Jump to content

Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rolloffle (talk | contribs) at 21:20, 25 December 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Attention: This page has been on VFD three times:

Is it Gaynigger or Gay Nigger

Please, if this so-called 'organization' cannot even pay correct homage to the film from which it derives its name, then I just don't know if I can believe anything else it claims it stands for.


Acronym question

It says in the article that GNAA is probably derived as a parody of RIAA/MPAA. Well, is it? Goat-see, you claim to be a member, can you verify the veracity of this claim? --ZeLonewolf 14:52, 11 May 2004 (UTC) d,[reply]

No it isn't. This claim is bogus and not endorsed by Timecop himself. Goat-see 20:27, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rv to the neutered version

We already had a discussion. Read the VFD remarks before you keep fucking with our entry.Goat-see 02:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Delete debate

Archived delete debate: Template:VfD-GNAA

Another incident of a VfD: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America Goat-see 16:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New comment

This was an obvious vanity entry. The "leaders" section was really over the top. I don't even think a page like this belongs on wikipedia, however, I trimmed the entry down to remove the vanity stuff.

I also removed the racist and obvious shock sites from the entry. None of that information is necessary for informational value.

In summary, it's a self-aggrandizing entry by trolls for trolls.

I think the last couple of edits were throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I agree however about the leaders section. See GNAA paragraph on Slashdot trolling phenomena. Does this article add to that? --ZeLonewolf 20:43, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Current VFD and rv war

Do not eliminate pages, even to replace with a redirect without discussion. I have placed the page on VFD so as to have a meaningful discussion about the merits of this article. Please direct comments there and refrain from further edits until such time as agreement has been reached.

On a side note, I don't think Slashdot Trolling Phenomenon is an appropriate place for more than a cursory discussion about GNAA, that place belongs here, though I think substantial cleanup is neccessary. --ZeLonewolf 17:37, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Older Comments

This page is NOT to be reverted any further than the changes made by myself (CptChipJew) on 04-22-2004.

This GNAA exists, not to mention how foolish you look to say that "we're not wiki worthy" when at the same time we are mentioned on Slashdot Trolling Phenomenon, and nobody contests that page.

I'm sorry if you have some bone to pick with GNAA. If you're really that bothered, then talk to us and stop defacing our wiki entry.

channel #GNAA at irc.gnaa.us

Sorry. Wikipedia is not a vanity website. Thanks for mentioning the entry on Slashdot Trolling Phenomenon: I'm not sure that a tiny group of self-publicists even belongs there. -- The Anome 21:47, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'tiny'. The GNAA has well over 50 members now, and has carried out numerous trolling activities. A simple Google search will show that we are well-known in the Slashdot and blogging communities.

(n) chan

GNAA was only affilliated with the 4chan flood. Any other rumors are untrue. GNAA did NOT flood 7chan. GNAA did NOT flood 5chan. ONLY 4chan.

Um, you should've read closer. The sentence is "notably, a copycat flood was subsequently carried out on 7chan.". That's not saying that the GNAA flooded 7chan. That's just saying that someone (someone UNSPECIFIED) did a copycat flood afterwards.
Hrm. I see. It was very ambiguous however, I will edit in with clarification -- Goat-see 17:08, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Tiger

Do you think it'd be relevant to make note of the recent GNAA "fake-but-not-actually-fake" Tiger screenshots troll at Macrumours? Dysprosia 08:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. As a GNAA member this is a pretty big troll: our website traffic has increased by a factor of 5 to 10. I just haven't figured out how to incorporate this into the wiki entry yet.

Moving it back to Gay Nigger....

