ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

SJWs are bitter about Infogalactic

One way you can be certain that Infogalactic already threatens the SJW's control of the cultural high ground that is the online knowledge base is the reaction of SJWs to it. I am reliably informed our old acquaintance and master of rhetoric, Cameltoes Freckeltongue, is bent out of shape about the fact that our editors are removing the ideological graffiti that litters many, if not most, Wikipedia entries.

I thought that you might like to know about Camestros's latest meltdown. He's posted about infogalactic and the science article editing out the "women in science" section. He uses this to claim you are erasing women's contributions to science, without of course the understanding that the inclusion of such would be motivated by feminist worldview, and irrelevant to science as practice and theory.

I do so love the smell of SJW outrage in the morning. Our email correspondent is correct, as it appears Cameltoes understands the difference between "science" and "political activism directed at science" about as well as he grasps the difference between "dialectic" and "rhetoric".
Voxopedia: where information about women goes to be erased

The erasure of women’s achievements in science is a known phenomenon, but it is rare that you get to see it happen in such a simple and direct way. Over at our new favourite train-wreck, Vox Day had been busy quite literally erasing women’s contribution to science.

This is the relevant Wikipedia page sub-section from the main ‘Science’ article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Women_in_science

The Voxopedia, sorry Infogalactic page has had the section removed: https://infogalactic.com/info/Science#Science_and_society
It's true, the "women in science" section has been deleted from the Science page. Why? First, because there is absolutely no case whatsoever that justifies its inclusion there. Second, because there is already a separate and detailed Women in Science page that is, quite correctly, devoted to the subject.

The topic "women in science" is an entirely separate subject than the topic of "science" for the same and obvious reason that the person sitting inside the car is not the car. Moreover, if "women in science" was a legitimate aspect of the topic "science", then literally every topic would obviously need a similar "women in x" section.

Otherwise, it would quite clearly be sexism, historical discrimination, and thoughtcrime to fail to devote a section to women for every entry from Art to Zoology, including, but not limited to, the Battle of Borodino, the Sicilian Vespers, Sun Tzu's The Art of War, and the page about Milo Yiannopoulos. Women were somehow involved in all those things, so there is no rational basis for which a "women in x" section can be justified for one topic and fail to be justified for another.

The real question is: Why was "women in science" ever part of the Science page in the first place? After all, there are no "Negroes in science" or "children in science" or "Native Americans in science" sections. There isn't even a "men in science" page addressing the unique concerns of men as they relate to the method, the profession, and the knowledge base of science.

The answer, of course, is that "women in science" is nothing more than an ideological intrusion by SJWs attempting to converge the very description and summary of science toward "the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice". They aren't genuinely concerned about either women or science. What concerns them is maintaining control of the flow of information and converging it to suit the Narrative as necessary, which is why Wikipedia's 531 thought police patrol the encyclopedia so relentlessly.

Infogalactic threatens that control and the SJWs know it. They're already past the Ignore phase and have entered the Mocking phase, which is remarkably fast considering that we only launched it one week ago. We'll know Infogalactic is firmly established when they do a 180 and go from mocking it as "Voxopedia" to denying I had anything to do with its success. Anyhow, if you'd like to help us shatter their control entirely, as we intend to do within the next 36 months, sign up for a subscription, buy a Planetary Knowledge Core t-shirt, or donate to Phase Two: Neapolitan Spoon.


Note to Infogalactic supporters: we had a highly productive Techstars meeting Monday night with 19 volunteers, and as a result of the considerable technical talent now available, we have decided to significantly modify the Roadmap. The modified Roadmap will be posted later today; check out Infogalaxians this afternoon if you're interested.

Labels: , ,

81 Comments:

Blogger Dirk Manly October 19, 2016 6:22 AM  

Last!

So the Wikipedians are going all trigglypuff. Excellent.

Blogger Balázs Varga October 19, 2016 6:32 AM  

If there is a women_in_x page, are there men_in_x page? Mind I would think its easier to just merge the two and say people_in_x and list all scientists there.

Blogger VD October 19, 2016 6:40 AM  

It's a page about Science. It's not a list of scientists. That would be a separate, and very large, page.

