Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Congrats Wikipedia, you've finally helped me make the decision to be a full supporter of pro-Gamergate

In previous posts, I have indicated my sympathy for the pro-Gamergate crowd, if only because I found them much less detestable than the antis as a whole.

Now, thanks to Wikipedia allowing blatant bullshit as opposed to actual fact on the Brianna Wu article because it goes against the narrative of the apparent SJWs, I'm now a proud, open supporter of pro-Gamergate.

For those who don't care to click that link, it's me on Wikipediocracy expressing my misgivings with their policy on Biography of Living Persons, where I noted politely on the talk page that Brianna Wu was born John Walker Flynt, and despite my own bias, which I carefully noted in advance, I felt it would be in the interests of honesty to note Wu was not born female, as the Wikipedia article on Wu would lead one to believe.

My reward for daring to challenge the narrative was my objection removed, then suppressed, and I was also sent a not so subtle threat on my Wikipedia talk page I was treading on sacred ground and I would be purged as a heretic if I continued to push the issue.

I know when the table is tilted and the game is rigged, so I assured the same Wikipedian who followed me to Wikipediocracy (and delivered the not so subtle threat) I had no intention of forcing the issue, and I don't, as the corruption is manifest and those in power have become corrupted regarding their BLP policy, and I would be a fool to think I can reverse the rotting corpse that has become Wikipedia's integrity concerning the biographies of living people.

Instead, I chose to finally cast my lot with the pro-GamerGate side, whom I sympathized with but to this point avoided taking allegiance to, mostly because I hoped the perversion of honesty practiced by the anti-side was not as bad as I thought.

All this incident did was confirm they have sunk their tentacles into Wikipedia, of all places, and as long as they are in power, Wikipedia will have a bias in favor of their ideology, even if that means objective fact must be Orwelled out of existence to suit their narrative.

The above noted, I reiterate what I have said in earlier posts about my position as founder of All The Tropes and as a staff member of Orain: In those capacities, I am a neutral party on the subject of Gamergate or related matters, and I will recuse myself or abstain from any partisanship if those issues are raised in either sphere of influence, but purely from a personal standpoint, I declare myself an open enemy of the anti-Gamergate side and will do whatever I can to oppose their love of censorship, and I leave all anti-Gamergaters with a final message:

Regardless of the merit of your position, and even if you are correct, a position based on obfuscating truth and propagating lies is a greater shame than the harshest truth, and anyone who wishes to flee from that reality deserves no sympathy when they are forced to face their own deceptions.

4 comments:

  1. I'm seeing a similar mood to TVTropes with this. It's less that they're claiming neutrality because they're anti-Gamergate; they're just afraid of arguments flaring up and all the work they'll have to do if war starts, so they're shutting out any incident starters, in this case you.

    Anyways, why is Breitbart unreliable?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not unreliable, it's just not allowed for that article. It's allowed for others, but not that one.

    I'll let you make up your mind on what that means, as despite my personal feelings, I'm not going to try forcing my personal ideology down anyone's throats.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "My reward for daring to challenge the narrative was my objection removed, then suppressed, and I was also sent a not so subtle threat on my Wikipedia talk page I was treading on sacred ground and I would be purged as a heretic if I continued to push the issue."

    What a disgusting bunch of individuals... News flash: Trying to silence someone's views is always going to make you look bad. You'd think people working on this sort of thing would know this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen. Unfortunately, there are those who have decided truth should be subordinated to ideology, and in this case, they are smokescreening the facts by rules lawyering.

      Delete