Evil!!!

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Evil!!!

Post by Abd » Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:33 pm

This may be, in our time, a Forbidden Topic. Yet the concept of evil is very old, and the personification of evil is as well.

Is there any reality to those old ideas, or were they just fantasies of no import at all? On Wikipediocracy today:
Alarmingly Bulging Diaper wrote:
To use the ancient metaphor or archetype, Vigilant is the voice of Satan. Satan hates the human, they are, for him, literally “shit,” with no redeeming value. There are people who like what Vigilant does. They are in danger.
Thanks for the unintentional belly laugh.

I was mean to you online so I am Satan and hate all humans...
I did not say or claim what Vigilant claims, so he lies, like his master, the Father of Lies.

Who is that master? Is that master "real"? What would that mean?

It doesn't matter, I wrote about a metaphor or archetype, and those exist in the mind, and if one thinks that what is in the mind has no effect, one is seriously deluded. I have long familiarity with the literature of satanic possession, as well as work with far more prosaic examples where we follow the evil of our own thoughts, which matches the stories found in the Bible, the Qur'an, and on into modern times. I did not claim that Vigilant "is Satan" or that he "hates all humans," but that he's following and dominated by hatred and that he is always looking for something to hate in others. And that's obvious from what I've seen of his comments. He is a hater, it's his identity, and he is proud of it, because he hates "shitheels," who deserve his vituperation.

The constant use of scatalogical reference would also be characteristic of satanic possession. I'm not claiming that he is "literally possessed," though that is unclear in meaning to me. He's obviously and blatantly a hater, and was totally exposed as this on Reddit, while he claims to the 'pediots to that he won there (literally, "beat his ass like a drum").

Frankly, it does occur to me that I "won." He shut up and left the field by claiming that I was unable to refrain from responding, and he left the field with two irrelevant comments. Which received no response in situ, so far.

Now, what is this "evil" thing? Does it exist? If so, how do we recognize or distinguish it?

Is it true that if we claim something does not exist, it cannot harm us? What do people think?

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Evil!!!

Post by Strelnikov » Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:56 am

Is it true that if we claim something does not exist, it cannot harm us?

You can deny that Gamma radiation exists, until you are exposed to it and possibly die from radiation poisoning. The world and Cosmos exist outside of human language and human concepts of how they work, though we do our damnedest to create scientific models to describe how they work and where they came from. We know a lot now as a species, but there are gaps, and there may be lethal things in those gaps waiting to zap us.

As for Vigilant, he is an Internet tough guy - match wits with him on the telephone and he would fall apart like a wet paper bag. Face him on the street and he will run. Tarantino is the one to "fear" because he seems to have IT detective work down, and he will expose people he does not like. That said, he is only powerful on the Internet, and to the Wikipedia milieu.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Evil!!!

Post by Abd » Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:22 pm

Strelnikov wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:56 am
Is it true that if we claim something does not exist, it cannot harm us?

You can deny that Gamma radiation exists, until you are exposed to it and possibly die from radiation poisoning. The world and Cosmos exist outside of human language and human concepts of how they work, though we do our damnedest to create scientific models to describe how they work and where they came from. We know a lot now as a species, but there are gaps, and there may be lethal things in those gaps waiting to zap us.
To be sure, I was reading Whorf before I was 20, and most people are ignorant of basic semantics and ontology. Most of us believe that there is a "world" outside of our mind or minds. That's a fantasy, obviously, but, again obviously, a useful one. A "stand" is an idea that we make up and use as an axiom, and sensibly we realize the difference between factual report and interpretation, including axiomatic ones.

My stand is that there is only one reality, though there are as many stories or interpretations as we invent.

So does "evil" exist? How do we answer questions like this? The really weird but oh-so-common view is that what we believe is real, and if believe something, it is not real, and that those who believe differently are "wrong." Yet that requires a definition of the thing (Buddhism would call it a "dharma") that supposedly does not exist, or the proposition is not testable and is therefore certainly unscientific (while we condemn the "believers" as pseudoscientific).

"Evil" is an interpretation. It is a shared interpretation by many, and there are persistent reports of an "identity," a personification of Evil. My understanding is that Evil exists in the collective human mind, i.e., the shared human consciousness. If it exists in the mind, does it "exist"? We like to split reality into the mind and the "material world," but the division is quite artificial, or do we believe that the mind is a separate reality? Obviously, the mind has physical effects. And we all have stories that we believe without question.

Oliver Smith, I see today, believes or assumes that the world is bad place, hence antinatalism because it is evil to inflict the world on innocent children. Schopenhauer. If I were to suggest to him that the logical consequence of his position would be murder and suicide, would that be evil? And is someone who believes that "sane"?