Anonymous VFM0265 October 19, 2016 6:47 AM  

This is very encouraging news, Supreme Dark Lord. Thank You for this update. It is good to know that our enemies are already bitter....next comes the "wailing and gnashing of teeth".

All Hail the Eventual Triumph,

Vile Bonecrusher #0265

Anonymous Stickwick October 19, 2016 7:12 AM  

It's obvious that stuff like "women in science" are just flags SJWs plant to mark what they consider to be conquered territory, because, as Vox said, they demonstrably don't care about these things for their own sake. And the degree to which SJWs get upset about a flag removal is probably a good indicator of how important the territory is to Western Civ.

Glad to see the impact Infogalactic is already having. I try to use it as much as possible.

Blogger VD October 19, 2016 7:18 AM  

It's obvious that stuff like "women in science" are just flags SJWs plant to mark what they consider to be conquered territory

Said the woman scientist....

Blogger Deplorable Gaiseric October 19, 2016 7:36 AM  

Stickwick wrote:Glad to see the impact Infogalactic is already having. I try to use it as much as possible.
Me too. It's been nice to switch as much as I can.

I do find that occasionally the server is quite a bit slower than Wikipedia's. And when I'm not in front of my PC, my wikipedia Android app is pretty handy. That's what it would take to completely cut my cord.

Blogger Phillip George October 19, 2016 7:40 AM  

The news is grim at JimStoneFreelance.com aka url: http://82.221.129.208/
it is looking more and more like they MH370'd Julian Assange. The photo as archival. It was nothing.

As fake a as CGI Hillary rally.

A world of Bataclan Theatres, and crisis actors at multiple not so random acts of violence. The Syrian confected crisis was a line too far. It has to blow back.

Diego Garcia?

I hope you all can make a difference. If you can't. Just look up. Like Daniel in a Lion's Den.

All science/ civilization and everything begins with the biggest scientific fact of them all. Jesus is Risen. It's the flag. Any museum, archive, library, repository needs that over the door and on the floor of the foyer. Every university began that way. They began with the definite article beginning.

Rest in Peace Julian. You did some hard yards indeed. Sorry for the ramble. A friend went down. Like David Kelly. cheers,

Anonymous Evstratios October 19, 2016 7:44 AM  

Vox, what a masterful stroke. Congratulations and god speed, indeed. From my limited poking around this week, IG is already superior and i am contentedly looking forward to the eclipse. Exponential growth of new ideas is exciting.

The insertion of 'women in science', generally, has been an unmitigated disaster. Cameltoe, of course, crying into his sheets. I can't tell you how embiggened i'm feeling this morning. Take no prisoners.

Objectivity and Truth, how trite.

Blogger P.T. Barnumium October 19, 2016 7:47 AM  

Well today marked a low point. I actually went to Cameltoe Felateyporn's blog to read this drivel at source...wow

I did notice one thing of note, among the general detritus. There are sections about puppies, sections devoted to image sites, endless desperate hagiographies to Vox, but nowhere on the site does there appear to be a section devoted to women in blogging. Not even one that denotes the contributions of women to that particular blog.

You hear about women being erased from blogging history but rarely do you see it so blatantly and clearly in real time.

Campytop Fappytron is clearly a mindless bigot, determined to wage war on women by excluding them from the site and raping their experiences by denying their existence. A disgraceful display of institutional abuse.

Makes you wonder what makes Cameltoes hate women so much?

Blogger Elocutioner October 19, 2016 8:04 AM  

@10 I think it's safe to conclude there are no 'Women in Fappytron.' And vice versa.

Blogger Erynne October 19, 2016 8:07 AM  

The success of these alternative websites is building evidence of the eventual push toward secession, which I think is the best way for the US to move forward when the politicians in a federalist society continually ignore the will of the people.

Blogger Salt October 19, 2016 8:23 AM  

In an update response to this post, (s)he unmasks - "but reminding people of historical discrimination might help"

That is an admission that such inclusion is for other purposes. SJWs cannot help themselves.

Blogger Alexander October 19, 2016 8:37 AM  

It's a rough time for SJWs in tech. They only just started licking their wounds from gamergate and now they've got Brave, Gab, and Infogalactic to deal with.

Blogger Lovekraft October 19, 2016 8:49 AM  

Let their snark slide off you like gnats buzzing around a lion, Vox. They are intellectually and morally stunted, so it is easy to ignore them.

