Page 3 of 6

Re: Gamergate 2.0

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 2:39 am
by Graaf Statler
CrowsNest wrote:What often makes him unintelligible, is merely the fact he is not a native English speaker. If you step back, it is quite easy to extract what he really means. If not, you can just ask.

I am really wonder what all those brave wikipedians with there big mouth had to say if they had to complain in Russian on a Russian forum and if there was a WMF what is only is understanding Russian. And don't say Google translate because that is shit! You lose every context.

Re: Gamergate 2.0

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 2:46 am
by CrowsNest
Graaf Statler wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:What often makes him unintelligible, is merely the fact he is not a native English speaker. If you step back, it is quite easy to extract what he really means. If not, you can just ask.

I am really wonder what all those brave wikipedians with there big mouth had to say if they had to complain in Russian on a Russian forum and if there was a WMF what is only is understanding Russian. And don't say Google translate because that is shit! You lose every context.
You see it all the time, en.wiki big beasts losing their shit over a Google-translated comment they obtained from Meta that goes against their culture. Digital colonialism in action.

Some en.wiki people don't even bother to hide their overtly racist views when speaking about non-native contributors to the precious One True Wikipedia. Nobody ever does anything.

It's all echoed on Wikipediocracy too, because why wouldn't they be racists as well as sexists? Goes hand in glove.

Re: Gamergate 2.0

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 2:50 am
by Graaf Statler
CrowsNest wrote:
Graaf Statler wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:What often makes him unintelligible, is merely the fact he is not a native English speaker. If you step back, it is quite easy to extract what he really means. If not, you can just ask.

I am really wonder what all those brave wikipedians with there big mouth had to say if they had to complain in Russian on a Russian forum and if there was a WMF what is only is understanding Russian. And don't say Google translate because that is shit! You lose every context.
You see it all the time, en.wiki big beasts losing their shit over a Google-translated comment they obtained from Meta that goes against their culture. Digital colonialism in action.

Some en.wiki people don't even bother to hide their overtly racist views when speaking about non-native contributors to the precious One True Wikipedia. Nobody ever does anything.

The huge problem is written English is total different from spoken English. Really, I can have a evening a pleasant conversation in (of course Dutch) Greek, German and English a whole evening long. (I speak Greek, German and English on about the same level and some Italian and French) but explaining things on a forum or Meta is a other thing.

Google translate is very useful to get a impression if you know where it is about and if it is a short text, but for the rest it is rubbish.

Re: Gamergate 2.0

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 3:35 am
by Abd
I was considering deleting all this (as to what I've written here), because it is all being abused by Vigilant to continue his hate-filled attacks on Wikipediocracy. However, not yet.

Graaf Statler wrote:
Abd wrote:Something is broken. Graaf could recover, but he's going to need to become rigorously and completely honest and clear about his own process, how he interprets reality. Or he will die this way. I asked him "What does the monk say," because he has a spirit guide (or equivalent). Graaf stopped listening to the monk, it seems.


Vigilant, of course, uses this to refer to "Totes normal telling him to create other personas and talk to them to avoid displaying his obvious mental illness."

No, I did not tell Graaf to create another persona. Graaf disclosed history to me that made the "monk," apparently a real person in his history, into what I called the "equivalent of a spirit guide." Vigilant hates real human process, and has no idea about how to actually handle psychosis or lesser neuroses. A skilled therapist will work with the world of the client, not deny it and call it "insane" or "crazy." The goal is to ground the client in reality, to distinguish between reality and interpretation and story, which is where all the crap comes up. Reality is not the problem, how we interpret and react to it is the problem. Everything that Graaf told me about the monk aligned with this. The monk counselled acceptance of Reality, as do I. But Graaf, triggered by I don't know what, interprets my pointing to Reality as, instead, pointing to some interpretation that requires him to do this or that, as we can see in this comment. It is paranoia, for sure, but that is not a specific diagnosis, and I'm not a mental health professional. And Vigilant is far less a professional, he is a hater who simply uses all evidence and whatever implications he can invent to support hatred, and he's been doing this for years, to attack and defame anyone who points out what he does.

