No, wild vegetation doesn't behave very much like a cornfield, that's the point. An oak tree binds up carbon for much, much longer. Thus you don't get the same wild swings.

Honest question LynnwoodRooster: Are you, in any way, paid for promoting particular views?

There's another effect. That is that the one side is already doing something pretty evil, and they know it. That makes it easier for them to be evil in their PR activity too. If you've decided to root for the bad guys for some reason, you're probably not going to worry about fighting clean.

It's no coincidence that astroturfing really took off with the tobacco industry.

You could still have some fun by flipping a few magnets, and watching the ripples spread as a wave throughout the universe

There's got to be at least a novelty toy hidden in this idea.

The reviews of the hotel are almost certainly being outrage spammed already. What's interesting is the reviews before this.

Add to that the increasing hard dependencies, like with window managers that expect systemd to offload session management and login onto and I'm not sure how feasable holding out on systemd is anymore.

Well, this is developers voting with their feet, isn't it?

More likely multiple graphs, since "skills" are abstract categories, and abstract categories are made things that ever knowing subject creates for themselves, with only approximate overlap between them. So what I mean by "interpreted language" and what you mean by "interpreted language" are going to overlap substantially, but we will draw the edges of our attention differently. Some borderline cases you will call "interpreted" and I won't, and vice versa.

That's a problem ten times more subtle than the problems they already have. I wanted to see if they had the skill "four-part choral harmonisation". It's art, right? But right away there's a problem. Performing music is a performing art, but writing music is not a performing art. They put composition under art-performing art-music-composition, and what's under composition?

Only one thing. Score reading. Which is obviously not a more specific skill of composition.

the whole thing about trading favourable reviews for sex

Ah, that thing. Tell me, where is it? I gave you the link, so now please tell me where exactly he says it.

(Hint: he doesn't. Nowhere in it does he say anything about reviews at all. This was a masterful case of the "denying something else" media narrative strategy, the equivalent of strenously and truhfully denying that you murdered anyone when what you're accused of is theft. You can only pull it off if the media is really on your side.)

rant

Judge for yourself. No, not you serviscope minor, anyone else reading. (You're a lost case, as are most people who strongly committed to a position without researching it).

dumped

He dumped her, in fact.

got banned form many forums

Ah, he must have been guilty, otherwise he would not have been punished.

Its not about what its OK to be offended about: its that THREATS of EXTREME VIOLENCE are not okay.

And no one says they are. But if you get an anonymous death threat,

1. you don't get carte blanche to assign the blame for the threat to any group or movement disagreeing with you, and

2. you don't get to conflate this with the "harassment" of people loudly disagreeing with you on twitter. It is not the same thing at all.

for being women ... for being men.

Who are you who have insight into the ultimate motivations of harassers?

I have as a basic assumption that men are no better than women, and vice versa. If there's some way of being evil that's dominated by one sex, then you can assume that is not for lack of evil in the other sex, but rather that they have some other way of living out their malice.

It's a doctrine of faith in some circles, that you should not only believe the victim, but not question the victim's interpretation of events. If she says the motive of her harassers is that she's a woman, then you're a monster for questioning that (even if the "harassers" deny that it was harassment, and assert other motivations for it.) This is obviously and blatantly abused in "social justice" circles on the internet.

Let's NOT take gamergate as an example. Let's take the Requires Hate drama instead - there you have identity feminists on both sides, both sides claiming to represent the true, unsubjugated, authentic feminism, defender of all minorities. There's this hate blogger, Requires Only that you Hate, who has a long history of "criticizing" fantasy authors, stalking them for years, saying they deserve to be raped by dogs and have acid thrown in their faces etc. She used to get away with it for a long time. Why? Because she always claimed to "kick upwards". If you're a man, you're obviously fair game. If you're a white lesbian feminist, you're fair game too. If you're an asian, you're still fair game if you are "diaspora". You're mixed race? well fuck you, appropriating scum! Don't you dare write about your minority parent's culture!