What does "sane" mean? I suggest "fit for function," actually operating in the realm of mind in ways -- and with actions -- that create life worth living. That is, of course, another stand. But the stand of "life sucks and then you die" is quite useless for creating inspiration and joy and love and all that good stuff.

For me evil is entrenched denial and hatred. The Qur'an is explicit that it's mostly metaphor, and Satan is, then, I gloss, a metaphor for personified evil, an archetype, and people act that out, follow it. And the end of that is misery for them. Hell. And more than an end, it is a present condition.

And hating evil and especially "evil people" is a trap, it is evil itself. "Resist not evil."

But stand for justice and truth. And expect to be attacked for it.
As for Vigilant, he is an Internet tough guy - match wits with him on the telephone and he would fall apart like a wet paper bag. Face him on the street and he will run. Tarantino is the one to "fear" because he seems to have IT detective work down, and he will expose people he does not like. That said, he is only powerful on the Internet, and to the Wikipedia milieu.
This recent affair is exposing the reality of Vigilant. He can easily be seen as a hater, who will lie and deceive to express his hatred of humanity, most of whom are "shitheels" (who are the exceptions?), and his job is to "hold their feet to the fire." Who wants to burn people in the fire? (In the Qur'an, a common name for Hell is "the fire.")

It's obvious.

Tarantino arouses no negative impression for me. I do not fear the truth, I love it -- and don't believe I know it, necessarily, though I do know and report what I have seen, and I create verifiability (often called "wall of text").

Whether or not exposure is evil or meritorious is not an absolute. Mostly I look at justice. I would happily dox Vigilant, because he attacks from behind a veil of anonymity (which also, by the way, matches the Qur'anic description of Satan (he speaks to us from a place we do not recognize).

However, I have generally glossed that with a meaning that he speaks to us in our thinking, and we think it is ourselves, and don't question our own thinking. Discovering this -- and using it -- was incredibly useful in dealing with addiction, which, among other things, is rooted in lies we tell ourselves and believe.

Vigilant has power because he speaks to that voice in each of us, that judges and condemns and holds in contempt.

User avatar
Carrite
Sucks Critic
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:59 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Evil!!!

Post by Carrite » Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:25 am

Abd wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:33 pm
To use the ancient metaphor or archetype, Vigilant is the voice of Satan. Satan hates the human, they are, for him, literally “shit,” with no redeeming value. There are people who like what Vigilant does. They are in danger.
I did not say or claim what Vigilant claims, so he lies, like his master, the Father of Lies.

Who is that master? Is that master "real"? What would that mean?

It doesn't matter, I wrote about a metaphor or archetype, and those exist in the mind, and if one thinks that what is in the mind has no effect, one is seriously deluded. I have long familiarity with the literature of satanic possession, as well as work with far more prosaic examples where we follow the evil of our own thoughts, which matches the stories found in the Bible, the Qur'an, and on into modern times. I did not claim that Vigilant "is Satan" or that he "hates all humans," but that he's following and dominated by hatred and that he is always looking for something to hate in others. And that's obvious from what I've seen of his comments. He is a hater, it's his identity, and he is proud of it, because he hates "shitheels," who deserve his vituperation. * * *

Now, what is this "evil" thing? Does it exist? If so, how do we recognize or distinguish it?

Is it true that if we claim something does not exist, it cannot harm us? What do people think?
You ask what we think...

I think you are making an a priori assumption of the existence of a metaphysical entity and assuming an acceptance of a reactionary idealism, using a comical association of real person to mythical entity as a tool in polemic, and then seeking validation for your intellectual shenanigans from your readers.

Judging from the reaction here, I do not believe you have made the sale that Vigilant is a minion of Satan.

RfB

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Fan
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Evil!!!

Post by boredbird » Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:18 am

Abd wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:22 pm
I would happily dox Vigilant, because he attacks from behind a veil of anonymity
Forget the metaphysical stuff. Is "would" part of some condition which hasn't been met or is this what you are going to do? Doxing is allowed on Sucks.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Evil!!!

Post by Abd » Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:10 pm

boredbird wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:18 am
Abd wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:22 pm
I would happily dox Vigilant, because he attacks from behind a veil of anonymity
Forget the metaphysical stuff. Is "would" part of some condition which hasn't been met or is this what you are going to do? Doxing is allowed on Sucks.
I don't have the information, and I avoid posting rumor. There are several suspects that have been named with only weak inference. I don't actually think his RL identity matters that much. I've written about the internet personality, which is dedicated to contempt and hatred, which interprets everything from that perspective. And is obviously obsessed. A hundred Reddit posts in one month? And a high percentage of his WPO comments?

What is being called "metaphysical stuff" runs out lives, far more than we recognize. I don't believe in a physical/metaphysical duality. There is one reality, and then there are stories about it.