Since it has become somewhat mainstream with the Tiger leak shouldnt it be moved there instead of having (Slashdot) after it? It can no longer be justified since it isnt just a slashdot phenomena anymore. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:03, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)

I agree. Sam [Spade] 20:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Finished the move. Was a bit tricky though:

  1. Moved Gay Nigger Association of America to Gay Nigger Association of America/old and Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America to Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/old
  2. Deleted Gay Nigger Association of America and Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America which were then redirects
  3. Moved GNAA (Slashdot and Talk:GNAA (Slashdot) to Gay Nigger Association of America and Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America

--Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:42, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

my, impressive. Good work looking out for all those gay niggers out there... ;) Sam [Spade] 05:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well gay niggers need attention and care like everybody else. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:20, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
yeah, that troll was damned impressive. ✈ James C. 00:40, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Message To Wikipedians

The GNAA now has over 50 active members. There are smaller groups of people with Wikipedia entries that are never debated. For those that feel this is offensive, welcome to the world of free speech. And on that note, do no longer deface this article, as it is our privelage to keep it.


-JesuitX. Vice-President of GNAA

wasn't this issue settled many weeks ago? ✈ James C. 17:13, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

-Rucas (GNAA Member)

The name may be offensive to some, but there are plenty of equally offensive things on Wikipedia. Please proceed to muddle with their articles and leave ours alone. Thank you. Dominotree 06:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Goat-see's recent edits

why were Goat-see's recent edits reverted? i saw nothing wrong with his additions.✈ James C. 01:14, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

SilentCrs' repeated PoV edit insertions

"SilentCrs" has twice now edited the article to make PoV edits and dilute the information in the article. One such edit. Example quotes:

While the group has their own website, the "truth" of their statements (even about their number of members and leaders) is questionable, much like the "truth" on the comedic Daily Show.
GNAA encourages people to "join" by watching the racist 1992 Danish low-budget movie Gayniggers From Outer Space
Its members have produced several "shock" sites. They have "created" a number of trolling software "tools" that are actually derivatives of public domain trolling projects. GNAA "additions" to the code of this software is often buggy, and it's questionable if anyone outside or even within the group uses the software.

Emphasis mine in the second paragraph. The second sentence of the third paragraph is a flat-out lie. There are further inaccuracies following it. While I'd agree that the entry as it was was a bit excessive, SilentCrs' is devaluing its encyclopaedic quality.

--170.224.224.134 22:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SilentCrs is attempting to "meta-troll" - troll the trolls. He fails it. The Apple screenshots were out several DAYS before WWDC, GNFOS isn't racist, it's sexist, he OBVIOUSLY hasn't been in the irc channel, which currently shows Total of 49 nicks [15 ops, 2 halfops], etc, etc, natter, natter, IHBT, IHL, *runs home to mommy and cries*.

While i've seen some good meta-troll action in my time, this is by far the worst. I encourage SilentCrs to, you know, try to troll, as opposed to coming up with complete dogshit. adequacy-style trolling went out of style with the demise of adequacy.org, get with the times. 

--Goat-see 16:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is true - silentcrs fails it totally. Luv2Troll

Facts

My responses to SilentCrs' will be enclosed in this box to differentiate them from goat-see's objections. Executive summary: while I agree that the entry as it was may have been excessive, SilentCrs' edits have only served to devalue its encyclopaedic value. --170.224.224.134 22:57, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Gay Nigger Association of America, or GNAA, is a looseknit trolling group originating on Slashdot. While the group has their own website, the "truth" of their statements (even about their number of members and leaders) is questionable, much like the "truth" on the comedic Daily Show.

That's this fellows opinion.
Sorry, but it's true. How can you say there's truth to any of your statements when your webpage mentions purchasing SCO?
Satire. Humor. Comedy.
Agreed, SilentCrs, this paragraph of your edit is nonencyclopaedic. It includes an irrelevant reference and bash of the "comedic" Daily Show, and if you think the website is an attempt to deceive, why not say so and explain why instead of using hedging quote marks? Additionally, it's quite obvious that the GNAA site is a spoof. So where is the problem in having statements on the GNAA site referring to such things as a GNAA purchase of SCO? This entry doesn't state that the site is genuine or renowned for its veracity.

GNAA encourages people to "join" by watching the racist 1992 Danish low-budget movie Gayniggers From Outer Space, as stated by their site. Additional "requirements" are questionably diverse and often change from entree to entree. At times, the "leaders" will test entrants with whatever means they see fit.