I left a comment there asking where their tolerance was when non-PC/marxist submissions were made to wiki. Funny that it never made it to posting.

Blogger Lovekraft October 19, 2016 8:53 AM  

@ 12 Erynne: "The success of these alternative websites is building evidence of the eventual push toward secession, which I think is the best way for the US to move forward when the politicians in a federalist society continually ignore the will of the people."

I am currently conducting a test, an experiment if you will, of how to disentangle oneself from sjw co-workers (here in Canada, they still delusionally call themselves liberals).

Am posting the results as they come along.

Anonymous Elipe October 19, 2016 8:57 AM  

Alexander wrote:now they've got Brave, Gab, and Infogalactic to deal with.

Mere trickles dribbling down the dam through cracks. The dam will burst shortly. It'll be a new renaissance of science and tech, and there is nothing the SJWs can do except double down, maybe try to forcibly take control of the Internet via the government. Too bad Trump's (then his sons) gonna wipe as many of them out of government as he can.

Anonymous Silly But True October 19, 2016 8:59 AM  

On the other hand, the upside is even if one wanted to be complete about including all possible subject pages, the one for "Milo in women" would be a short one.

Blogger Alexander October 19, 2016 9:05 AM  

building evidence of the eventual push toward secession

Secession, or at least some sort of separation, is likely a necessity.

It is no longer sufficient: A west that is still in the "running" phase will find it as impossible to hold half the west as all the west.

Globalism delenda est.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable October 19, 2016 9:08 AM  

Sort of OT: Speaking of Castalia authors, have you seen the comments on Cameltoe's post? They're mostly concerned about whether Vox is Fenris Wulf, which I find absolutely hilarious.

Completely different voices, for one. Plus, there's zero chance Vox has the TIME to take on another persona.

Anonymous Basket of Deplorables October 19, 2016 9:14 AM  

Why is wikipedia so racist? Why are they dedicating a section to the contribution of women in science, but not the contributions of Sub Saharan Africans? What about the Arab and Indian contributions? Where is the section on the material contributions of Chinese to science? Why is wikipedia so racist? Don't they realize black lives matter?

I can understand IG's perspective that the page is about science, not the various interest groups that conduct science. No 'X in science' sections is neutral, but it is racist and offensive to have what amounts to 'white women in science', and not 'Africans in science'

Anonymous Basket of Deplorables October 19, 2016 9:17 AM  

If any of the Ilk are wikipedia editors, I think you should consider correcting some of the racism of wikipedia by adding some of the sections like 'Aboriginal Australians in science' sections. Making the SJWs delete SJW nostrums to avoid being absolutely ridiculous should be tasty and delicious.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 19, 2016 9:26 AM  

Does wiki deny the contributions to science of Laura Parsons?

Anonymous Miso Hawny October 19, 2016 9:30 AM  

IT'S STUPID AND WE HATE IT AND OH MY GOD DID YOU SEE WHAT VOX DID NOW??!?!!?!!?

Anonymous Longtime Lurker October 19, 2016 9:31 AM  

SJWs don't like competition. So the obvious questions is, what can they or Wikipedia do to stop IG?

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable October 19, 2016 9:32 AM  

AND INFOGALACTIC IS, LIKE, THREE GUYS. OR FOUR.

Anonymous Just another commenter October 19, 2016 9:34 AM  

So... This would be the lamentations of the women portion of what is best in life?

Anonymous Thales October 19, 2016 9:43 AM  

Oh, those salty, salty tears...

Anonymous arw October 19, 2016 9:46 AM  

The most appealing thing about Infogalactic is its reliability as an information hub. It's great going onto an online encyclopedia and reading the facts, rather than just some SJW's personal bias.

Anonymous Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus October 19, 2016 10:00 AM  

Basket of Deplorables wrote:If any of the Ilk are wikipedia editors, I think you should consider correcting some of the racism of wikipedia by adding some of the sections like 'Aboriginal Australians in science' sections. Making the SJWs delete SJW nostrums to avoid being absolutely ridiculous should be tasty and delicious.

There needs to be a section on the Fruitflies of Science. Fruitflies have made vast contributions to sciencey stuff.
And frogs. Don't forget the frogs.

