in bad faith and had no intent of engaging anyone save to deceive them- in retrospect he seems to have come here solely to cause trouble and had done so on a different page. Third, most people who do want to produce art and are not professionals have little desire to have it consist mostly of garbage- they want quality art from quality sources, and most (with exceptions like the deviantArt types you mentioned) know that they do not fit that bill, thus they are content with providing feedback to those who do live up to those standards. Even if they don't dedicate their lives to it, they still need to spend years practicing at minimum. If you think otherwise, then prove it to me-
I acknowledge it is not your intent to be insulting or demeaning, but you do come off as profoundly out of touch with the issues being covered. It's also rather odd that you would equate what is little more than peer pressure writ large with the ability to actually use direct, potentially lethal force as a consequence of undesired speech via the sanction of the state or an equivalent thereof (never mind the fact that Brendan Eich wasn't fired from his position, but voluntarily resigned, which makes me doubt that you even researched your example beyond the minimum needed to incorporate it into your argument). Or perhaps your definition of "violence" is much broader than my own? If so, what makes your interpretation of censorship different from the alt-right "free speech advocates"?
P.S. "Balance fallacy", also known as false balance, is indeed what you call "bothsides-ism"; I'm surprised you didn't know the formal name for it. --Newerfag (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
For ease of reading, I'll try and follow your structure here, Newerfag, so; firstly, "opening up the discussion" is better than killing it, by saying "X is right" - or at least more neutral, would you really not agree with that? Or the even worse interpretation, i.e., that the opposite of "opening up the discussion" (which you seem - seem, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, here - to be against) is "killing/closing/removing/censoring/stopping the discussion" which I would hope against hope that we're all against, here. And even then, "opening up the discussion" (which doesn't necessarily mean "opening up the discussion here on the wiki"), is a good thing, as it can just as well be re-thought of as "leaving the matter open in the reader's mind", i.e., leaving it up to them to ponder, think about, and learn from. Leaving a discussion open, especially if the point is to not explicitly say that one side or the other is correct, is the good, open, option. Is that really a bad thing? (Genuine question, to be clear). Especially, as I couldn't "clarify myself", since that is open to debate, and even if I were to write that "this and that is a good point that they have/make", people would immediatley say "well no, actually, this is the good point/points that they have/make"; again, going back around to the problem of being exceptionally biased, as opposed to resolving it and being neutral (and perhaps, even, educational or thought/discussion-starting, as I suspect is/was the intent of the essay perceding the TL;DR (which is not a bad thing)). It is therefore, I'd say, much better to just include the word "all" in there, instead of - as now, and as I assume most people now agree on/understand since my explication of the matter - leaving it at the article very definitely taking a side, and implying that one side is entirely right/correct (even abandoning "YMMW" in favour of "it's complicated" was a move squarely against neutrality, as "YMMW" imples that it varies, whereas "it's complicated" does not). If not, then I genuinely ask; why can't the article as such just say that neither side is right or wrong, why does it have to take a side? Am I, genuinely, the only (non-troll, as I would now disqualify any part of the discussion written by TheBadageBoys due to the infromation shared by Newerfag) person here wanting it to be neutral, or at least, not explicitly taking a side? (Again - genuine question, as if I am, it's quite obviously pointless for me to continue the debate, as no matter my points, arguments, etcetera, it will lead to nothing).
And I would note, that I originally tried to clarify it more in the TL;DR, Newerfag, but that it then got cut due to being too long (which it was,for a TL;DR, most certainly; however, what I mean to say by that, is that you're now calling for more clarity/clarification, after having removed it, when I did put some time into getting it there). So, I do not yet understand what the problem with adding the "all" is, here - as stated, it seems we agree on the logics of language that I discussed earlier (which means that not having "all" in there, implies that one side is indeed entirely correct); so, what is the problem, with that?
Secondly, then; ah, I see, he was but a troll, then. I suspected as much, but I try and always study my "opposition", or "partner in intellectual intercourse" in good faith, and abide by the so-called "principle of charity" (TL;DR of the PoC; as far as is rational, assume that whoever you're discussing with has the best of intentions, and that whatever they say makes sense in some way, even if you yourself cannot see it as of yet).
Thirdly; most people that "want to produce art", does not want "to have it consist mostly of garbage"? Well, no, no-one wants their own creations to be garbage - but, those same people, if they want to create art, must realise that it will have to start out as garbage, and then get good in the long run, with practice - and that it goes like that, for literally everyone, no? (As stated earlier, none of us are born, magically skilled at, well, anything). They get skilled, with time - as did literally everyone before them, and not a single one just started out, fitting that bill. The "professionals", became "professionals", by spending time learning their craft. As for the "spend years practicing"... Well, yes - I never said anything to the contrary; quite the opposite, I literally said, "with time", I... Honestly don't know neither where that came from, nor how that is supposed to be a counter-argument? Yes, it will take time, I entirely agree, and it seems to be factually correct, and so..? (Again, not trying to be a bastard here - don't get me wrong, I'm sure I'm a bastard, but I'm not trying to be one - I genuinely don't see what you mean, here, which may well be due to my own ineptitude, as much as anything else). Further, again - saying that they're just "giving feedback", is a bit of "nice-washing", don't you think? Or do you mean to say that e.g. the reason that Eich was removed from Mozilla was just due to casual feedback, as opposed to social violence/peer pressure? Or that most such changes, e.g. White Wolf pulling the original copies of whichever book it was that referenced the mass-killings of homosexuals in Chechenya, was just due to getting some "feedback" from the readers? There is a grave difference, between saying "Hey, I think X was a bit bad, just my point of view, but I wouldn't include X in Y, myself" - that is feedback, I'd argue - and saying "you can't include X in Y", or even "you shouldn't include X in Y" - which is not feedback, I'd say. Thoughts?
I wouldn't consider myself out-of-touch, as such - depending on your definition, of course; I may actually well be, depending on what you mean - but I do actively try and take as much of a "view from above"-type position as possible, so as to be able to see the whole of the matter, and be as distanced as possible, so as to not engage my own emotions/feelings/etcetera, in the matter, but rather, remain "capital R Rational"; that is deliberate, for the sake of, well, rationality and intellect, as well as epistemological and philosophical honesty. Being a philosopher myself, I do - of course - find this to be the best position, the outside one, observing the matter coldly, and without a "dog in the race", as it were.