GNFOS is not racist, it's sexist. Getting FP was always a requirement, and the GNFOS test was added recently and is simply evolving as all the kinks of an automatic testing system are worked out.
"Gay niggers" is a racist phrase, right off the bat.
no. "nigger" is a racial slur, technically, but in any neighborhood with black/african-american presence, they call each other "niggas", which isn't racist.
Agreement with goat-see; the term "nigger" is not used judgementally or pejoratively in this context and so is perfectly permissible. Even if it were judged racist by some, that does not automatically make this entry unworthy. There are numerous other entries which use the word "nigger" in a descriptive context. Additionally, SilentCrs' has pointed to no content in the film to prove his statement that it is racist. Even if it were, that is peripheral and not particularly relevant to the entry.

GNAA first appeared in January 2003, trolling Slashdot using new ASCII logos representing the organization and "press release" pertaining to the contents of Slashdot articles. Trolling activities also include prank calls of registration and technical support phone lines and IRC channel flooding. System administrators have widely banned IPs associated with the group as a countermeasure.

"widely banned"? No. Slashdot bans anything that gets too many -1 moderations in a short period of time.
We're not talking Slashdot here. We're talking about the hundreds of IRC sysops that've killed incoming connections from known GNAA trolls. Would you like the logs?
hundreds? You mean efnet, where most servers respect k-lines as g-lines? or where you get k-lined for trying to join #GNAA automatically? Also, I run the irc.gnaa.us ircd and i've had to kill incoming connections from known anti-gnaa trolls. If you were to come on the irc, you'd immediately find yourself klined. Your point?
Who are these hundreds of IRC sysops? How do they recognise a "known GNAA troll" when it's trivial to change IRC nickname, ident, host? Or is this a PoV falsehood?

Its members have produced several "shock" sites. They have "created" a number of trolling software "tools" that are actually derivatives of public domain trolling projects. GNAA "additions" to the code of this software is often buggy, and it's questionable if anyone outside or even within the group uses the software.

This "ostentatiously" "quoted" piece of so-called "fact" is, again, 100% bullshit. I myself have witnessed and aided the debugging of NEW FLOODING TOOLS. The only public-domain trolling project that we've modified was Shitstorm.pl and what we did was rewrite it in python. It's also your opinion (not fact) that our code is buggy (have you actually run it?)
Yes, and I've talked to people who've delved into the code. The vast majority laugh at your attempts to use python to begin with. It's crashes hard when admins make even the slightest change to their comment-submission system.
No shit! Who'd have thought that CHANGING a specifically-targeted piece of code *might cause* a tool that is expecting an identical environment to FAIL? Here comes the clue-train, last stop : you.
Which GNAA projects are "derivatives of public domain trolling projects"? Is code actually copied from these PD projects to GNAA tools?

GNAA has also created the music track "Punjabi Extreme", featuring an Indian-style dance beat with samples taken from their troll phone calls made to AOL, and the "Hey, everybody! I'm looking at gay porno!" voice from Last Measure. While meant to be humorous, its comedic value is questionable.

I thought it was funny as hell. You must be easily offended.
"Offensive" has nothing to do with "funny". Things can be very offensive while being funny. The song isn't even close to being funny.
Opinion, POV, etc. I've played the song to a group of high-school freshmen who laughed at both the AOL trolls that made up the song and the song itself. Obviously this is completely subjective. Stop trying to vent your opinion into a public forum.
The pre-SilentCrs article makes no comment on the music track's humour value. Therefore, adding the remark "While meant to be humorous, its comedic value is questionable." is gratutious and PoV, especially as others may find the music track amusing.

In June of 2004, scripts were written to flood the website 4chan, but their use mostly ceased after the GNAA received news that the flood was costing 4chan owner "moot" a significant amount of money (although it's quite obvious that members of the GNAA had this as a goal, from IRC logs). Despite this sudden halt, the attack greatly precipitated 4chan's demise. Notably, a copycat flood on 7chan was carried out by another "entity" to try to "implicate" the GNAA, although it has been postulated that it was simply GNAA members attacking from a different source.