Anonymous BGKB October 19, 2016 10:10 AM  

if "women in science" was a legitimate aspect of the topic "science", then literally every topic would obviously need a similar "women in x" section

Women in the Intergenerational Octopussy party video with HilLIARy, Chelsea, Ellen, Susan Rice, the Wise Latrina, Rosie O'Donnell, Trigglypuff,& Gloria Cohen-Goldstienberg.

, buy a Planetary Knowledge Core t-shirt, Its even available in GRapeRapeM size

Anonymous BGKB October 19, 2016 10:12 AM  

#8 your link saying Assange is dead also had

"BUSTED: EXTREME SLOPPINESS IN THE VOTE FRAUD

When you go to vote, all you have to do in some cases is check to see who is registered to vote at your address. The Democrats are so sloppy that they are using white people's houses to register Mexican illegal voters. This will also turn up dead people also, because at a minumum, the Democrats at least need an address to use, and in this case, PRACTICALLY ALL ADDRESSES WILL BE STOLEN FROM TRUMP VOTERS BECAUSE TRUMP WILL DOMINATE THE REAL ELECTION.

The following was posted to a popular forum:

A couple years ago I went into the polling place for my neighborhood. (California, so Demoncrap controlled). For those that dont bother to vote and don't know this, the way it works is, you check in with your address- not your name... odd, right?

Anyway, they thumbed through the printed out register, find my address and tell me to sign by my name. OK. But wait... I live with my wife and minor children, only my wife and I are registered to vote....But what's this, there are 4 (four!!) people registered to vote AT MY ADDRESS!

I notice the two fraudulent names are MY last name with Mexican first names- one was "Maria" with my last name. I asked them about it before I signed, they just ignored me until I got my camera out and tried to photograph the page. They freaked out, grabbed the logs and said I was breaking the law trying to photograph the page. - - - (MY INSERT: When this happens, SAY NOTHING. Just unexpectedly grab the log book and run out the door. MAKE SURE YOU GO TO VOTE IN GROUPS SO OTHERS CAN KICK THE POLLSTERS INTO THE DIRT, RATHER THAN HAVING THEM PURSUE. So what if the poll ends up shuttered over it. Then go to every address in the log book and have people confirm. - - -

Anonymous KPP October 19, 2016 10:27 AM  

One of the apps I have purchased for my iPad is an offline, lean version of Wikipedia. There are many such programs for both iOS and Android.

Someone get on this. I paid money for it and I'd pay money to replace it with an offline Infogalactic.

Anonymous Rolf October 19, 2016 10:27 AM  

@30 - Frogs in science? Now there is a pithy comment.

But seriously, they can't see the problem with a "women in X" entry, any more than they don't see the sexism in a university having a "women's center" but not a "man's center." They argue "well, because the whole place is a men's center because patriarchy!" but they cannot tell you where the men's safe space is, etc.

Anonymous EH October 19, 2016 10:32 AM  

Phillip George wrote:The news is grim at JimStoneFreelance.com aka url: http://82.221.129.208/

it is looking more and more like they MH370'd Julian Assange. The photo as archival. It was nothing.
[....]
Rest in Peace Julian. You did some hard yards indeed. Sorry for the ramble. A friend went down. Like David Kelly. cheers,


Yes it does seem more than suspicious that as far has anyone has reported, for days he has had no visitors, sent no mail, no tweets, no phone calls, no appearances at the window (even worse, appearance was reported but they used a file photo) and most of all that the first dead-man switch package was released. Now it is conceivable that Ecuador said he must do nothing that would impede Hillary from getting elected -- including communicating by any means -- or they will revoke his asylum. Of course that would be really dumb because of the dead-man's switch releases. Another possibility is that Assange is playing the legal/diplomatic attack by making it look like he's been offed. The weird story of Pamela Anderson bringing him a sandwich just before he went incommunicado seems theatrical, designed to excite speculation. OTOH IIRC more than one of his lieutenants went off the internet in the days just before Assange disappeared. Wikileaks is still posting and tweeting with no indication of Assange being dead or totally incommunicado. The deadman release is still up on their site. They're fighting the cyperpedo-Russian-spy frame-up. It may be that Assange is laying low for tactical reasons, among which is driving exactly this kind of speculation about his possible assassination. I sure hope so.