That is... "Lethal force"? That almost seems like you're deliberatley misreading me; I specifically called it, repeatedly, "social violence", as opposed to "violence", and never stated, in any way, shape, or form, that it was equivalent to pointing a gun at someone, or anything even remotly resembling that. If the problem is that it somehow was interpreted as "physical violence in a social situation", then no - that's why it's called "social violence" (and yes, "called"; as stated, I didn't come up with the term myself, as much as I wish I had), as opposed to "physical violence in a social situation". "Social violence" would be things like threats, peer pressure, boycotts, campaigns, protests, bullying, etcetera. So no, I don't think I have a broader definition of "violence", than most folks. But, I do have other, specific, terms; e.g. "social violence", which is what I used here - not "violence". So, saying that I "equate" X with Y, seems to be just pure rhetoric at work, and/or deliberate misinterpretation - and rhetoric precludes actual discussion. But for the sake of argument, I'll now, in metaphorical form, do just that - make the two metaphorically analogous, and explain how, just to make the point that even if you read my writing as such, it can still very much make rational, as well as logical, sense.
"Lethal force" for a person, would mean slapping them until they die. "Lethal force" for a corporation, would mean boycotting it until it goes bankrupt. This, as "going bankrupt" for a corporation, means it ceases to exist, just as "dying", for a person, means that it ceases to exist. And just as the people that the corporation consisted of might go out and start a new corporation, making the lineage of that corporation continue, the genes of that person might be spread onto other persons, making the lineage of that person continue. Thus, the two are analogous.
However, that is not what I actually meant, so, moving on. As to the point of Brendan Eich - and the name is legitimately appreciated, thank you - yes, it seems that I was wrong in saying that he was fired (and I didn't research it at all, I just saw some article or other about it, way back when it happened, and haven't heard any more of it, since); my bad, indeed, and I do apologise. However, it is not correct, to just say that he resigned, either - and I'd even claim that it's an outright lie, to say that he "voluntarily" resigned, as he did not do it just because he felt like it, or because he had gotten another, better, opportunity. He did it, specifically due to the reactions to his personal political convictions becoming public, and the outcry that followed (the "social violence" exerted against him and/or Mozilla). The reason I say that it's not voluntary, is the same reason I wouldn't say that a person would be "voluntary" in giving away it's money, if it had a gun pointed to it's head; that is an age-old example, and I can't remember the name of it now, but the example has some specific name in common parlance; the point being, that if your definition of "voluntary" includes such things as doing X when a gun is pointed to your head is "voluntary" (as you can also choose to be shot in the head), makes the term meaningless - or even less than that; a common argument, nowadays, of Amerifag CEOs overworking their workers, is that "they're not forcing anyone to work overtime - no-one has a gun to their head", which is equally wrong. This, because no, they're not literally threatening to kill their employees, but, it's well within their power to fire their employees, which would threaten their livelihoods - and it's more often than not a well-known fact that they can, and will, do that; so, in effect, they are forcing their workers to work over-time, lest they loose their jobs). With this in mind, would you still claim that he "voluntarily" resigned?
Either way, no, my definition of "violence" is likely not broader than yours - that's why I said "social violence", and not "violence". As to "what makes [my] interpretation of censorship different from the alt-right "free speech advocates"?", I wouldn't know, as I don't know their definition (or that they even had one single, commonly agreed-upon, definition); what I've often heard thrown around, is that "their" (the reason I use quotation-marks around "their" here, is that I suspect that they're no more a single, unified hive-mind than the SJWs are) idea of "free speech" is that everyone must be allowed to say/write/etcetera whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, anywhere they want, and that anything less than that, no matter the context, is "censorship"; if that is what you mean, then what I discussed, and the examples I used, in my previous post, shows quite clearly that I do not subscribe to that definition (and just to state it outright; I do not subscribe to that definition). If that is not what you mean, then I'd - genuinely - like to hear the definition, as I can then state whether I agree with it, or not. Or I could fully type out the definition to which I do subscribe, if you'd like - but be aware, then, that if so, it'll be more or less an entire essay, just of the definition (though to be clear, I will do it, if that is what is preferred). However, even then, that is just more rhetoric; in this case, teethering on the edge of Godwin's Law, but more importantly, it's simply reductio ad absurdum - guilt by association. I.e.; even if it were to turn out that my definition of "censorship" is identical to the definition commonly used by the alt-right, that does not, in itself, invalidate any of the points or arguments that I put on the table.
I ask this, admittedly bitterly, but nonetheless, sincerely; could we please stop with the rhetoric, and try and have a sincere discussion, for the benefit of all? incassum (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I didn't know it ("Balance Fallacy"), as it's not a formal name - at least not, in the academic sense (as my definition of "formal name/term", would be a name/term that is academically coined and/or commonly used in academic language; if that is not your definition, fair enough, it's just the definition that I would use, for "formal name". As a sidenote, "fallacy" as such, has spread out to become a common buzzword in common parlance, and rhetoric, to the degree that I'd say there are more non-formal (by my definition) "fallacies", than there are actual formal fallacies, nowadays). Even wikipedia, which has articles for most academic fallacies, doesn't have a page for it - though, to be fair, searching for "Balance Fallacy" does redirect to "False balance", so it's likely, at the very least, a commonly used term, of which I was unaware. incassum (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's have an easy discussion then about the final part that you tried to change. Saying that their points are not inherently wrong is not the same as saying they're right, or calling their opponents wrong. Writing that some of their points are not inherently wrong brings up the discussion of which points are/aren't wrong, and going into detail with those would kill the point of it being a summary. The page itself is also not a list of the issues SJW's bring up, and going into detail on each of those would bloat the page up with info that will become outdated in a year or less, depending on how quickly arguments/opinions change, and we'd need a section to address which parts of each points are good, and then another section that goes into detail on how these usually get twisted. Since those aren't necessary to the page and would only serve to stoke the flamewar further, we can and should cut all of that short by just saying that the points they bring up aren't inherently wrong. -- Triacom (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to say this whole time. We're not here to go through every single point they bring up and evaluate them individually. In regards to Eich, yes- Mozilla's own members had divided opinions about whether or not he should stay, and certainly none of them pulled him back and said "if you don't step down we're firing you" in spite of your beliefs to the contrary. And Incassum, your "social violence" is a misnomer at best to call it violence and at worst a deliberate act of obfuscation meant to confuse others. If you truly care about clarity, you would be advised to find a better term. And what is peer pressure if not the product of sustained social feedback? And yes, "you can't include X in Y", or even "you shouldn't include X in Y" is feedback. I suggest you look up the phrase "tone policing", because the first one says exactly the same thing as "Hey, I think X was a bit bad, just my point of view, but I wouldn't include X in Y, myself" without the extra layer of pseudo-polite bullshit. I really thought a "capital-R rational" viewpoint would be able to look at the content of what is being said and not the way it's being said, but apparently that's not a requirement for epistemological and philosophical honesty. (Full disclosure- unless you're willing to post a photo of your diploma saying you have degree in philosophy, I'm no more willing to believe you're a philosopher than you're willing to believe I'm the Pope, and it's not like your credentials would matter to any of this anyway).