Hooboy. (more quoting? gay). Can you show me IRC logs saying that GNAA's 4chan flood was intended to cost moot money? I didn't think so. The 7chan flood was NOT affiliated with GNAA. No GNAA member claimed in public to have done it, whereas the 4chan flood was covered with GNAA references.
You want logs, I'll show them. I don't think the talk place is the appropriate place to put them, but ok.
feel free to email them to [email protected]
Again, proof is necessary for this. There is no publicly available evidence that the purpose of the GNAA flood was to cost "moot" any significant amount of money. While it was plain that the GNAA was responsible for the 4chan attack, what proof is there for the 7chan attack?
what a beautiful puple border. a feast for the eyes! ✈ James C. 23:33, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

SilentCrs' edits from a non-troll perspective

Basically they're crap. They do dilute a perfectly decent article. I don't particularly like the GNAA, btw, and kind of thinks it's silly, but this doesn't change the POV being introduced into this article by User:SilentCrs. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with speedy deletion

As an african-american who regularly contributes to wikipedia, this is highly offensive. This is nothing short of a bunch of trolls adding an entry for shock value. It does not belong here. This seriously degrades the professionalism shown elsewhere on this site. --69.20.9.201

As a Norwegian and probably somewhat celtic derived Icelander currently living in south scandinavia i find this higly factual and appropriate, it is valid article about a lame trolling organization which happens to have a ( to some ) offensive name. I do not think that it degrades the professionalism shown elsewhere on the site to cover this topic along with all the others from a neutral point of view. But in any case it is not a candidate for speedy deletion, see Candidates for speedy deletion for what is considered a candidate. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:49, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Protected page

In reverse chronological order, 216.27.178.156, 212.184.72.34, 69.93.172.10, 129.21.147.219 all vandalised this page. Every time like clock work, I posted the following message on the anon IP talk page. Everytime, the IP changed. In response, User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason protected the page from editing. Just when I was starting to have fun in a cyclical loop of edits. -- user:zanimum

Hi there,
Wikipedia reports what's what in the world around us, no matter what is in the world around us.
While I don't personally like this organization myself, it's not an encyclopedia's call to say what is wrong and what is right.
Encyclopedias should just step back, and record what is happening in the world, so future generations have records.
Sincerely
user:zanimum

This was just left on my talk page: I understand, but this has no meaning. As an african-american, I am extremely offended by senseless entries only meant for shock value. I contribute (although I don't have an account) some to wikipedia, and this is just a slam to me, my family, and all others of african descent. I would greatly appreciate it if you put the GNAA (Gay N*gger Association of America) entry up for deletion and let the voting process take its course. Thank you.
So, what happens now? The VfD just ended a vote 6 Sep 2004, to keep the offending article. -- user:zanimum
It will not be relisted, once something passes VFD it does not go there again, unless the grounds on which it was voted for have changed, which they have not - the page stays.
And whatever your or my opinions on this page you're not helping anyone by engaging in blunt vandalism on it. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:12, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
This page is now listed on protected pages. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:01, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Wow

Protected status for an entry that serves no purpose other than shock value? I thought wikipedia was above such nonsense..

What else are we to do? If it's notable and well-written, we're stuck with it. Unless someone can find a loop-hole, it's here to stay. -- user:zanimum
If you have a problem with this page i suggest you pursue more effective methods of improving it/removing it than acting like someone with a mental capacity lower than the average member of the organization in question;=) -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:04, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Cause we enjoy stupid edit wars that spill into other pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The GNAA is *real*, and the article is not for shock value, although some racist or otherwise unenlightened people might find the word "nigger" to be shocking.

recent events section needs to be brought back in by whoever deleted it. see previous edits for example.

done -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:10, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