Blogger Timmy3 October 19, 2016 10:35 AM  

I can see Cars being a topic that could be feminized.

CARS => Women in Cars => Women Driving Cars => Women Modeling Cars => Women Attacking Cars => Women Procreating in Cars => Women Giving Birth in Cars.

Blogger Thucydides October 19, 2016 10:48 AM  

Love this. You are running a lean organization and getting far inside the OODA loop of the converged SJW media and social media, and hating them from multiple angles (Brave, Gab, Infogalactic), which is overwhelming their ability to respond.

*We* need to get the word out and get more support for these and other alt-right products and services. They cannot respond to a swarming attack, and the more channels we open, the greater the possibility of starting a preference cascade and overwhelming the system the Progressives, cultural marxists, globalists etc have erected.

Revolution 2.0 is the revolution of thought and action; *they* know how to use violence to take and destroy, *you* know how to create.

Blogger Zach October 19, 2016 10:48 AM  

Is Infogalactic planning to also take on the "sister" sites of Wikipedia like Wikiquote, Wikibooks, etc.?

Blogger Thucydides October 19, 2016 10:49 AM  

Oops. While "Hating" is entirely appropriate, I meant to write "hitting them from multiple angles"

Blogger eharmonica October 19, 2016 10:52 AM  

Entertainment Weekly just published a list of the 50 Most Powerful superheroes.

Guess who's #1?

Anonymous Jack Amok October 19, 2016 10:53 AM  

A "Women causing problems in science" section would be more relevant than a "Women in science" section. Tim Hunt and Shirtstorm...

Or, y'know, the article could focus on science. But for SJWs, the secret title of every article is really "The Importance of Social Justice and of Paying Attention To the People Who Talk About It In X".

Subtitled "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants, Screaming Nonsense in Their Ears"

Blogger hooter tooter October 19, 2016 11:08 AM  

I can preface my search with 'wiki' and get to the topic on wikipedia. Can't do that with 'info'.

There is no Mozilla add-on for installing infogalactic as a search engine.

Anonymous BGKB October 19, 2016 11:11 AM  

There needs to be a section on the Fruitflies of Science. Fruitflies have made vast contributions to sciencey stuff.

Pussys in science, dissecting feral cats in anatomy class.

Blogger VD October 19, 2016 11:12 AM  

If any of the Ilk are wikipedia editors, I think you should consider correcting some of the racism of wikipedia by adding some of the sections like 'Aboriginal Australians in science' sections. Making the SJWs delete SJW nostrums to avoid being absolutely ridiculous should be tasty and delicious.

While that would be funny, it would be strategically disastrous. As we frequently remind our Galaxians, we are OBJECTIVE. We are not a mirror-Wikipedia.

Is Infogalactic planning to also take on the "sister" sites of Wikipedia like Wikiquote, Wikibooks, etc.?

Think deeper.

Blogger VD October 19, 2016 11:15 AM  

*We* need to get the word out and get more support for these and other alt-right products and services. They cannot respond to a swarming attack, and the more channels we open, the greater the possibility of starting a preference cascade and overwhelming the system the Progressives, cultural marxists, globalists etc have erected.

That is exactly what we need all of you to do. Tell one person every day. If you're a subscriber, talk to one person about subscribing every week.

If every member of the Dread Ilk does that, Infogalactic will surpass Wikipedia's traffic within 36 months.

Blogger PastyWhiteBoy October 19, 2016 11:16 AM  

I want know why clown cars section is missing from the automobile page.

Anonymous Eric the Red October 19, 2016 11:22 AM  

The only reason SJW's may make distinctions (“discriminate”) on anything is because that's what the latest group-think consensus tells them to do. That is the only reason, because it's certainly not based on logic or internal consistency. Otherwise, they will make abstraction after abstraction and overgeneralize until everything is subsumed into the vast gaping maw of oneness otherwise known as the heat death of the universe. This is their unholy religion, and no amount of other peoples' death or destruction is going to stop them until they themselves are consumed in turn. These rancid excuses for humanity are on a path diametrically opposed to God making separations to fulfill Creation. Along with their master Satan they hate God and they hate Creation, and they will do everything in their power to destroy it.

(Meanwhile get with InfoGalactic and make those useful distinctions come alive again.)