Supported by Wikipediocracy. That's a huge clue.

Do me one favour, Abd, and stop this crap.

Telling the truth is not "crap." I could make mistakes, I often do, but it is not "crap," that is the language of the ancient enemy.

Because I don't want to "recover" at all if that means I have to live in the strange wiki reality of Mdd, Romaine, Edo, Bart, Guido, Ciell and all the other pirates. I am really sorry, that was never my reality and never will be.
Who owns reality, Graaf? If you are talking about "my reality" and that of others, this is not Reality. There is One Reality. Ask the monk!

Recovery means living in Reality, not something invented by wiki users, nor by me, nor by you. Recovery means assuming responsibility for what we create, what effects we actually have through our choices. It also is the only hope of peace, beauty, love, joy, and inspiration, because the realm of interpretation is only the realm of survival, playing a game we will lose as a matter of certainty. Reality is not going to die, but all our ideas will vanish.

The "reality" Graaf has created, his interpretations, have filled him with disgust and fear and contempt, and "you will know them by their fruit." The ancient advice is to hold fast to the rope of God, i.e., of Reality. There is no difference.

This is not some game, this can dominate the rest of his life.

As I said before, something you didn't want to take from me, am I living in the Kingdom The Netherlands.{/quote]I never questioned that. Graaf did not understand what I was suggesting, which was that he let go of all the interpretations he had created, stop focusing on "them," and start living his life in the present, with what is real.

And somehow he translated this into a proposal that he become a pirate. That's how a paranoid mind works, it turns every experience into a confirmation of the paranoid organizing idea. Fear and mistrust, and proven, because "he's trying to get me to rebel against the King!!!"

All a fantasy.

And do I have to obey my king or to immigrate and give up my Dutch nationality.
Where in the world did he get the idea that this was being questioned? I do question the language, "have to," because it's a choice and the language pretends there is no choice. Indeed, the punishment of criminals depends on the concept that disobedience of the law is a choice, that criminals are responsible for their choices and for the consequences of the choices. Where did the idea arise that he would "have to [emigrate]." Under what conditions?

Because otherwise I am a pirate, and maybe even a criminal who has to pay high fines.


He is a pirate if he what? Graaf was never specific. It seemed that if I suggested he drop all the ideation, all the confusion, and belief without grounding, he thought this would demand that he do something illegal. This is fear of reality, probably the most dangerous fear there is, because, with it, it is impossible for us to find peace, ever. We must confront that fear to recover, and this is the same as saying that we must trust reality, for salvation.

There is hope for Graaf, but he will need to face reality. His own reality, that is, his own experience, how he thinks and what moves him. The elements of salvation are present in his life, but he will need to cling to them and defend them against enemies, and enemies are known by the marks, hatred and denial and contempt, judgment of others and blame. These enemies can only harm us when we follow them and do their work. Jesus said, "do not resist evil." What did he mean? He meant "do not fight it." That is, "do not identify evil as outside, to be attacked." It is inside, it is a potential within all of us, and "resisting it" strengthens it. Rather do not follow evil. Do not believe it, do not trust it, do not base your life on it, do not hate it. Hatred is its fuel and support. Identify hatred, and, most of all and most important, identify it in ourselves.

And, of course you can denier this reality.

What reality? I will accept as reality: Graaf is a Dutch citizen. He lives in the Netherlands, subject to Dutch sovereignty. However, he remains, I will declare, a free human being who makes choices, or if he does not choose, but merely reacts, he nevertheless is responsible for allowing that reaction.
That is also a story, an interpretation, just like the other interpretations Graaf proposes as "his" reality. But it is an empowering one. Yet somehow Graaf interprets this as requiring him to defy the King or the like. What logic, what reaction, is behind this? Having a King requires removal of freedom of thought? Requires what, never seeing the nudity of the Emperor? But then who can actually serve the Emperor with advice rooted in reality? There is, in fact, an ancient concept here, one which has been very widely rejected, that the King is God.