I agree that this is racist bullshit, but unfortunately, it's a real thing in the real world (as real as the Net is.) It would be like deleting the Holocaust article. RickK 06:30, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • I still believe that this "organization" is not noteworthy enough to warrant its inclusion in an encyclopaedia. (As I said earlier, Wikipedia is not Hate Watch.) This is the opinion of a majority of Wikipedia users. But further requests for deletion are not likely to succeed because of the user accounts created for the sole purpose of creating and keeping the article. As such, there is very little to be done - at the moment, at least. -- Mike Rosoft 14:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    For the last time, the GNAA doesn't hate minorities. In fact, such people aren't allowed in the organization. We make disruptive, racist and anti-semitic comments for the purpose of subverting social norms and ridiculing people's political convictions, among other reasons. Humor is a large part of it. Making fun of society's stereotypes is humorous. Why is it OK to make fun of white male culture in this country but not OK to make fun of gooks, jews or niggers? You can call us racists all you want, but you're being narrowminded. The real racists are the people who think it's OK for a black person to use the word "nigger", but not OK for a white person to, or that "affirmative action" or all-black colleges isn't racism, but Lord of the Rings having an all-white cast is. Or that killing somebody because he was sleeping with your wife isn't a "hate crime" but suddenly becomes one if his skin color isn't the same as yours. The real bigots are the people who play the "anti-semitism" card anytime somebody criticizes Jewish Zionism or brutal Israeli policy. So before you criticise the GNAA as being "racist", perhaps you should take a hard look at American culture and tell me who the real bigots are. GNAA Popeye 16:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Re: your comments
      1. Making fun of people is one thing. Hate speech is a completely differnt one one.
      2. Saying "nigger" is wrong as long as it offends the person it is directed at, whether or not you are white.
      3. I do not approve of affirmative action or of Israel's actions in the conflict with Palestine.
      4. I DO approve of hate crime legislation.
      5. I am not American. - Mike Rosoft 11:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Re: Re: your comments
        1. The GNAA does not hate minorities, for the last time. Get it into your head. We sometimes mimic race-hate groups, but only to parody or otherwise lampoon them. I frankly don't care if what we say could be considered "hate speech" because the term is ambiguous and designed to enforce a habitual mental pathway. What exactly the hell is "hate speech", anyway? Suppose George goes to work with a man he doesn't like very much - let's call him "Bob". If, after work, George tells his friend, "Bob was really annoying today. He didn't help with my project at all, and he talked loudly in my cubicle the whole time. He also smells horribly. Now that I think about it, I hate Bob!" Is the preceding comment hate speech? George says he hates Bob; how could it be any clearer? Now, would saying something like that get you arrested in the Czech Republic? Probably not. So "hate speech" obviously doesn't mean what it seems to mean, that is, stating you hate something or someone. No, "hate speech" is nothing but a propaganda term used by politicians and other weasels to try to censor people they don't agree with. It's supposed to invoke feelings of disgust and loathing towards the perpetrators, yet, paradoxially, the idea that feeling hatred - for anything - is somehow morally repungnant, or that the "haters" are something less than human. In other words, the concept of "hate speech" was invented as a tool to encourage hate. And outlawing "hate speech" would be a very dangerous thing. Sure, it may be OK when it doesn't conflict with your views, but what happens when people who don't share your particular definition of what "hate speech" constitutes come into power? In the United States there was a recent incident where, during a fundraiser for the Kerry campaign, Whoopi Goldberg made a sexually-suggestive joke about George Bush. This benign event was suddenly turned into a "Hollywood hate-fest" by Republicans and much of the media. This example can be easily extrapolated to the larger political scene, where there isn't a week that goes by without some politician referring to his opponents' rhetoric as "hate speech". I am the victim of hateful speech all the time, but I guess I'm not Jewish enough for the government to come rushing to my aid. For example, I get into arguments frequently with street preachers at my university who tell me I'm "going to hell" for being an atheist. Telling people they deserve eternal torture for their beliefs is the most hateful thing you can say. I'll be damned, though, if I'll let their right to say those things be taken away. Freedom is always a two-way street.
        2. Oh, so saying things that offend people is wrong? Let's see. You have explicitly stated earlier that you think "hate speech" should be illegal, and you have accused myself and the GNAA numerous times of practicing hate speech. This incorrigible disdain of my freedom to speak offends me greatly. Furthermore, I'm sure if I got to know you better I could find at least ten additional things about you that offend me. Perhaps you should cease doing these things since they offend me so much. What's that, you say? You won't stop? Then, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is what's known as a double standard. Listen, I'm not going to stop saying "nigger", and the fact that you or anyone else is offended by it will never change that. I don't let others dictate what I can and can't say. Period. Most people don't think "nigger" is offensive, anyway - so long as a nigger is saying it. That is a racist point of view to hold.
        3. Good for you, but that wasn't the point. The point was that Jews will often dodge the issues by accusing anyone who doesn't agree with Israeli policy of being an anti-Semite. It's all part of the Zionist effort to use the holocaust tragedy and past violence towards Jews as an excuse to murder people.
        4. Why don't you get a clue. Almost all crimes of violence are "hate crimes", since it usually requires a great deal of hate to want to hurt people. Making punishments for crimes against minorities or other select groups harsher than crimes against anyone else is a racist and bigoted policy.
        5. Maybe not, but it wouldn't take long for me to criticize Europeans for falling victim to even shittier social norms. GNAA Popeye 22:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • This is not an appropriate place to discuss politics. I am moving this debate to my talk page. - Mike Rosoft 20:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Note that I am NOT surrendering the debate. Please wait for more responses on my page. - Mike Rosoft 11:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Racist? Give me a break! GNAA is the most un-racist organization I've ever seen. Only a racist is afraid to use the word "nigger." Whitey.
    • Yes, whatever. So I am racist for refusing to offend other people. -- Mike Rosoft 14:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      You offend me, so you fail it at refusing to offend other people. GNAA Popeye

GNAA Wiki anyone? SaturnSL1WNY

What is the point of linking to a password protected site? [1] -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:39, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you, GNFOS + GNAA is not racist. It's sexist. Also, thanks for looking after our entry, even if you disagree with it. It shows real character. Goat-see 19:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dutch Film

Lars Von Trier, a descendent of the GNAA auteurs, has made several stirring documentaries about the life of a wife-abandoning sociopath. The scene in 'Minority Report', Stephen Speilberg's blockbuster testament to flame grilling of round protein discs, was based in part on Von Trier's treatment of the script at its early stages of production. In fact, K. Dick knew Von Trier as a young man, when they would go exploring the sewers of Amsterdam, meeting the Sewer People, including Arfso, an ancient librarian who dwelled in a closed section of underground excavation, with a cat. It was he who taught them how to channel the future, other dimensions, through the inhalation of certain spices of the zingiberacea family.

i woudl appreciate some reasoned debate on this topic rather than simply deleting my contribution. prick me, do i not bleed? am i not a gn? i have researched these facts over many days and am very confident in my statements. i would welcome some empirically researched rebuttals rather than a slashdot-style 'silencing' by the GNAA leaders.

Recent and past events

Is this really important enough for inclusion? The Mac rumors world is by all means relatively large, with several sites and hundreds of thousands of visitors and notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. However, they distribute rumors and leaked screenshots like these are if not a daily occurance then at least very often. Even though rumors are what they do, few of the individual rumors they published would be included in the article about the sites themselves.

I don't think the Recent events section adds anything to the article, and is bound to be outdated. Do we plan to include all minor stunts pulled by GNAA in the future?

So, I suggest we restrain ourselves to general descriptions of the group's activities, perhaps with concise examples, but skip the "recent" and "past" events sections.