Blogger Austin Ballast October 19, 2016 11:33 AM  

A "women in science" entry may have merit, but one focused on the issue of "women in X" instead of "science".

Not sure exactly how that page would be named.

It reminds me of the "women in engineering" push that has been going on for the last 35 years or more. You would think they would get a clue that it is not working.

Blogger Austin Ballast October 19, 2016 11:35 AM  

NFL question for Vox:

How does the success of Dak Prescott at the Cowboys fit your theories?

Not this thread, but the NFL is never off topic, so I wanted to throw the question in.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 19, 2016 11:37 AM  


Infogalactic threatens that control and the SJWs know it.


Imagine if pretty much your entire self-image was wrapped up in being an "information curator" for Wiki pages. You had the power to patrol the marches of your fief, to cast out heretics and unbelievers and badthinkers with a handful of keystrokes. You could preen from time to time, secure in the fact that you controlled the truth of "Women in Science".

Then along comes a gang of bandits and upstarts who create a duplicate of your fief and busily set about uprooting many of your most prized and cherished objects from it. And there was nothing, nothing, nothing you could do to stop them.

Forking Wikipedia actually strikes right at the root of the self image of many SJW's who "curate" there. Because it's no fun being the Lord of the Manor when no one ever comes there.

The worst thing is this: InfoGalactic may cause some Wiki editors to have to search for a new meaning, a new "thing".

They might even have to get a life.

Blogger Doom October 19, 2016 12:13 PM  

Bitter? Since they chose to be c**k s**kers, they had to know they would end up with a mouthful. Swallow and smile, it's... going to get worse. How much worse really depends on what they do next. The gig is up, or it's really up.

Anonymous Discard October 19, 2016 12:31 PM  

For the record, my 1960 World Book encyclopedia has a seven page article on the subject of Negroes.

Blogger VD October 19, 2016 12:31 PM  

Forking Wikipedia actually strikes right at the root of the self image of many SJW's who "curate" there.

Imagine that. What a fortuitous coincidence!

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 19, 2016 12:35 PM  

Truth for Christ and the Church. Well done, Galaxians.

Blogger Bodo Staron October 19, 2016 12:35 PM  

I always thought the English Wikipedia is pretty good, because I'm used to the German one. If you think SJW run amok in the English one, you have no idea.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 19, 2016 12:38 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:Subtitled "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants, Screaming Nonsense in Their Ears"

That's a brilliant turn of phrase.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 19, 2016 12:39 PM  

One of the apps I have purchased for my iPad is an offline, lean version of Wikipedia. There are many such programs for both iOS and Android.

Vox, is there anyone already on this? If not... I may have some questions.

Blogger S. Misanthrope October 19, 2016 12:54 PM  

As a woman in science, there's nothing I hate more than endless droning about "women in science." Good riddance.

Blogger Alexander October 19, 2016 1:01 PM  

@44

I believe he was referring to using "pygmies in science" as a way to Alinksy scorch earth, wikipedia, not a suggestion for Infogalactic."

It's not clear in your response whether you read it right.

For those of us that might have wiki accounts, would you consider diversifying their pages even further a strategic error?

Anonymous jack arcalon October 19, 2016 1:40 PM  

Hope there will be a wikimedia equivalent also.

Wikimedia's lawyers took down photos that I took and uploaded because of some sort of arcane copyright bolocks rules. The freer the better.

Anonymous dagwood October 19, 2016 1:56 PM  

"Entertainment Weekly just published a list of the 50 Most Powerful superheroes.
Guess who's #1?"

Will Smith, I assume.

But actually, I can't bear to go and look. Can you please just tell us, and spare us the eye-farts?

Anonymous Pseudotsuga October 19, 2016 2:00 PM  

Good ol' Cameltoe Fapotron-- always missing the trees because the forest in the way.
On the other hand, people like xim vote...

Blogger Demonic Professor El October 19, 2016 2:00 PM  

"Otherwise, it would quite clearly be sexism, historical discrimination, and thoughtcrime to fail to devote a section to women for every entry from Art to Zoology, including, but not limited to, the Battle of Borodino, the Sicilian Vespers, Sun Tzu's The Art of War..."

For those last three, I have it on good account from SJW-based media that sexy redheaded women in hott battlegarb were involved in all of those.

Nor can we forget the sexy redheads of Zoology!