What you said sounded regarding art as if it made light of the work it takes to become an artist, as if anyone could just become one if they only wanted to (with the implication that everyone who hasn't yet still complains about existing works is too lazy to make their own). Have you not considered that most people don't want to start with garbage either?
In any case, there is nothing left we could possibly discuss about this matter that wouldn't be arguing in circles. For now, I will simply say that your interpretation has been reviewed and is considered not to be as neutral as you insist it is. Defy the consensus at your own risk.--Newerfag (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Triacom; did you read my earlier block - not to say "wall" - of text, regarding the logics of using or not using the word "all"? Genuine question, as I realise that my posts tend to be... As long as about sixteen "normal" posts, and only skimming them might be what most people default to; however, the reason I ask, is that I specifically address the point of "[...] their points are not inherently wrong is not the same as saying they're right, or calling their opponents wrong.", as - in an attempt by me, of all people, to make a TL;DR - the TL;DR difference between saying "not X" and "not all X", is actually very significant, as "not X" leaves in the possibility of "all X", as opposed to "not all X", which excludes "all X" (consider the example of someone saying "I'm correct", and "I'm at times correct").
Hence, "not X", does take a side in saying that it's entirely possible that every single point is correct, which, if so, also (by definition) says that all opposing points are wrong. Further, again - even if you're correct, that is not an argument against being more specific, and saying "not all X", is it? (Genuine, not rhetorical, question; if it is an argument, I don't understand it, and will gladly take any explanation that you're willing to give).
And the page itself, whilst not an exhaustive or strict list, does list some common arguments/points that SJWs have, even if it's not in a "1. X 2. Y 3. Z"-format. The whole section of "Do They Have A Point?" lists generalities of the points of SJWs, right? (And saying "which parts of each points are good", leaves in the possibility that all points are good, just not all parts, of all points - again, same thing as the logical containers discussed earlier (and not intended as an attack, by the way - just an example, to illustrate my point; I understand that you likely didn't mean it quite as literally as I interpreted it right here, for this analysis - again, I did it to illustrate, as an example)).
And I've still, from anyone, to see any argument as to why we couldn't just add an "all", literally, just that one word, to the TL;DR - does anyone have any?
Newerfag; "That's what I was trying to say this whole time." - see the above discussion of why I claim (as I'm assuming that you're referencing Triacoms first point, there) that it's missing the point/fails to address what I've put on the metaphorical table. And... "in spite of your beliefs to the contrary"? Now, that's... Remember back in the DoWpro-discussions - I think they're still there, on that page's talk-page - where you accused me of putting words in your mouth, before coming around? Now you're quite literally telling the fine folks here - myself included - what I think, literally against what I've said [written]; I said nothing of the sort. That isn't just reductio ad absurdum, that's straight-up ad hominem.
As to "social violence" - how can it be "deliberate obfuscation", when I literally explained it in the very next post, as soon as I realized that not everyone understood it? At best, you can accuse me of using far too academic (i.e. non-common-parlance) language, on a non-academic site/in a non-academic context, and that I should've had more forethought than that (which perhaps, I should have had!), and explained the term, as soon as I used it (which perhaps, I should have done!). I most certainly would not call it a "misnomer", as there are other terms like it, e.g. "psychological violence" (which would mean things like e.g. gaslighting, terrorizing, and so on), which are widespread (though I'll admit that I do not know precisely how widespread - but I've at the very least seen "psychological violence" used outside of academic circles), and do not mean "physical violence". And to note, it is an actual term, "social violence"; to name a few academics who use it, see e.g. the writings of Romina Kachanoski (University of Barcelona), Gazi Hassan (University of Waikato), and Sean Fox (University of Bristol). And I can only assume, that you don't mean to say that his resignation had nothing to do with the social violence (a term I'm now comfortable using, as I explained it earlier, so everyone should now know what it means (or can easily get to know what it means, if you're reading this as a newcomer to the discussion - just see my earlier post; no need to "find a better term", if there is already an excellent term; just (as I've done) explain that term)), that he would've literally quit on the very same day, at the very same time, even if his political beliefs hadn't become public - do you? As, if you do not, then the only possible stance left to take - or so it seems to me, feel not only free, but encouraged, to correct me if I'm wrong, here - is that power was exerted (via "social violence"), and that the result of said power being exerted, was that he resigned.
Hm, my bad - I will concede that "shouldn't" is indeed feedback (I went a bit too far, there) - however, the point as such, is; if "you can't include X in Y" is feedback - if you genuinely mean that - then there is no difference between saying that you shouldn't do something, and that you cannot do something. Do you not think there is a difference in strength/degree, there? That me saying, e.g., that you "shouldn't write articles on the Adeptus Arbites", is literally the same thing as me saying that you "cannot write articles on the Adeptus Arbites"? Does not the latter imply (if I were e.g. the owner and operator of a given website X that you were a contributor to) imply that it's, in one way or the other, forbidden (or even impossible), to do that, whereas "shouldn't", would imply that you can write an article on the Adeptus Arbites, just that it's - for one reason or the other - ill-advised? Do you genuinely disagree on this?
As to "peer pressure", I'd say that peer pressure is just that; specific pressure, with the specific intent to actually make X do Y whether it genuinely wants to or not, whereas feedback, would be suggesting - as per the distinction above - that X do Y, but not trying to enforce said change from X, even if X doesn't do Y "on it's own", as it were. Would you, then, disagree with this distinction, as well? And if so, do you claim that all forms of suggestion, no matter the context, are, by definition, peer pressure? (These are the implications of you saying "[...] the first one says exactly the same thing as "Hey, I think X was a bit bad, just my point of view, but I wouldn't include X in Y, myself""). Do you genuinely mean this?