Yet the real God, Reality, leaves us free. Reality will not punish us for freeing our minds from the network of interpretations we have created. Reality is the opposite of that, it rewards acceptance of reality. Ah, I could write books about this, this is essentially islam, the original, the religion of Jesus and all the real saints.

Just take your pirate flag, run, shout we are no bots and storm the Europarlement, but that doesn't help me out.
Yet that is never what I advised Graaf to do, not even remotely.

That is a position common among adolescents, hence Graaf's reaction to the "kids." Yet those kids are the future. They will rebel, and some of them will die. It's always been this way.

Anarchism is a reaction to the oppression of fixed structure, and to move beyond anarchism merely requires abandoning anti-structure along with structure, so that it is all useful, according to context. It's helpful to understand dialectics. The antithesis is not superior to the thesis. The synthesis transcends them. And the synthesis can become a new thesis.

There is no end to that process, but there is a bypass, a knife that cuts the Gordian knot, and takes us immediately into the presence of Reality itself. Full trust in Reality without any conditions or belief in personal fantasies.

Ask the Monk. That is, raise the question and wait and listen for answers, and the reward of patience is patience.

But I think you already know, but are not paying attention to what you know.

Re: Gamergate 2.0

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:02 am
by CrowsNest
Abd wrote:But I think you already know, but are not paying attention to what you know.
I don't even know who this is directed at. :?

My reality is, I don't want this important thread derailed with fifty posts of you and Graaf debating metaphysics, a subject far removed from this topic. Kindly start another topic, if it is to continue, as I sense it will.

Re: Gamergate 2.0

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:16 am
by Graaf Statler
I have not the slightest idea what in what direction you want to have this topic, Abd, but sorry, my time is too valuable for me to spend here much attention on. Sorry. :roll:

Re: Gamergate 2.0

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:18 am
by Abd
CrowsNest wrote:
Abd wrote:Something is broken in Graaf's world, and I don't know what it is, but it makes him paranoid and often unintelligible.
Well, the paranoia is understandable - to most people who are new to the wikiverse, it is simply too unlikely that so many supposedly different people would say the same dumb shit for apparently the same reasons, and not be socks or meatpuppets. Hopefully he will come to realize the truth, and the tendency to see socks everywhere will stop. And really who is to say at least some of the time, he is right? We've all seen crazy unbelievable shit, you of all people know that.
Yes, and it was my position that Graaf's apparent "insanity" was a product of language differences. No. It is not. Something else is going on.

What often makes him unintelligible, is merely the fact he is not a native English speaker. If you step back, it is quite easy to extract what he really means. If not, you can just ask.
CrowsNest, I've been watching many, many conversations involving Graaf. As I've written there is some depth there, and what is deep is often rejected, but there is also actual paranoia, and that it might be "understandable" doesn't change that at all.

Anyone who invited Graaf to a venue, and then bans him for being paranoid and unintelligible, really only has to answer one question - are they fit to even be moderating an online venue? They cannot in all seriousness not have known what he is like, and decided in advance whether they could deal, or not.
It appears that they thought that the situation was as you are suggesting, it was merely an language problem. Further, the discord server is private. They own it. He was not banned because he was unintelligible, that's your fantasy. He was banned for the same reason that anyone is ejected from a meeting with a process chair, for refusing to shut up when asked by someone with authority, for insisting on repeating hostile questions and demands, with which he ended up irritating *everyone* including people he had regarded as friends and who had been friends for him.

They not only believed they could deal with it, they did deal with it for a long time. I banned Graaf at one point because, again, of hostile, disruptive behavior. That was explicitly temporary. This last ban is quite different. It was obviously total consensus. Now, to propose that the owners of the server were unfit, because they gave someone an opportunity to participate, to express himself and be heard, and it didn't work, would be to propose that such people must know the future, know what is possible or not. It would require omniscience. You are, here, making an argument that they might have made, and it is somewhat how I thought.