Blogger VD October 19, 2016 2:01 PM  

Vox, is there anyone already on this? If not... I may have some questions.

I don't believe so. Contact rifleman@infogalactic.com. We'd LOVE to get you involved and a solid mobile app would be awesome.

Blogger JV Small October 19, 2016 2:01 PM  

VD

Glad to see the better curated InfoGalactic Page, and I know I'm off topic, but I have to ask.

What makes a SJW a SJW?

Is it something as simple as Genevieve Valentine's retcon of CatWoman into a bisexual, furthering their agenda, or is there more than just that?

Blogger Demonic Professor El October 19, 2016 2:05 PM  

Re: Rampaging Wikipedia

Messing with the transitives and prepositions of the section titles could be fun and relatively harmless.

Instead of "Women in Science" - Women From Science, Women of Science, Women on Science, Women to Science, and so forth.

Pass it off as being a bumbleheaded grammarian. Or pretend to be 15. Whichever works ;)

Blogger Alexander October 19, 2016 2:19 PM  

Re: Rampaging Wikipedia.

Don't even need to have any actual content.

Just because there's nobody or no accomplishment that really fits "Canadian First Nation Lesbian Muslims in Science," doesn't mean it shouldn't be included.

That's probably too LARPy though, and will fail like the durr hurr I'm a lesbian. But jamming popular wikipedia topics with broad categories with SJW-accepted people should be an easy fix.

- Women in {X}
- Muslims in {X}
- African Americans in {X}
- Hispanics in {X}
- LBGTBBQLOL+ in {X}

Get that into top 100 wiki pages and you've got a potentially brilliant troll.

Blogger Demonic Professor El October 19, 2016 2:46 PM  

@67

Less sabotage, and more deluge eh?

I like that tactic - overload them with their own filth. And best of all, it would be their exact rhetoric too.

It's better than just sabotage or writing "derpty derp" stuff in their entries...

Hahaha, I'm just imagining a Wiki page on, say, the Battle of Waterloo with different section headings for each category. Not factually inaccurate, just a tremendous table of contents.

Blogger eharmonica October 19, 2016 2:53 PM  

#1 is Wonder Woman.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 19, 2016 3:05 PM  

VD wrote:Imagine that. What a fortuitous coincidence!
SFWA, Tor Books, Hugos, Wikipedia, ...
And most of them didn't even make you really angry.

Remind me never to piss you off.

Blogger Alexander October 19, 2016 3:39 PM  

@68 Exactly.

A Normie goes to wikipedia to look up say, The Battle of Bunker Hill.

They then see a topic "Muslims at Bunker Hill." "Gays and Transexuals at Bunker Hill".

This shit shouldn't even be that hard to find: for decades now "How the West was won" texts have obligatory sections about how vital some black cowhand was, or how diversity in the US military has played a crucial role since 1776.

I bet you somewhere is an article or paper one could link to where some shitlib discusses the vital role of gays in the Revolutionary War.

Yes, the goal would be to force normie eyeballs to spin at the table of contents and the pablum that filled the section that was completely acceptable to SJW gatekeepers.

Blogger tim October 19, 2016 3:43 PM  

Hear, hear!!

Blogger Demonic Professor El October 19, 2016 4:13 PM  

Alexander wrote:This shit shouldn't even be that hard to find: for decades now "How the West was won" texts have obligatory sections about how vital some black cowhand was, or how diversity in the US military has played a crucial role since 1776.

I bet you somewhere is an article or paper one could link to where some shitlib discusses the vital role of gays in the Revolutionary War.


And those articles are all over, really. Dime a dozen, if you will.

Heh, I remember for a bit in the mid-2000s when they were PCDiversifying everything, that some history textbook was doing this in spades.

The best one was about the Texas Revolution, where they took pains to tell the reader that 70% of Texans were Mexican, or at least non-Anglo, and that they fought just as hard for independence as the American Texans.

My thought was: "Huh, doesn't this dispel that whole 'Texas was stolen' narrative, if it was what Mexicans wanted?"

Nevertheless, I haven't seen too much of the whole "Mexicans revolted too!" thing in the past few years.

Haha - also, what happens when all these sections show these Ayn Randian, chisel-jawed superheroes? "Ibrahim carried his sword to the Battle of Bennington...He later converted to Christianity and opened a saloon."