The topic here is Evil, not Vagirant. Do not confuse proposed examples with the topic. Is there an "evil voice" that speaks to each of us "from a place we do not recognize"? What is "evil"?

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Evil!!!

Post by Abd » Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:20 pm

In the ancient stories, evil is always accompanied by warning, there are signs. I'd never before looked up "Witchsmeller Pursuivant," but it was clear that witch-hunting (and burning and all that hysteria, as in the Salem Witch Trials) was evil incarnate, for evil loves to present itself as fighting against evil, to cloak hatred with a pretense of righteousness.

The Witchsmeller Pursuivant was a thoroughy evil character.

That this is used as a tag line is a dead giveaway. The glove fits.

Added after link from WPO:

"Evil" is the personification of hatred and contempt, and that is the glove that fits. It is not "screeching," to point that out, and the density of lies is high in Vagirant's immense outpouring of comments. It's not even wrong.

My policy is not to respond to the claims of trolls, but to respond to questions from the community. What trolls have found, though, is that if they throw enough dirt, some will stick. So if nobody asks or counters, dirt will stick -- and may be quoted by others later. Just the way it is.

Those who have countered Vagirant on Reddit have also been attacked by him.


This post was incorrectly linked by Katie on WPO.
She [?] intended a later post which she radically misrepresents, as commonly happens when the mind-rot of hatred sets in.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Evil!!!

Post by Abd » Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:57 pm

Abd wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:20 pm
In the ancient stories, evil is always accompanied by warning, there are signs. I'd never before looked up "Witchsmeller Pursuivant," but it was clear that witch-hunting (and burning and all that hysteria, as in the Salem Witch Trials) was evil incarnate, for evil loves to present itself as fighting against evil, to cloak hatred with a pretense of righteousness.

The Witchsmeller Pursuivant was a thoroughy evil character.

That this is used as a tag line is a dead giveaway. The glove fits.

Added after link from WPO:

"Evil" is the personification of hatred and contempt, and that is the glove that fits. It is not "screeching," to point that out, and the density of lies is high in Vagirant's immense outpouring of comments. It's not even wrong.

My policy is not to respond to the claims of trolls, but to respond to questions from the community. What trolls have found, though, is that if they throw enough dirt, some will stick. So if nobody asks or counters, dirt will stick -- and may be quoted by others later. Just the way it is.

And, yes, what Vagilant gleefully claims is proof of my ignorance is exactly what I intended. I linked to that Wikipedia article. This is not a proof of anything, it's a metaphor, and a striking one, where the modern-day equivalent of accusing someone of being a witch is accusing them of pedophilia, and not as a legal matter, i.e, not for the protection of children, but as an expression of hatred. He's been doing this for a long, long time.

Dennis Hastert admitted having sexual relations with a student when he was a high school wrestling coach maybe forty years earlier. The White House (Obama was President) issued a statement:
there is nobody here" at the White House "who derives any pleasure from reading about the former Speaker's legal troubles at this point.
. That's sane, and does not excuse Hastert in the least. But Vagirant:
Fuck you, Hastert. Fuck you right in the eye.
.

He writes like that about other cases without actual victims, only his deranged imagination. Redditors see it. Do Wikipediocrats see it?

Vagirant is seizing on an issue he thinks has legs, as mud to toss, to express his hatred, which is not in the least about the protection of children.

Those who have questioned Vagirant on Reddit have also been attacked by him.

[Edit]: This post has been misrepresented by Katie on WPO. She read "other cases without actual victims" as somehow claiming that the Hastert case had no victims (which would be preposterous).

No, this was a reference to EVilgent's writing about other cases where there are no known victims, and I'll strongly assert one: I've been accused not only of "enabling pedophiles" but also of allegedly being a pedophile -- with no actual pedophiles or victims or children in danger being documented in those cases, only people accused of pedophilia by the pedovigilantes, nor with any evidence of "enabling them," merely of being associated in some way.

Case in point: (such as Keith Henson, whom I knew and worked with professionally, and about whom there was, at the time, no suspicion of pedophilia, but what was heading into an ugly divorce from Carolyn Meinel, herself quite an interesting person, and with whom I also worked for a time.) The story of Henson = "pedophile" did not become any public suspicion or knowlege until after I knew Henson and Meinel. I recall rumors about that family's sexual pecadillos, which I will not repeat, but they involved Meinel, not Henson. None of that was actually my business. I would have reported children in danger to authorities, if I had any reasonable suspicions, and I did not.

I fully support the "Me Too" movement, and support, in general, honest reporting of the facts of childhoods, and protection for that. This is not necessarily "believe the children," necessarily, but allows everyone to testify to their experience, especially factually, which tends, in itself, to healing from trauma. I could also point to other cases of attack by EVilgent and Katie, where there is no known risk to children, only hatred of the persons. Hatred was the point here, and the hatred is incredibly clear if one looks at the evidence.

But Katie has only written on WPO, as far as I know, and has not gone full frontal attack, like EVilgent on Reddit, where I routinely write about various topics. I don't see how any sane person can look at those Reddit posts and see anything other than intense hatred, and claiming "minion of Satan" is essentially claiming "servant of hatred," and that includes those who follow and support the hatred, and then as a sin of omission, those who tolerate it and allow it to poison the community. To some extent, the latter group can include all of us.

And I could write more, much more, but won't without additional cause. Who cares? And that is a real question, not an expression of uncaring.

User avatar
Carrite
Sucks Critic
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:59 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Evil!!!

Post by Carrite » Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:56 am

You're a very sad person if you think your idiotic, sexist "Vagina = Vigilant" wordplay that you copped from Eric is even a little bit funny.

(I'm happy to virtue-signal for the Gender Scribe, she's boss.)

RfB

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Evil!!!

Post by Abd » Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:32 pm

Carrite wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:56 am
You're a very sad person if you think your idiotic, sexist "Vagina = Vigilant" wordplay that you copped from Eric is even a little bit funny. (I'm happy to virtue-signal for the Gender Scribe, she's boss.)
RfB
Well, you are making your choice. I did not use that wordplay, if you look at the history, I actually called it out, objected to it, and used other plays on "vague" and "vagrant" and "rant" (vagirant) and vagilant as "some kind of ointment" as a reference to "douchebag" which might be peripherally sexist or not. Today I hit on evilgent, which I think I'll keep.

And if it is not funny, fine. Laughing is optional. But this objection would be that of a balanced person be seen in the context of the many, many, highly offensive word plays of the hater-baiter evilgent. Grasping at straws and swallowing a camel.

And, as it happens, Eric is the owner -- "the boss" -- with others, here, not "Gender Scribe."
such, it appears, probably triggered by the lies about supposedly threatening to block "pedophile outing." Which did not happen. Discussion was much more about "outing" in general which may or may not be removed, depending on circumstances, and ultimately it was about what should be obvious: the basic forum rule is to respect warnings from mods and admins.

And, as a mod, I act on behalf of the owners, who decide in the end what is to be allowed or not. Since they are not absent, since they have explicitly approved some of my writing and actions, my moderation is normal. They remain completely free to reverse anything, but, so far, I have not even been warned. The attack on me is very much an attack on Sucks, that's obvious from the WPO discussion. The strongest vituperation, though, has been reserved for me, because I told the truth about WOVigilant on Reddit -- i.e., what any reasonable observer would conclude who actually looks at evidence. Intolerable, must be punished!

Referring to [[meatball:DefendEachOther]], there has been a little community defense and support, enough to keep me going. If not for that, I'd completely abandon the field with "y'all are free to fuck with each other, bye." Which is what I did on Wikipedia in 2011, and why I did not seriously challenge the Wikipediocracy ban in 2014, and did not confront Vigilante's continual trolling, but ignored it until now, as it was confined to WPO.

The reality on Reddit is that the only support for the evilgent's campaign has come from Smith trollsocks and impersonators, such as one impersonating you, apparently, -- you have never responded to that, as Kumioko kindly did -- and very few standard clueless actual redditor snark-generators. Maybe one or two, transient. And then Madame Gender, which I found shocking.

Since my corrections were allowed but essentially ignored, while anonymous and massive trolling was allowed and followed, I conclude that GenderDesk has become a trollsite, to be ignored. She could fix that, to be sure. Someone tell me if she does. I'd love to see it.

When it is necessary to correct many clear factual errors, to respond to a claim, it becomes a simpler conclusion to treat it as trolling. If she wants a list, she need only ask. I do continue to hold to the possibility that it was simply the "retired" inattention that she promised, combined with knee-jerk reaction to "pedo"shit.

In line with the topic here, the evilgent has a tag line worth noting:
The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis. -Dante Alighieri
It's worth considering that. That this is his tag line suggests that he justifies his viciousness on confronting a "moral crisis," perhaps a massive spread of witchcraft and sorcery? No, that was in Salem over three hundred years ago. What has increased, what is the "crisis"?

Yes, Dante was making a point that remains valid. In Islamic law there are individual obligations and collective obligations, and thus there are mandates that are satisfied if only a few act, but the full community is obligated that someone act.

Someone had to stop the "witch trials," and if nobody did, that community went down, fully succumbing to evil and the consequences. And those who stood up against it, if not supported, were in turn attacked as supporting evil. It's all on point here.

Post Reply