And again, a contuniation of the ad hominem... Yes - capital-R rationalism can, and does, look at the content - that's why I make the points I'm making. It looks at content - but it cannot read minds, hence why I ask for, and try to enforce in my own writing, clarity, and non-interpretive writing. That is one of the foremost reasons of why my writing, as well as that of all philosophers, is so long; we wish to, and try and, leave as little room for interpretation as possible, as interpretation leaves room for/opens the door to misinterpretation.
And then, more ad hominem, and what's worse - it's done in a no-exit, bad faith, way, seemingly done only so as to insult and invalidate me/anything that I say; that is to say, you first say "I don't believe that you are X, prove to me that you are X", followed by saying "it doesn't matter whether you are X or not" (and even then, that's not even mentioning the fact that it's set up to be a trap to begin with, as I'm certain that you, as well as everyone, know and understand full and well that I couldn't do that, as it'd amount to me doxxxing myself). It seems to me, that it all just amounts to rhetoric, insult, and bad faith (but - as usual - point it out to me, if I'm wrong, and how I am wrong; I'm always open to learn). However, if you are genuine, I'll gladly take a conversation with you, over Tox (or a similarily secure, open-source, system of your choosing), to specifically prove to you that I am.
Yes, anyone - or rather, as I said, anyone capable of participating in criticism and discussion of art (as opposed to "literally any- and everyone") - can become an artist. A world-renowed one? Absolutely not, no - but an artist? Yes, very much so. And no, I'm not saying - though I can see how it was implied, even though I tried to avoid implying that, so, my bad - that everyone who "complains" about existing works are too lazy to make their own. What I am saying/did say, was that if you want to see art change, then the correct way to do that, would be to make your own, or to suggest things; not to tell others, and try and enforce them, to change theirs. That was, is, and remains, as of now, what I'm saying. As such, I could also say, that whilst e.g. saying "Hey, Universal, maybe make a vampire-movie with a black vampire as the lead?" is all green, and even, good, saying "Universal - you have to make your next vampire-movie have a black vampire as the lead, otherwise we'll ensure that you go under", is not the all green, nor good. The good way to do something aking to the latter, I'd say, in cases like this - i.e., art as product (which is what all of Hollywood is doing), as opposed to art for art's own sake - would be to just plain not go see that movie, and if enough people agree with you, that product will die, due to lack of support. Heck, you could even go online, discuss with others, exchange ideas, and other such - to my mind, good - things, and maybe others will come around to your view, and do the same; that, too, is a good thing, and pertinently, not the same thing as explicitly trying to force Universal to change their movies, just because you want them to (I'm loathe to say "vote with your wallets", due to already having been hit with "guilt by association" here, and the people who - in my experience - usually say "vote with your wallet" are not the sort of people with which I wish to be associated).
Saying that "most people don't want to start with garbage" does - unless I'm reading you wrong - come off as incredibly ridiculous to me; I'm not even entirely sure what that means, in context, as... Well, no? No-one wants to be garbage, at anything - that is a given. However, just the same, as I would suspect that everyone knows, everyone, in everything, no matter what it is - even something as trivial as walking, as a child - starts out garbage. no-one starts out good at anything, ever; that's just not how our species work (unless you'd literally count things like breathing - at least almost all of us who even survive to adulthood, start out pretty good at things like breathing, obviously). With that in mind, it seems to me that saying "maybe people don't want to start out garbage", is like saying "maybe people want to be able to use the force"; sure, I'd like to be able to use the force, that'd be way cool; but, it's also literally impossible, so I won't go around lamenting the fact that I cannot use the force. If you can't handle starting out garbage, that's fine; no-one is (nor should be) forcing you to do art. However, in the same spirit, you shouldn't force anyone to do art, or make art, specifically for you.
That last line... Almost states my point, in a different way - as the point I was going to make, was that none of the pertinent arguments I've made - most pertinently, the one about merely using the word "all" - have actually been addressed, but rather, it's all been side-stepped; everyone has kept saying ""not X" doesn't specifically mean "all X"", over and over, without ever actually addressing, in any way, the core point that "not X" contains the possibility of "all X", which "not all X", doesn't, hence, making it both more specific, and neutral. Further, no-one has stated any reason as to why the word "all" shouldn't be included; again, only repeating ""not X" doesn't specifically mean "all X"" - which I've agreed that it doesn't, because... It doesn't; but again, that's just re-stating the point on which we're all in agreement; it's not addressing the point of why it would be a bad thing to make it more specific, and say "not all X", instead. As to my "interpretation" having been deemed "not as neutral as [I] think it is", I think no-one has missed that no-one has actually even defended the current "interpretation", as being more neutral. No-one has actually stated, nor argued, that the formulation "not X" is more neutral than "not all X"; so, is neutrality not actually the goal, then, but rather, the goal always actually was to take a side, and champion a specific political view? (If it even need be said at this point - no, that's not a rhetorical question, it's a genuine one). And whilst I've tried it before, I'll try again, to formulate the core point as a specific question, to see if I might reap an answer, from what I sow;
Why would it be a bad thing to, and/or why shouldn't we, just add the word "all", to "not X" (especially, if neutrality is actually the goal)?
(Final sidenote; of course I'd question the consensus (and I've suggested grave consequences for myself, before)- you cannot possibly mean that, Newerfag, as blindly agreeing with established consensus, willfully abiding by, or even enforcing, the status quo, is literally what social progress by definition is against? (Not to mention the myriad other problems, that comes with just abiding by established consensus/status quo)).
incassum (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
It would only seem like we're giving validation to all of their points if you were to assume a general statement was all-encompassing. Seeing as how it's a summary, the assumption should be that it's a general statement summing up everything that came before it because that is the nature of a tl;dr. To use an example, if somebody wrote in a summary "enclosed within is proof of why I'm right" you would not assume that to have the same meaning as "enclosed within is proof of why I'm always right no matter the circumstance". I did indeed read your earlier segments, and I wish you extended the same courtesy to me. I know you didn't read what I wrote, because you wrote this: "Why would it be a bad thing to, and/or why shouldn't we, just add the word "all", to "not X" (especially, if neutrality is actually the goal)?" I took the quote from that part even though it's not the first time you asked it in this reply because it best shows how you've ignored my reply. Now I've already answered this, but since you didn't read it before, here it is again: "Writing that some of their points are not inherently wrong brings up the discussion of which points are/aren't wrong, and going into detail with those would kill the point of it being a summary. The page itself is also not a list of the issues SJW's bring up, and going into detail on each of those would bloat the page up with info that will become outdated in a year or less, depending on how quickly arguments/opinions change, and we'd need a section to address which parts of each points are good, and then another section that goes into detail on how these usually get twisted. Since those aren't necessary to the page and would only serve to stoke the flamewar further, we can and should cut all of that short by just saying that the points they bring up aren't inherently wrong." You also do bring up how the main page has mention of some arguments/points, however those are necessary to the topic they're in and they are not exhaustive breakdowns of what those points are, because that's not what the page is about. -- Triacom (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Post-scriptum (P.S.) and sidenote, to my previous post, and in address to Newerfag; I'm assuming you meant, "the consensus of the wiki", as opposed to "the conensus of /tg/", as the page itself literally states that /tg/ whines about SJWs (i.e., would presumeably not support an article leaning towards them being right).
(Hopefully) A Quick/Short Addendum; ah, fair enough, Triacom - my bad, genuinely. I did read that (and all of what you wrote), and took it to heart - that's why I replied with my own points, against it, and as such, assumed that (given that I, obviously (otherwise, I wouldn't have made them) assumed that my points invalidated yours) they were invalidated/not a good response, and as such, that my query stood unexplained/un-answered (and if that sounds smug, or disingenous - it isn't, or isn't meant to, that's just the way I formulate it; I do meant it, when I say "fair enough", and "my bad" - especially considering, that I've found that you've largely steered clear of ad hominem, and general personal insult, Triacom; thus, again - in this case, my, and no-one elses, bad). So, in that spirit, I would argue - for the logics above - that no, you don't have to assume that general statements are all-encompassing; just that they're generalising, which is still clearly taking a side (saying that "X is generally correct"). Even "generally", clearly takes a side - and, even if not all-encompassing, and even if ignoring the point that it contains the possibility of all-encompass... All-encompassion? Of being all-encompassing, saying that "X is "generally" right" would mean that there are only rather few, and minute, details, on which X is possibly not right; it is thus, by-and-large (i.e. generally), right. Thus, I'd argue that even saying that "X is generally right", is too strong a taking of sides. Pertinently, one of my counter-points brought up another question; namely, "why would it be a bad thing to leave it up to the reader to actually ponder matters, and draw their own conclusions, as opposed to telling them that one side or the other is right or wrong?"; this is something I still don't understand, as I don't htink that'd stoke the flamewars any further, but rather, stem them; no-one is accused (indirectly or otherwise) of being wrong, neither by saying that one side is right (which necessitates the opposing side being wrong), or that one side is wrong. It just leaves it at, "think for yourself", something which I would guess is much less likely to provoke strong reactions, as opposed to "you're wrong (even if only by implication, or reactionary action)". And if a TL;DR is a shorthand version of a larger text, and that larger text says that "X is right", I'd argue that the larger text needs to be changed, in itself (something which I'm currently not for, in this specific case - I don't agree with everything in the text as it is, on the page, and acknowledge that it has a rather clear leaning, but I think it's fine, and can be left as-is). I'd consider even just changing the TL;DR to something like "It all depends on who, and when, you ask", or even "It's all skub", to be fine. Would you go agaisnt these - perhaps in particular, my point on which is more likely to induce flames - points, then?
Sincerely, incassum (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
If I'm being honest, most of this discussion is far beyond what I am capable of understanding, but a few observations:
First, Newerfag is absolutely correct in that your terminology seems to be either purposefully deceptive or based on poor research. I'm not well versed in the commonly used language of philosophical discourse, but in layman's terms (or, say, the language of a wiki based on a *chan board about tabletop games) violence is a very strong word with specific connotations of physical harm (rather than the way alt-righters in Britain use it to describe corrupt politicians having a milkshake ruin their sweatshop suits - I find it interesting that you fed into the chud argument of anything less than absolute freedom of speech is censorship, rather than the reality of their claims), and no search I did on the interwebs seems to indicate that social violence means anything less than rioting, not peer pressure or cultural enforcement by the majority.
Second, you seem to be ignoring the accusations of balance fallacy. According to hate crime statistics and opinion polls, the right is moving farther right in most of West, and in many countries (like the US and UK), the left really hasn't changed. Most terrorists in the US are straight, white, Christian (or, often "have Judeo-Christian values") men, and are all "lone wolves." The good argument against an SJW can be reduced to "you're too sensitive," "that wasn't my intention," or "personal expression is a human right." A bad (read: most) arguments against SJWs are all too often "BIG BAD BLUE HAIR RUIN STUFF". I'm sorry to be the one to break the news, but the faceless liberal hivemind doesn't exist, and it certainly looks a lot more reasonable than the opposition. So yes, it isn't "perfectly balanced" - it is, however, reasonable.
A side note - the wording of the edit reads pretty clunkily, and in all honesty that is the best reason to change it. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
If you assume a generalization has a specific meaning, you're no longer treating it as a generalization. Let's use an example, say I'm in an argument with somebody else and I say "you're ignorant." That's a general statement that you wouldn't take to mean "you're ignorant about every subject on the wiki." Let's also take a look at what an something you brought up you: "you don't have to assume that general statements are all-encompassing; just that they're generalising, which is still clearly taking a side (saying that "X is generally correct")." If you assume a sentence says something is generally correct, then you're not assuming it says something is always correct. The work of elaborating on the meaning is already done for you by virtue of it being a summary, and therefore already given an assumption that it is a generalization. I'm also not too sure where you're getting the idea from that the goal is to make sure the article has a neutral tone when that was never the consensus. Even if you wanted an article to be neutral, taking a side in one topic on the article does not mean the article itself favours that side. So long as you explain/denigrate that side in other parts of the article, or even elsewhere in the same topic (like saying good points can be twisted to push an agenda), you can maintain a neutral stance without excising everything you think is biased. To that end, taking a neutral stance and using a neutral tone are very different approaches that get the same result. The difference between them is you can single out small parts in an article with a neutral stance and claim it favours one side, but by doing that you're ignoring the rest of the article and/or the context that part was used in. As for why it's bad to let users wonder about which points are good/bad, it's a bad idea because I can guarantee they'll then try and put those points on this wiki, either in their own page or a new topic in this page, and that on its own will cause its fair share of editwars. Finally, I'm also against changing the summary in the way you suggest at the moment because, from personal experience, I've never heard a SJW bring up an issue that isn't a real issue if you looked deep down at the core of the matter. The problem is they take this issue, then twist it, then pile shit atop it to hide the core of the original issue and trick you into drawing the wrong conclusion. That's why I'd argue that saying there's inherently good points in the arguments is correct, as is pointing out how there's also a lot of bullshit in those arguments. If anyone wants to make each of those clearer then they can feel free to try, it's not like the summary can't be better written. -- Triacom (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Incassum, I did mean the consensus of the wiki. You are so far the only one who seems to be interested in your particular wording of the change, and if you wish to be clear in your writing I would kindly ask that you learn how to say more with less. You think using many words makes you clearer, but I think it just makes it harder to tell what the hell you're actually trying to argue. If I am prone to using ad hominem, it is only because I have little patience for what persistently comes off as trying to drown me with words whose sole purpose is to intimidate and confuse their readers.
