?

Log in

No account? Create an account
log f-list backlog .nfo weev.net back back forward forward
On Encyclopedia Dramatica, there is a specific term we use (mostly… - Andrew Auernheimer
Oðinnsson. Market abuser. Internationally notorious computer criminal.
weev
weev
On Encyclopedia Dramatica, there is a specific term we use (mostly internally, on mailing lists) to describe Wikipedians. We call them Wikipedos because there is a strong contingent of people there that attempt to whitewash pedophilia. They attempt to call it "childlove" and doctor articles so that they contain rhetoric which appears to approach articles relating to child sexuality, pederasty and pedophilia from a "non point of view" standpoint, which really means that the voice of the pedophiles is the largest.

So I wasn't exactly shocked to hear that the #2 man at the Wikimedia Foundation is an avid pedophile who has not only written multiple essays defending sex with children, but less than thirty days ago was hosting images of child pornography on his website (removed, but still in google cache).

http://valleywag.com/388503/wikipedias-porn+loving-no-2-and-his-abiding-concern-for-the-children
http://valleywag.com/389055/why-sue-gardner-hired-a-pedophilia-supporter-to-run-wikipedia
http://valleywag.com/372140/erik-mller-no-2-at-wikipedia-a-defender-of-pedophilia
http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/05/08/erik-moller-wmf/

Fucked up. Seriously fucked up. Words cannot describe the disgust I feel, but this basically goes with my whole view that the Internet is the ultimate liberalized society, and liberalization does not work. People need a moral authoritarian managing their lives to make sure they do not stray from what is right and good.
29 comments / leave comment
Comments
From: jeremyjx Date: May 11th, 2008 05:26 am (UTC) (link)
Any child that would fall for that is a victim of Social Darwinism. I hate to say it, but...
weev From: weev Date: May 11th, 2008 05:33 am (UTC) (link)
so you think a 7 year old is asking for it, or too fucking naive and needs to be made cynical in the face of a friendly stranger?

that's fucked up.
From: jeremyjx Date: May 11th, 2008 05:36 am (UTC) (link)
I see your point, but he's fucking ugly, that was *my* point, and I tried to be funny and failed, my bad.
weev From: weev Date: May 11th, 2008 05:39 am (UTC) (link)
oh yeah dude. he's totally gross, how the fuck is any kid going to want that. i mean, i remember having sexual desires when i was ~6, but they mostly involved my teacher. totally a hottie. i wouldn't have minded so much if she molested me
From: (Anonymous) Date: May 11th, 2008 05:58 am (UTC) (link)
let us hope the power of human consensus is ultimately human
weev From: weev Date: May 11th, 2008 06:00 am (UTC) (link)
it isn't. all characteristics we associate with humanity, all ethical and moral viewpoints and ways of life, are actually only held by maybe 10% of the population at most. most people are vipers.
From: (Anonymous) Date: May 11th, 2008 06:03 am (UTC) (link)
first, you get the money. then you get the power.
theniceprice From: theniceprice Date: May 11th, 2008 08:30 pm (UTC) (link)
faith is bricks, knowledge is mortar. i think that covers it. if anyone can substantially stray from such, it should be said they are deviants.
markos From: markos Date: May 11th, 2008 06:42 am (UTC) (link)
And here I thought you were the patron saint of classical liberal "dont tread on me" thought.

I personally blame the radical individualism and fetishism for the autonomous nature of man (which, by the by, is false.)
weev From: weev Date: May 11th, 2008 06:45 am (UTC) (link)
i am all about "dont tread on me". not so much about "dont tread on that fucking pedophile over there".

my freedom should not be limited. most people's freedom should be.
stickyboy From: stickyboy Date: May 11th, 2008 12:46 pm (UTC) (link)
People need a moral authoritarian managing their lives to make sure they do not stray from what is right and good.

Are you drawing a parallel between the Wikipedia microculture and human culture in general?
weev From: weev Date: May 11th, 2008 04:28 pm (UTC) (link)
yes. wikipedia is the ultimate liberal society. consensus is supposedly democratically reached according the party line, but is in actuality heavily controlled by a top-down hierarchy which represents the agenda of a select few. said few are extremely immoral (besides the #2 man, Jimbo Wales himself tried to start a porn encyclopedia before moving to Wikipedia, and we all now know about his use of wikipedia google rank to bang vulnerable women) and are constantly attempting to push their disgusting agenda.

in addition, i find Wikipedia's NPOV policy disturbingly similar to many establishment media outlets. generally I find that the information outlets that constantly claim and pride themselves on their fairness, honesty and lack of agenda typically have the most disturbing and disgusting agendas. the pedophiles on wikipedia insist that it is "only fair" and "free of viewpoint" to give a marginal view of child sex being okay equal voice as that of social consensus. there are countless examples of this type of behavior on all sorts of deviancies on wikipedia.
stickyboy From: stickyboy Date: May 12th, 2008 09:49 pm (UTC) (link)
Sounds more to me like a Stalinist society masquerading as a liberal society, which renders it unfit as a model by which to judge a prototypical liberal society. It is purely an online animal to boot, which makes it antiseptic to much of the real risk that is required of a meatspace society in order for it to function.