Now, she was "doxxed". Her identity (or rather, her literary pseudonym, as opposed to the blogging one) was exposed by a friend of hers - she is a well-known Thai writer - and people started assembling the pieces. It looks like she has systematically targeted competitors. Especially competitors in the niche of "writing for the oppressed". More and more people come forward with stories of whisper campaigns she's waged, open hostility, stalking for years, online community after online community that has went down in flames from her warfare. And she has been at this for almost 15 years.

How? By saying the right things, with unshakeable conviction. By using the social justice people's own rule about "tone policing" - that you're not allowed to protest against the ways an "oppressed person" lashes out at her "oppressors". For over a decade she's played them like a fiddle, for personal gain and personal satisfaction. The social justice people's beliefs have a hole in them wide enough that a psychopath can drive right through it with a truck and set up shop. The "cheap moral glow" of siding with someone righteously proclaiming their oppression, was a tool she used to build an army that could make a talk radio host green with envy, to sic on people who fell afoul of her or competed with her.

I've said "her" throughout. But technically, we don't even know that. So even for the purpose of protecting/advancing minority women, the SJ crowd's own principles fail disastrously. There's no reason to think Requires Hate even believed in the rhetoric she was spouting.

Now, I said let's not use Gamergate as an example. But let's, now. Most of anti-gamergate missed one rather important thing: the initial post was a callout of a similar nature.

The ex-boyfriend of Zoe Quinn had story to tell about infidelity, emotional abuse and cynical career promotion - he told it because he had come to the same conclusion that the social justice folks in SF/Fantasy now believe about Requires Hate - she may not even believe those things, she certainly uses them with extreme cynicism for selfish ends.

And is he right about that? Judge for yourself. But the echo chamber, and the media's smear campaign (probably motivated by the media's desire to cover their own ass - they don't come off looking to good from the zoe post) has made sure that most don't even know that it started with a warning about an abusive person.

That's the kind of ad-hoc solution that doesn't work, and people have actually been using math to find better ones. Go tell it to your dope fiend buddies.

Selective enforcement is the name of the game. For just about anything disagreeable, you can find a rule to banish from wikipedia - as long as you know the game and have the clout.

All content that is of no political or economic importance, they would rather see on Wikia. Wikia is for profit, they can make money off your work there. That is, in a nutshell, why wikipedia is deletionist.

On wikipedia proper, the only reward they get is being able to control narratives. Wikipedia policies give plenty of wiggle room to include and exclude certain facts and frame things to one side's benefit, especially if you're an insider in their culture, know how to play their game. Thus, controversial issues that people are likely to search for will never be out of scope for wikipedia.

"Held accountable for what? This total free resource I can use with no strings attached"

Have you noticed something? Wikia is wikipedia's sister project, but it is for profit, unlike Wikipedia. Wikia has an immensely high google rating. If you make a wiki about a specific topic on your own site, spend a long time building it up, some random person making a wikia wiki with the same name will easily outrank you in google searches.

If your project started out on wikia, woe to you. You can come in, but you can never leave. If you tire of the ads, and the people who worked on making the wiki decide to move to a private server, you will be forever fighting your abandoned wikia wiki in Google rankings. They won't let you take it down. They won't even let you link to the new wiki. Even if every single person who ever worked on the wiki supports the move, an admin from Wikia will swoop in and put a stop to it.

And over on wikipedia, "deletionists" won long ago. One of the main reasons they won is that content that's forced off wikipedia and over to Wikia, is pure profit for Wikipedia's owners.

these guys have to deal with and moderate with various personalities and entities constantly trying to pervert Wikipedia

They are their own worst enemy in that regard.

Possibly the reason nobody pays attention to them is that they are good at not being seen, not being acknowledged, and coordinate in private to suppress dissent and present a common front. It's always "wikipedia is against you", not "the steward is against you".