I'm outraged about your outrage. STFU up then, snowtits.

[CrowsNest]

The SMcCandlish essay mocking trans people has brought out a whole new breed of special Wikipedian, out on parade doing their thing. But they've been around for a while, scuttling around the edges of the place, like rats in a sewer. It's tempting to attribute their rise to original Rat Boy Eric Corbett, but I suspect it goes back further than his storied entrance into the sensitivity debate.

You'll know the type. The ones so offended by what they call righteous indignation, manufactured offence, or to call it what they would want to call it if they had any balls (and a suitably manly venue where they can be real men, rraarrrr!), generation snowlakery, that they rise up and engage in what is, ironically, a pretty serious and long lasting bout of righteous indignation. A pity party.

A gathering of the wounded, who sooth each other with, of course, indignation at what the nasty people are doing to them, and of course by extension, their beloved hetero-penis-pedia. And then the jokes. My God, the jokes. Boy do they like a laufh, these laid back dudes. They exchange ever more absurd tales of the stupid things they've seen the hypersensitive people do. It quickly departs from real examples of course, because they don't like being reminded what they actually did to cause offence.

(seriously, if you manage to get something retracted from the SignPost, or you get a systemic Wikipedia issue with toxicity coined in your name, then you definitely offended someone on Wikipedia, so you better get used to being seen as a prick on Wikipedia, even if it's only being said behind your back because of course, you'd be super offended if it was said to your face.)

They're soon manufacturing absurd situations that would never happen, never have happened, and never will happen, because, well, that is just what you do when you're mad that people who you claim are just playing make believe to get offended over nothing, right? But they're not serious attempts to portray their opponents as lunatics, no. They're jokes, right? Because these dudes know their comedy. These dudes positively embrace people who use humour as a weapon. Yeah? No. Comedy is a skill for people who can take reality and make it absurd. These people's reality, is already absurd. They are the people Bill Maher is laughing at.

The party goes on for a while, just with far fewer actual participants than the other side of the dispute which triggered them, because these clueless specimens really are the real minority on Wikipedia. As if to compensate for their lack in numbers (their idea of the silent majority they represent really is always silent, because it doesn't exist), they seem determined to make sure their outrage about others being outraged lasts far longer than the original "drama" and "trolling" they claim is the real example of manufactured offense. It's all done in public, or course, which is obviously where you do it if you're not trying to attract attention to yourselves.

Y'know what, if these blowhards truly hated people who they see as getting offended over nothing, or people who feel like everyone should sit up and take notice when they claim to be offended, then logically, in these situations, wouldn't they just shut the fuck up? Tell the person once, no, I think you're wrong to be offended, and if they persist, just ignore them. What would Maher do? THAT, YOU FUCKING TOOLS. Well, and the comedy skit, but we already know they suck at that.

They often claim their critics are just trolls, which is the cliche that saves every dumbass on the internet. But if there are some present, it is because they are so easily trolled. Genuinely over-sensitive people, as opposed to people with deep convictions, are a troll's natural target. Ever seen someone who you know actually believes what some of these people say they believe in, actually successfully get trolled? It's impossible. It's the difference between trolling David Miscavige and the Pope.

They also like to think they're all about free speech. Fuck off. You try getting near one of these anti-snowflake snowflakes if you have something to say they don't want to hear. Like hey dude, maybe the hundreds of people out there calling you out aren't the problem? Maybe the fact your dad touched you as a child is the root of all this misplaced aggression? They'll shut you down faster than a [insert your favourite Safe Space critique, or just pick one of theirs, they've got like a hundred].

These are the people who actually literally want to be the victims of something, anything. They don't have a genuine grievance about anythingz other than a deep seated fear that society's and Wikipedia's idea of respect is changing too fast for them, because OMFG WHAT A SURPRISE they are usually exactly what SMcCandlsh is, a straight white IT guy. If these people ever have any single reason why you're meant to feel sympathy for them, they make sure you know about it. Can't help themselves.

The latest gathering has revealed SMcCandlish has dyslexia. Who gives a fuck? Does it explain why you're a transphohe? No? Then shut up. Recently Mjolnirants literally admitted he is the victim of child abuse. No, he actually said "survivor". What a trooper. Not a snowflake era word that, right? Wasn't remotely germaine to the blowback he was receiving over his latest episode of aggression, but it was all he had. His buddy Triptych had already played the spectrum card, and got nowhere. Sitush is blind. He doesnt like to mention it, except he does. All. The. Time.

For people who seem to want to live in a time before people got offended about anything that wasn't related to good old fashioned values, you watch how fast these boys drop a friend, someone they claim they once admired, the very second they say something they don't like, usually a critique of their own fragile ego.

United States Marines, they are not. Victims, they very much are.

[Graaf Statler]

What has happend fits perfect in my conception a wiki system is a extreem primitive system and people suspect much to much of it in general. It simple can't handle trans people, gender gaps. political matters, etc.

But what wonders me the most is WMF doesn't do anything! Except predicting a lot of Utter Fucking Julia Reda idealistic Bullshit and complete focusing on that dammed article13.
In a way they are blind for the reality, they don't want to hear the true. Because what you write is simple the true, but they simple label it as trolling and just ignore it.
They are stiffened, we all know they are right on course with there wiki-Titanic to hit that fatal iceberg, but something stops them from intervene. The legal site can't be the problem, because the legal and financial damage will be much bigger if they actual hit that iceberg......

[CrowsNest]

Case in point. Everything about the recent SognPost transphobia controversy is over. ArbCom request declined. Both MfD's closed. Everyone who is going to resign, has resigned.

It is so over, they are doing the transparently indefensible things always do when they're trying to make sure something is ALL OVER.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... andlish/It

Nobody but nobody wants to discuss this anymore, even though it has blown apart their entire WP:UPNOT policy.

So......what are the Proud Boys of Wikipedia still doing....?

I think it should be deleted because it's an insensitive mockery of people with eating disorders. Keeping this template is a trigger and is harming people. Someone might suicide over it, and even if they don't, it sends a terrible signal to the entire world, which is always watching every petty dispute on Wikipedia, that the project is hostile to people who are nutritionally different and gastrically challenged.  — SMcCandlish 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I object to your insensitive use of the phrase "sends a terrible signal" I had a terrible experience with a railway signal (I won't get into the painful details, but it also involved a platypus and an ornithopter), and any mention of "terrible signals" triggers me. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't all this "trigger" talk an insensitive trivialization of the victims and survivors of gun violence?  — SMcCandlish 22:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You are right! How could I be so thoughtless? I think that the paqge I linked the "T" word to above says it all. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies in advance to any thoughtless-Americans who might be offended by the above. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sucking each other's dicks, of course.

This incredible need of the Outraged About Your Outrage people's need to soothe each other's pain, what's it all about? If it isn't because they are the ones who are terribly insecure people who are easily offended and want everyone to know about it, then what is it?

They can't just be goofing off from editing the encyclopedia, because that is the first thing they complain about during one of these episodes, that all the drama is distracting people from editing the encyclopedia.