By that I mean, they take the view that clique members are entitled to have whatever opinions they like, no matter how ridiculous or ill thought out, and if they're challenged, then it's perfectly acceptable for them to withdraw, effectively take their ball home, rather than defend their position.
Other members are not entitled to take any umbrage at this snowflakey attitude to the world. Despite them supposedly wanting to foster an atmosphere of mutual respect between participants who, quite naturally if the place is to serve any purpose, will have differences of opinion. Getting slammed by Wikipedia scumbags because the place looks like an echo chamber, isn't good for their rep.
By official policy, the pro-snowflake position, the people in that scenario who are actually being disrespected, having their time wasted by people unwilling to engage despite being on a forum designed for exactly that purpose, are not supposed to get annoyed.
They're supposed to be happy at simply having had the opportunity to point out one of the snowflakes was wrong, even though half the time this isn't fully possible when you're effectively not allowed to question them at all.
I'm a fair guy, I like to give people a chance to explain themselves, if it might possible their views are in error simply because they might not possess all the facts. Only when it becomes clear that they haven't thought out their position, would I declare them to be wrong. Escaping this outcome seems to be why the snowflakes just pick up their ball, rather than answer simple questions.
A classic example of Wikipediocracy enabled snowflake behaviour, is what Carrite did just before I was ejected from the island. But you can find other examples all over the shop, it is very common behaviour.
This is the full exchange.....
This little snowflake felt so threatened by the prospect of explaining how his statements could possibly be axiomatic, he wet his pants and ran away from the big bad wolf, hiding under the covers like a little boy, rather than admit he was wrong. Only after a condescending bit of spite first, although that's understandable - for most Wikipedians, the realisation they've wasted their life can be crushing.Randy from Boise wrote:
[Wikipedia is] actually not only not "useless," but (1) it is being actively used and reused to the point where it is ubiquitous, and (2) being successfully exploited by Google and other tech monoliths, (3) who are fully appreciative of the benefits ((a) free, (b) automatically updating, (c) legal deniability)...
No, there's not many facts there, and quite a few assumptions.
My axioms are your assumptions, I guess.
Other than the fungus like presence of Wikipedia, what's axiomatic about anything you said above? How would you even come to know Google's business strategy? It's sheer guesswork, born of a misguided perception of Wikipedia. The sad reality is, you have to believe this stuff, otherwise your years spent on the scribble pad were a complete waste.
You are absolutely right again.
Muted.
All he could offer before he began takeoff procedures, in response to a very simple question - indeed an obvious question given his own post - was an even more ridiculous statement, which doesn't even make sense. In true snowflake style, he apparently wants to have his own definitions for common English words like axiomatic, and blame others when they can't figure out their snowflake frame of mind. An axiom, is of course something every reasonable person could and would agree was true. It's not a matter of debate or opinion.
I guess the question I want answering is, why do they do it? What does this pro-snowflake policy do for them? Do they look any more convincing as critics? Clearly not - whose gonna believe people who evidently don't have enough belief in their own views to defend them against challenge from within their own site from fellow critics, let alone explain them in a way that makes sense to people not suffering from the sort of mental retardations necessary to belief them.
Wikipedians must be overjoyed when they see so called critics like this so easily losing the courage of their convictions, so readily acting like cowards in the face of challenge from within. It means they, the real enemy, don't even bother to join them in battle, anywhere. It's no surprise then that the leading lights of Wikipediocracy are largely ignored by Wikipedia - not because it is too dangerous for them to push back, lest they be exposed, but because it's simply not necessary, the nominal critics of Wikipediocracy come across as simply too pathetic to pose any kind of threat at all.
In this post, Carrite was actually cheerleading for Wikipedia, as he does quite often because he's a proper little addict. I was the only person to push back against this obvious garbage, because it is toxic to let it go challenged, if your aim is serious criticism. And yet it's me they ejected, apparently because the snowflakes all rose up in an epic whinge, claiming that if Zoloft didn't push me out, they would walk. The defender of the snowflakes of course did what he's always done and surrendered, because he is an avid believer in this pro-snowflake position.
It's crap like this which quite easily explains why Wikipediocracy routinely fails to attract any new members. Not sane ones, anyway - a couple of extra snowflakes have attached themselves in recent years, Kingsindian being the most obvious example.
Kingsindian leaves any topic at the drop of a hat if he believes he's about to be proven wrong. Treats it like some kind of human right, the fucking tool. He has the right, sure, he just doesn't seem to understand it's why nobody cares to listen when he's supposedly writing blog posts people are supposedly meant to be awestruck by, as if they marked the Return of Wikipediocracy. Ha. They can see he's not doing it to stir debate or make a compelling point, it's just another snow-shower.
The Devil's Advocate has had a devil's job over on Auggie's forum getting Kingsindian to conduct himself properly and not be such a snowflake, but he has failed, of course. This is likely a driving reason behind his entirely voluntary choice to stay away from Wikipediocracy, where snowflakes are actively supported by the management, allowed to be all the snowflake they really want to be, unmolested by the normal rules of debate/discourse.
It completely destroys any credibility they presumably think they have when making statements they want others to believe. But of course, snowflakes lack the sort of world view to appreciate that. They live in their own little world. It must be pretty in there, with all that snow to look at.