Similarly, anyone who doesn't know (or cannot find out) want his fued with Bart is all about, probably isn't spending enough time in the places Wikipedia critics need to read regularly, and thus cannot in all seriousness effectively moderate a Wikipedia related venue.
The venue is a Wikipediocracy Discord. The owners are RatWiki sysops, Dysklyver is a tech there. If there is a history there worth exploring, and you seem to think you understand it, and it is of significance, why don't you write about it? What I saw from Graaf, looking back at that conversation cited on WPO, was extreme hostility. At the end on the server, leading to his ban, he was telling everyone to fuck off. Everyone. So he was banned, he was essentially demanding it. And then he lied about it here. Sorry, CrowsNest, you are losing credibility.

I echo the statements of confusion about why Discord is even being used for Wikipedia criticism. As I understood it, it is simply a fancier IRC, and it is not public. That can only fuel people's paranoia.
It was totally transparent to Graaf. He was a moderator until the last hour. He could see all the logs. It's not public, but it's quite open. You could surely join if you cared. It is owned by Dysklyver, who has some serious gravitas, amazing for his age. It tolerated Oliver Smith and Michael Coombs for a time, but neither one was willing to treat the community with any respect, it was all attack. And, it might be noticed, I'm a Mod there. But wait, aren't Dysk and the other Kerensa sysops on RatWiki? Shouldn't we be enemies?

No. We shouldn't. That's all affiliational bullshit.

People have two clear choices in my mind, they can either post at Wikipediocracy, or here.
Well, in the immortal and legally precise language of Arkell v. Pressdram . . .
Assuming setting up their own site is not an option.
Because Crow's Nest says so? You must believe the State Religion, or you must be an Atheist. Otherwise you are doubly heretical, to be banned everywhere.
The two are sufficiently different in philosophy, culture and aims, that if they still see issues with both fora that make them feel like posting in a non-public chat room is more beneficial activity, I'm confident they could not hold their own, if they were ever called upon to defend their criticism.
Obviously, I participate here, but I find the company of very young, very bright Rats more appealing. I don't really follow all the traffic here, there is too much noise. Consider that. (I also don't follow WPO for the same reason, I only look at certain topics because, after all, I am in federal court with the WMF.)

Where are The Devil's Advocate and Probivouac, for example?
That you don't see TDA's activity does not indicate that he's inactive. Perhaps you might consider joining that Discord server. I'll PM you an invite. Disclose who you are and you will be approved, I believe, and I'll make it so.

The had plenty to say for themselves on the now departed Review III, and this venue would be the logical place for them to have decamped. But they would rather just disappear into the ether, if they aren't mucking around on Discord and nobody has told us. It leads me to question their motives, what they were really in this activity for.
Major lack of AGF. Common to many critics, and one of the reasons why criticism so often fails to accomplish much of anything. Dysklyver participates here and on WPO.

There is also the very public WikiInAction subreddit. Wikipedia is a beacon of civil discourse and positivity

Enjoy!

Re: Gamergate 2.0

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:22 am
by Abd
CrowsNest wrote:
Abd wrote:But I think you already know, but are not paying attention to what you know.
I don't even know who this is directed at. :?

My reality is, I don't want this important thread derailed with fifty posts of you and Graaf debating metaphysics, a subject far removed from this topic. Kindly start another topic, if it is to continue, as I sense it will.

As a response to a post by Graaf, that final aside was a message for him. As to your request, I will take it under advisement, but notice that I was mentioned here first. I am not "debating" with Graaf. I'm communicating what I know from long experience and training. I'm not interested in debate. Graaf lied here, about events where I was quite involved, so I corrected it. You are not helping, CrowsNest. Just cawing, more noise.

Re: Gamergate 2.0

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:29 am
by Graaf Statler
You have your reality, i have mine, and lets wait for Vig's reality in a hidden topic on WO and let the readers judge. Seems to me fair.

Re: Gamergate 2.0

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:57 am
by Abd
Graaf Statler wrote:You have your reality, i have mine, and lets wait for Vig's reality in a hidden topic on WO and let the readers judge. Seems to me fair.

I deny that I "have a reality." There is my experience, I don't deny that. I look at the sky and see many small white objects darting about. That's a piece of my experience. The reality is what?