"Amy Cooper rescued her wounded husband while carrying an American flag at the Battle of (Insert Heights), 'for my house's father, for my country's his father!'"

Or somesuch like that, heh.

Also, one could have some fun with the Barbary Wars, where a bunch of slaves were liberated by the Americans...

Anonymous Ironsides October 19, 2016 4:29 PM  

I've been using InfoGalactic, and in fact haven't been back to Wikipedia since the new alternative was first announced here. I've also recommended it to several people, though I have no idea if they've been using it.

I'd like to recommend Brave, but I can't get it to work for myself. I used it 3 or 4 days, then it updated, and now I can't install it. Even if I eradicate every trace of it from the computer, restart, redownload, and try to reinstall, it gets to 50% installed and then crashes. I've written to the Brave people and heard nothing.

Does anyone here have any tips on how I can get Brave up and working again? I'd like to use it; it worked great while it worked. And I'd like to recommend it, but I can't while it's not working.

Thanks for any help!

Anonymous BGKB October 19, 2016 4:42 PM  

Bitter? Since they chose to be c**k s**kers, they had to know they would end up with a mouthful. Swallow and smile,

They make flavored condoms for oral sex.

"Entertainment Weekly just published a list of the 50 Most Powerful superheroes.
Guess who's #1?" Will Smith, I assume.But actually, I can't bear to go and look. Can you please just tell us


Eddie Murphy would have been a closer guess, given that WONDER if its a WOMAN won.

Anonymous Eric the Red October 19, 2016 5:15 PM  

The comments section on cameltoe fapfap is interesting. In his replies he nimbly changes definitions at the drop of a hat, depending on the critiquing comment. You see, sometimes women are oppressed minorities just like blacks, LGBTXYZ's, but on the wikipedia science page suddenly they are not because "women are everywhere". Categories and internal consistency are not SJW strong points, because, you know, equality and social justice and all that. No doubt there is a "decontextualized argument" in leftist academic theory to cover that as well.

Anonymous Eric the Red October 19, 2016 5:31 PM  

@76...(added comment)

You can tell the products of today's converged universities: leftist academic thought is intended to baffle the students with bullshit, overwhelm them and never give them time to coalesce their thinking and realize that leftism is nothing but category errors and inconsistencies and shifting power structures of the moment, all cloaked in pompous academia-speak to justify its own existence.

All that insanity is how Wikipedia came to be like it is today. Finally InfoGalactic can get back to consistent logic and empirical reality-tested exposition.

Blogger Fenris Wulf October 19, 2016 6:03 PM  

@20. I assume that Infogalactic was in development for a while and Vox was "Fenris" before he heard of me. If it creates mystery and confusion, I'm all for it. In fact, I've spent years creating a trail of obfuscations and false clues about my identity that would make the Senjak sisters proud.

Blogger Nobody In Particular October 19, 2016 6:30 PM  

It's clear that women in science can (and did) make valuable contributions. It's easy to cite half a dozen of really big names. This can probably even be reconciled, to some extent, with family life. The majority of the female scientists I know did not succeed at both science and family life, though (this can also be said of many male scientists).
What really poisons things is the current illiberal paradigm in which people are not judged on their own individual merit, but as members of a certain group. If group X doesn't succeed, it must be because of oppression, if they do, it must be because of their innate superiority (except for my own group, for which these judgments are reversed). Group X is held to be superior both because of its weakness (which means they need more help to succeed) and because of its strength (which is often shown by overcoming adversity, not by superior achievements).
It's not a coincidence that science's greatest successes were obtained in the 19th and early 20th centuries, an era of individualism and liberalism. Even for women, despite all the efforts, I don't think the frequency of female Nobel prize winners is significantly higher than a century ago.

Blogger Robert What? October 20, 2016 2:32 AM  

If every member of the Dread Ilk does that, Infogalactic will surpass Wikipedia's traffic within 36 months.

Vox, I hope you are right, but don't forget the WikiSpam that Google puts at the top of most of its search results. Personally I have stopped using Google in favor of DDG.

Blogger Roger G2 October 20, 2016 11:16 AM  

Laughing still. Love the smell of that sjw outrage in the morning do you?
They're losing their minds, and it's all too glorious.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts