There is a thread on the PD talk page that will explain it, but I can't
seem to find the original.
Tarc was using a rhetorical device called "reductio ad absurdum"
It always backfires on the internet, since no one can tell the difference
between a real bigot and someone pretending to be a bigot in order to mock
bigotry. I would like to think I'm good at spotting sarcasm and
tongue-in-cheek statements, but I was fooled completely. I remember
thinking that Tarc's political views were not what I had thought them to
be. But as it turned out, he was the same old Tarc after all. The tactic
might have had the desired effect, and who knows, maybe tilted the case in
the direction that Tarc had intended. But people don't like to be fooled,
this kind of thing usually ends in hostility.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Tarc, I felt your "lipstick on a pig"
comment about a transexual was
not just disgusting, but was a key example of why we needed a WM-LGBT
user group to both highlight and gradually improve a hostile culture
on Wikimedia projects that appeared to allow blatantly anti-LGBT
attitudes and language on its projects under the guise of "being a
joke" or "teasing".
I stopped following any of the crap related to your defamatory
language, so if you apologised I missed it. If you did apologize,
could you give a link to it, or if not then maybe a thread here or
Wikimedia-l might be a good way of building some bridges with members
of minority groups that you took part in driving away from Wikipedia
through comments like this?
Hi Fae, Tarc wrote during or after the Chelsea Manning case that his
been a false-flag operation, intended to shine a spotlight on
transphobia. He acknowledged that this was not a good way to do it, and as
I recall he apologized.
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please