You asked "Why would it be a bad thing to, and/or why shouldn't we, just add the word "all", to "not X" (especially, if neutrality is actually the goal)?" I said it before: because then we need to clarify which subset of X we are talking about, which would need another article at the bare minimum. That would be the polar opposite of tl;dr, and in this specific case neutrality is achieved by counteracting the general stereotype of "they're doing it just because they're evil control freaks". Now, just let it go. Please. --Newerfag (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I made another change earlier. While I loathe having to oversimplify, I do not see any other way to resolve this impasse. --Newerfag (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel like we were making progress, and changing it in this manner also doesn't help anybody. The new tl;dr says so little it might as well be deleted. -- Triacom (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
A belief is social justice does not make a person a dreaded "SJW". There needs to be an element of assholery and zealotry. The idea that a grey area makes this concept impossible to pin down, and therefore makes the concept nonexistent, is wrong. Everyone has their biases, but this battle is stupid. This is a page to describe an annoyance, and I would rather this page stay around as such. The page is not going to help or harm anyone's activism.--Namefag (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
That's only if you imagine the SJW's are always the perpetually offended blue-haired crybabies the right likes to paint them as. -- Triacom (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I maintain that the concept of a social justice warrior is not a right-wing conspiracy theory.--Namefag (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course it isn't, but so long as you believe in and actively try to work towards social justice you're a SJW. It doesn't matter if you're not a zealous asshole, you're still a SJW and thinking that the term only applies to zealous assholes is just an example of how its use as a snarl word for the right has changed its perceived meaning. -- Triacom (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
IMHO the new edit is so... nonexistent that had 'd think it was vandalism if I didn't already know it was actually made in good faith, and as it is right now reading it without the context of this discussion,it's like, why bother having it at all? It also looks out if place compared to the rest of the article only for the final section of the article to basically just of one useless sentence that doesn't really say anything. I too think it should be reverted. TiamatRoar
Fair. I'll revert it then. --Newerfag (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Off topic, but I love how the talk page for this article is nearly 9 times as long as the article itself. Tactical Mehren (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh well... So what you're saying then, Newerfag, is that it is just plain better to imply that they are indeed right about everything, as opposed to saying that it's not that black-and-white? For that matter, wouldn't it - given the debate thus far - be impossible to write such a claimed article (what points they are and aren't right no), since that is, in itself, something that isn't clear-cut, i.e., depending on who you ask - even different SJWs, or believers of/in social change - you'd get different answers? If so, then no such article could be written, because... It's not that simple.
Hm, I looked at the change you made - the one that was reverted - and personally, I liked that one just fine, Newerfag.
And Namefag, I suspect that, too, highly depends on who you ask - e.g., that zero punctuation guy that has an article here has been noted as saying anyone pro-social change that is also pro-censorship is, by definition, an SJW (not that he is a genius, as far as I've been able to tell, but just as an example to show that I'm not making the example up); and just because you're pro-censorship and pro-social change, you're not by definition neither a zealot nor an arsehole. What I mean by this point, is that saying that "in order to be an SJW, you have to be an arsehole" isn't a black-and-white, everyone-agrees point; what's more, even if it was, who is and isn't an arsehole is in itself highly debatable, if not outright subjective. I mean, sure, I'm an arsehole, we've all agreed on that, but there are many people besides me, and I'm certain that most people is percieved to be an arsehole (or zealot) to someone. I.e., it's not that clear-cut. Well, taht's sort of besides the point - my point would be that this "battle", at least the way I'm seeing it, is that I don't think it's a good thing for the site to take such a clear stance - one way or the other. Yes, in it's current form, it's very clearly saying that SJWs are actually right, in more or less all their points (by implication, that is what it's saying, at the very least), but I'm not for changing that to them being wrong about everything, either; just to say that, it's complicated, and/or "who knows", or whatever, really, that isn't clearly taking a stance, which the page does, in it's current form (and no, it's not achieving neutrality by counteracting a stereotype, if it also says that one side is correct (and thereby, that any opposing/other side is wrong).
Is neutrality even something that others are looking for, here? I seem to remember someone moving the goalpost and saying that neutrality isn't even what we're looking for, here, but can't find it now... So, maybe that's just in my mind, I'll concede. That being said - if people doesn't want to be neutral, why not just write "Yes, they're right"? That's more or less what the TL;DR is saying now, but in other words ("their points are not wrong" is logically equivalent to "their points are right" ("tertium non datur", or the "Law of excluded middle"), and saying that it's "neutral" seems to just be a way to try and cover up the fact that one doesn't want to be neutral, since being neutral is generally considered a good thing in these matters for non-politically affiliated things, e.g. this website. If that's the case, why even discuss it? I wouldn't have been discussing here, if I didn't think we generally wanted to be neutral, I'd just concede that it'll never happen, as those in power doesn't want to, and I evidently cannot change them, and thus, I cannot change it.
Hm, a note on "change" - saying that they "just want to change things" could in itself, be percieved as destruction, very easily. Take for example, the original 40K, Rogue Trader (the wargame, not the modern RPG); they "only changed" it from being overtly comedic, to being grimdark and serious... However, I doubt you'd be hard pressed to find old grognards that wouldn't say that the change, in itself (from comedy to grimdark), ruined the game/setting. Saying that one "just wants to change", doesn't mean that it cannot also ruin (to make the easiest analogue possible, by adding feces to my salad, you could say that you haven't ruined it, you've only changed it by adding more ingredients - as far as I'm concerned, however, that sallad is now destroyed, and I no longer wish to eat it).
I've been away for a while, as might've been noticed, and reading the repled since my last post, I can't remember if there was anything else I was thinking of... But, well, Tactical Mehreen - that's what happens, when people try and stay (mostly, ad hominem notwithstanding) civilised, and go to the talk-page instead of regressing to edit-wars. Long talk-pages are generally a good thing, I'd say.
incassum (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I just had a thought - so, instead of adding the word "all", then, why not add the word "perhaps"? As in, instead of saying (as it does now) "The points the SJWs raise [...]", just say "Perhaps the points the SJWs raise [...]"? That would achieve the same effect, of not clearly taking a side, not saying that the points are neither right nor wrong, but, plain and simple, staying neutral. Would that be bad, then, in some way? (Also, brother Mehren, this is what I mean - since I know that it'll be insta-reverted if I change the article in any way that isn't in line with what it already says, I write here, on the talk-page, instead. That's an example of what I mean by saying that long talk-pages are good, as people can now mull over my suggestion, instead).
incassum (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
You're the only one assuming that an inch is a mile. Saying "The points the SJWs raise aren't incorrect in themselves" Does not mean they're right about everything, and if you read further you'll see exactly how that point is clarified. Saying that something isn't wrong in and of itself is not the same as saying the person using the point has the right argument, unless you want to ignore the following: "but they are often distorted by extreme proponents and detractors alike to further their respective agendas." Hm, a note on "change" - saying that they "just want to change things" could in itself, be percieved as destruction- Again, you're making one hell of an assumption. Assuming something is the case is very different from it actually being the case and I highly doubt you don't know the difference. It also doesn't really matter what they end up doing in the end, because their intent is not to destroy something which is what that point is addressing. You're trying to argue that actions equal intent, when we both know that is not the case. -- Triacom (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to try and apply the principle of charity here, and assume that you're not acting in bad faith. As such, I'll say - no, I'm not assuming that an inch is a mile, and I don't really see how you could claim that; saying "The points the [...]", is a possessive of a group. The group here, being "points"; in 'not' stating something like "some", "a few", or even "most" (or anything of the sort), it refers to the entire group, the group of points. E.g., in reading the following sentence; "The points that I'm raising are not wrong", you would assume that I'm saying that 'all' of the points that I'm raising - since that is what I'm referncing, literally, my points - are not wrong, correct? Or can you, in all due honesty, say that your reply to that sentence (again, "The points I'm raising are not wrong") would be "oh, what points in specific do you mean, there?", or would you assume that I meant all of my points? If you are truly honest, which would be your reaction, and assumption - and even then, that's entirely ignoring the fact that, no matter the assumption, the way that sentence is worded (as well as the sentence in the article), it 'is' referencing all points; it could be further specified, to e.g. "some points" or "most points", but as written there, in the example (and in the article), it references 'all points'. Would you actually argue against that, literally, argue against grammar (and formal logic, but that point I've made before, to no avail)?
Your very own post, right above this one, all but ironically makes my point even more explicit - you claim that the article makes it more clear (it doesn't); you are, just like the article, referencing 'the person defending a point', or, at best, a 'given argument for a point', and saying that "oh, the person might be bad/wrong" or "the individual argument might be bad/wrong" - but, the point as such? Still correct. That is literally saying that the point as such is correct, there are only bad arguments for the point or bad people advocating the point; that is implying (if not outright stating) that the points as such 'are correct'. This will sound rhetoric, and so I (sincerely) apologise in advance, as it's truly not intended that way, but, surely you must see that? If I were not to apply the principle of charity, I would argue that this just shows a clear will and intent for the article to strongly advocate one side over the other.
As to the last bit there, about change being able to be percieved as destruction, I... Can only assume that you geniunely misunderstand me. Even aside from the rather horrible implications of saying "It also doesn't really matter what they end up doing in the end, because their intent is not to destroy [...]" (which outright states that so long as you have good intentions (or at least not bad ones), anything you do is A-OK - and we all know what the road to hell is paved with), I am not arguing that actions equals intent, and I don't really see how one could in good faith assume that, as what I'm arguing, is that even good intent can have bad consequences. Or perhaps, rather, that no matter your intent, the consequences of your actions can be destructive. To take a rather simple, and (hopefully) trivial/low-stakes real-life example; first edition Warhammer 40K (i.e., Rogue Trader) was rather overtly comedic in tone. Over time, that got 'changed', and the comedy was downplayed a lot, and eventually, all but entirely erased from the core setting and fluff. This was merely a 'change' of the material, and I doubt the writers at the time intended to "destroy" Warhammer 40K - however, we can also imagine someone who was a major fan of Rogue Trader, who loved the cheesy 80's aesthetic, and above all, was a fan specifically because of the satire and general comedy. To this fan, once all of the comedy had been removed - again, with no bad intent, the authors just changed the setting - Warhammer 40K as that fan knew it, was destroyed. The fan in question could agree that "yes, all they had done was change the setting", and still think that the specific setting/game that it loved and adored, was ruined, and gone forever (which, for someone who loved Rogue Trader specifically for the comedy, it indeed was/is). This is an example of some people (in this case, the authors) not 'wanting' to destroy, but just, to change; and that change - which was merely change - destroying something that some other people (the theoretical fans, in this case) loved. This, is what I mean by the last bit (but please, don't ignore everything I've written to reply only to this last bit, that'd be a rather clear display fo bad faith, I'd say); is that more clear?
Pro sanus disputationem, incassum (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I can see what you're getting at, but if we add "a few of" or "some of" to the front of "their points aren't incorrect" then by its inclusion it can be inferred that nearly all of their points are wrong with only a few exceptions. Furthermore not everything they bring up is a point on its own, and the point of the sentence is to bring up how the core issues of their arguments are real issues. If you want we can change it to "their core points aren't incorrect" or something similar, but changing it to "some points" causes issues that I've already gone over in that now we have to break down which are right, which are wrong, and that defeats the point of it being a tl;dr. In that case it would be better to delete the tl;dr entirely instead of trying to change it in a way that requires us to expand on it and what it actually means. As for my point on destruction, your point I was replying to was that their intention itself does not matter, only what it is perceived as, and you were taking what it is perceived as to be the original intention. That's why I said you're making one hell of an assumption, but it seems like that's not the point you wanted to make. -- Triacom (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, yes - if we add specifically the words "a few of" or "some of", sure; but those are rather bad-faith examples, I'd say, since both "some", and "few" especially, imply (or in the case of "few", literally means) "not many". One could instead say something like "a lot"; that would still not be true neutrality, since "a lot" in this context is the polar opposite of "a few", however, I, for one, would be very happy, with that (as in, the TL;DR would say "a lot of their points aren't incorrect" or perhaps, for the sake of readability, "a lot of their points are correct"). That, whilst still taking a side and saying that most points are correct, still at the very least opens up the thought that they're not always 100% correct all the time and forever, and anyone thinking anything else is by wrong by definition.
I'd say that the same goes, even if you change the word from "points" to "issues", as one can still argue what is and isn't a real issue (e.g., I could claim that it's a very real issue, that ought to be politicized and even weaponised, that I can not own all Ferraris in the world, since no matter how rich I am, certain people do not want to sell theirs, so I still can't have all of them, even though I've got infinite currency; and I very much doubt that any person rolling a success on it's SAN-check would agree that this is a "real issue"), and that isn't a clear-cut, black-and-white thing, either. So, as I would assume is actually quite evident, it's not black-and-white between "all" or "only a select few"; there are many ranges in-between those two extremes, and I'd be quite happy with "a lot" - would you, Triacom, (or others), agree on this? (As an aside, I... Think, that I maybe said something along these lines earlier, way back when, possibly, but in either case; I do not find that we have to list what is and isn't a "real issue", since that in itself isn't a mathematical equition with definitive correct and incorrect answers, but rather, a discussable matter, which (at least) I find is both better, and more interesting, to leave up to the readers own thoughts, especially since there are so many arguments and musings, above the TL;DR, that - even though they only and strictly advocate one specific side - can be considered and weighed by the reader, that it may draw it's own conclusions).
That long-ass - far too long, for now, anyway - parenthesis aside, whilst I suspect that I'll make even fewer friends that I have thus far by stating this, if the only available options are to either have the TL;DR clearly state that one side is right, and the other is as such wrong by definition, and not having it at all - which, it should be noted, I find to be a false dichotomy, but more on that later - I'd rather not have it at all. The argumentative pseudo-essay above, whilst still very obviously coming from only one single perspective and advocating a specific side, is still at the very least an argumentative piece of text, that opens up for discussion, and encourages thought, which the TL;DR then all but ruins in closing off any debate and killing thought, by saying "yeah so this and that is right, and tit and tat are wrong". However, as is obvious, I think there is a third option, and I for one, would be happy even with "a lot", as stated earlier.
As to the discussion on "destruction"; ah, 'twas a mere misunderstanding, then, as no - that was never my point.
As loving as the most adorable of maggots, incassum (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
By the bloodiest of bloody oaks, what happened there? If the sudden RAEG of troglodytes going in to vandalise the article had anything to do with my little edit - e.g., I assume, since it hadn't been edited for a while, that it'd shoot up to the top of the "recent changes" list, like a flame, attracting moths - I apologise. Apart from the aforementioned "troglodytes being reminded it exists again by merit of seeing it on the "recent changes"-list", I can't see how it'd be connected, but damn, it'd been left alone for quite some time, and then, all of a sudden right after my change, the trolls came out of the woodworks. Since it seems to be one guy, using the same IP to constantly revert/edit, a tempban for the man, maybe?
incassum (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with attaching "many" to the tl;dr, and as far as I can tell the anon messing with the page is some form of Sargonite, and was triggered by the thought that other people might have a point somewhere along the line. -- Triacom (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
seems too easy to call them a "Sargonite", but then the pretense of "enlightened thinker who's so above herdshit they have to play directly into it just to show how much they don't rely on it" isn't something I'd put past a follower of his lol
Also Incassum, can you put away the fucking thesaurus for like five minutes? Jesus. --LGX-000 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Haha, what, LGX-000? I genuinely don't see what you mean, the thesaurus, for... What? The word "troglodytes"? That's a common-use term, isn't it? Hah, I'll admit that I'm well aware that me being an academic, my vocabulary is what I'd, myself (and most people I meet on a day-to-day basis), call "better than the average", but that others would likely call "esoteric" (or "common in whatever ivory tower that I and my kin reside), to say the very least.
To be clear, I'm not upset, I'm assuming it was said in jest (at least, I took it that way, and my laughter is genuine, as in, I actually chuckled out loud when I read your post, and both assume it was meant in, and took it in, good humour), so I'm just genuinely curious as to what word (or sentence, or what-have-you) prompted that response. (And if it's not meant in jest, but as an actual insult, well... *sad*).
On another note, what's wrong with the second bit that is being shoed-in by the anon? The first bit (where he straight-up says "no" after the "do they have a point?") is obviously horseshit that should be purged with flame, but just adding that a particular tactic or formulation isn't unique to one side... Well, given my blantant analytical mind about things, I'm assuming it's no surprise that I'm ok with that being in there. Couldn't that be allowed in, as it doesn't actually point directly at anyone, and is, well, true?
incassum (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The Discussion[edit]

This Discussion was more fun to read then the actual page

Hold On...[edit]

A few examples can be found in remakes of many historical entertainment products with completely anachronistic ethnicities, adding LGBTIQ+ personalities where they would clearly not belong, slowly rewriting history as if Slavery was purely invented by "White" people (mostly Caucasian, and a few Mediterranean countries/ethnicities included) and everything was fine but that all changed when the White Nation attacked.

Can somebody tell me which "historical entertainment products" this is referring to? Because this sounds like bullshit. -- Triacom (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in this... but, casting my mind back over what I've seen on /tg/, this is probably a reference to new artwork featuring African-esque characters in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4th edition and at least three planes in Magic: The Gathering - Ravnica (which they argue was Slavic-themed due to the naming methodology), Theros (Mediterranean/Classical Mythology inspired), and Eldraine (British Fairy Tale meets Arthurian mythos inspired). Possibly others, but I normally stay out of anything resembling those topics.--QuietBrowser (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
In what way are any of those "historical entertainment products"? -- Triacom (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If that is what they are talking about then "historical" is not the right term, but most fantasy borrows from history. And I actually kind of agree with you, the person who wrote this needs to defend their claims with some more examples.--2600:1010:B12D:199A:5193:1B1B:E04F:4CCE 16:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)