That Wikipedia espouses deviant behavior by refusing to condemn it is open to debate, depending on what precisely you expect from what purports to be an encyclopedia. But that it should at least police itself better by ensuring that its staffers don't infect its editions with pro-kidfucking reasoning should be common sense.
vargtimmen From: vargtimmen Date: May 11th, 2008 01:09 pm (UTC) (link)
Libtards like to make it out like being gay or transgendered are the only two things they want acceptance for. But as sexual deviances become accepted, more paraphilias will take their place: pedophilia, furry yiff, zoophilia, necrophilia. And they can all claim to be victimless. The only reason gayness has been championed first is that more people are gay than furry. Really, what difference is there besides the number of people affected?

I can't say I understand your disgust though. Sexual aberrations are just mental illness. Would you be disgusted by a schizophrenic who thinks time is cubic and schoolthink is an evil lie? If a paedophile can control their urges and accept a life of unfulfillment, like gay men managed to do for centuries, shouldn't they be left alone or even congratulated? Obviously I'm speaking in general, not about someone hosting or creating child pornography.
weev From: weev Date: May 11th, 2008 06:20 pm (UTC) (link)
But as sexual deviances become accepted, more paraphilias will take their place
In full agreement.
Sexual aberrations are just mental illness.
No dispute here!
If a paedophile can control their urges and accept a life of unfulfillment, like gay men managed to do for centuries, shouldn't they be left alone or even congratulated?
These Wikipedians are not content with a life of unfulfillment and are attempting to alter social consensus to create acceptance for the abuse of vulnerable children. Do you believe they do not deserve scorn and sanction?
vargtimmen From: vargtimmen Date: May 11th, 2008 11:07 pm (UTC) (link)
http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/05/08/erik-moller-wmf/

Are any of these statements inaccurate? And the second statement is believed by a "small minority," hardly being presented as an accepted fact to alter social consensus. If he was using skewed statistics or presenting an opinion as fact, I'd react differently.

I know a few people who are closet pedophiles but control their urges... I guess I support the scorn and sanction of the act but not of the people if it's just for being what they can't help.
weev From: weev Date: May 12th, 2008 04:19 pm (UTC) (link)
If something is believed by a small minority on Wikipedia that acts with perfect unison, then it is effectively going to rule over everyone else. Like the Jews. There are multiple administrators representing pedophile constituencies and none who represent a religious standpoint.

There has been a major campaign for years by pedophiles to whitewash Wikipedia articles, so much that we have been calling them Wikipedos since the founding of Encyclopedia Dramatica. This is an extensive problem.
stickyboy From: stickyboy Date: May 12th, 2008 09:57 pm (UTC) (link)
I know a few people who are closet pedophiles but control their urges

Then those people need to kill themselves. You are honor bound to convince them to lean into it and take one for the team. That you have waited this long is disgraceful enough, do it tonight and make it right.
stickyboy From: stickyboy Date: May 12th, 2008 09:55 pm (UTC) (link)
The only reason gayness has been championed first is that more people are gay than furry.

Except that neither gayness nor furriness is being championed by anyone with cultural authority at this point. And being gay is a presumably natural state that has millennia of crypto-homo records to bolster it while being a furry is merely fucking goofy as all hell and therefore not likely to be championed any time soon. I can't find a single point where your comparison holds any water whatsoever.
vargtimmen From: vargtimmen Date: May 12th, 2008 10:12 pm (UTC) (link)
fag
stickyboy From: stickyboy Date: May 13th, 2008 11:52 am (UTC) (link)
That works better
girlvinyl From: girlvinyl Date: May 11th, 2008 03:58 pm (UTC) (link)
But, Weev, you don't understand. Wikipedia is the entirety of all human knowledge. It is changing the world, and making all humans better by it's existence. We should never criticize it or it's motives. We should only give them our money so that more information can be free.
From: (Anonymous) Date: May 12th, 2008 05:58 pm (UTC) (link)
Learning from wikipedia is similar to the old, "If it is in a book, it -must- be true."
girlvinyl From: girlvinyl Date: May 11th, 2008 04:01 pm (UTC) (link)
PS: Is ED covering this? This is fucking gold.
blue_star_cadet From: blue_star_cadet Date: May 11th, 2008 05:42 pm (UTC) (link)
The guys who run Wiki are fuckfaces.
strlen From: strlen Date: May 12th, 2008 03:43 pm (UTC) (link)

That's the problem on democracy

CP on wikipedia is like farming subsidies in United States. Both of these things fuck everyone else over, besides the small constituency that supports them. However, that small constituency cares enough about the topic (having, say, high IQ but having no ethics) so that the profiteering politicians (who are really interested in their own power growing) won't tell them to fuck off. Regular people (e.g. IQ sub 90) don't care enough about the topic to actually vote.

In the end what you get is small constituencies (commercial farmers, pedophiles) using power to an end that fucks everyone else. Yay democracy.
From: (Anonymous) Date: May 12th, 2008 06:00 pm (UTC) (link)

Re: That's the problem on democracy

does voting really matter?
please tell me how.
From: luper Date: May 12th, 2008 06:00 pm (UTC) (link)

Re: That's the problem on democracy

ah that was me
strlen From: strlen Date: May 12th, 2008 06:02 pm (UTC) (link)

that doesn't conflict with my point

what do you define by "matter"? for some groups (read: not us, not most people) it does. but if it actually mattered for everyone,

1) is it ever really one person one vote?
2) is it even desirable for it to be one person one vote?
29 comments / leave comment