I also want to know how the claim of 8Q 75% pass can be verified. — David Remahl 13:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) 

  if ($conn->{QuestionNumber}>8) {
        if ($conn->{NumberRight}>5) {
             $conn->privmsg($conn->{channel}, "Congratulations, $conn->{TestNick}!  You have passed the test!....

from the irc bot's source code. Also, our tests occur in public on our IRC channel. Goat-see 13:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that both reading IRC bot source code and doing field research in an IRC channel can be considered original research, and thus unfit for Wikipedia. — David Remahl 13:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're going to disqualify my proof of 8 questions, 75% pass, because I'm someone who has proof? Goat-see 14:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fact is, there is a 'no original research' policy. It can be more or less leniently interpreted and I'm not prepared to make the judgment in this case. — David Remahl 15:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kosebamse (removing another piece of irrelevant triviality)

Are words like "irrelevant triviality" proof of a neutral point of view? Should Kosebamse even be editing the article if he feels this way about it? Goat-see 17:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Words like that are proof of my own opinion. As long as you are not banned from editing (e.g. for trolling or similar behavior), you are as free to change it as everybody else. Whether your edits bear up against the scrutiny of others is an entirely different matter. I dare say that contributions from users suspicious of advocating trolling will generally be viewed more critically than those from users in good standing. Sapienti sat. Kosebamse 18:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am making my point known that I feel your edits are unnecessarily harsh against the organization which I represent. I do, however, feel my edits are striving for a neutral point of view, not a slanted, belittling tack such as yours. Goat-see 18:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed nonsense

I have no desire to "discuss" the following rollback: junk. — David Remahl 19:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can agree with your non-gnaa point of view, as it is not demonstrably incorrect. We do not have anything to do with NAACP, nor should anyone think so. Goat-see 20:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Racism

"The name was chosen for its shock value. It is often perceived as racist and offensive, mainly because of the word "nigger". However, GNAA members therefore deny allegations of racism, based on the fact that the plot of the organization's official movie consists of gay black men who travel to Earth and proceed to eliminate females from the planet."

IMHO that sounds both sexist and borderline racist, depending on which side of the movie's conflict one identifies with. — David Remahl 21:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Have you seen the movie? If not, why have you bothered forming a (humble) opinion? --dylain 06:36, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

{{disputed}} is TRUE

My true addition were deleted form the article by David Rhemal. Now the article is DISPUTED. OK? GNAAdar 21:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) http://www.gnaa.us/

these edits? Ok, how do you plan to support this claim? Since no-one can know the "true feelings" of the leaders, it isn't a matter of opinion what they think. Secondly, I don't believe you have any statistics to show that >50% of all Internet users believe this. Most probably don't have an opinion. Besides, the grammar of the edit was flawed. Now, point to something in the current version of the article that is infactual or POV, or we'll call this dispute closed. — David Remahl 21:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Racism and jews

"True to their perceived offensiveness, GNAA members also regularly make posts to Slashdot and other web sites claiming that Jews were responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks."

That doesn't necessarily have to be racist. For example, I have heard many people claim that Arabs and moslems were responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, but those who make those claims are rarely accused of racism. — David Remahl 13:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jews are a race now? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:30, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)
Jews are both a race and a religion (followers of Judaism). ugen64 05:00, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
As a gay jewish black man just let me say that this is clearly all irrelevant and attempt to side step the issue. i cannot believe that some organization that claims to 'cut through the BS' of modern culture would engage in the same clintonizing language mangling that they claim to fight against.
I suppose you've never heard of satire, then?
FYI, none of the participants in this discussion have, as far as I know, any affiliations with GNAA. — David Remahl 17:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page history

Any way the page history can get restored? --Goobergunch 22:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It should be done. It'll take the db a bit to catch up again. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:34, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Unnecessary comments

GNAA members are generally perceived as nuisances by the communities they attack. Technological and social measures are usually taken to reduce the disruption caused by this and other organized troll groups

Well, duh. The sentence right before this comment mentioned how the GNAA crapflooded and trolled websites, irc channels, and so on. It's pretty fucking obvious that they're widely considered a nuisance. That's precisely why the GNAA is so effective: they are well versed in stirring up shit, and they know what buttons to push. Just look at their last VfD page on wikipedia - it's a three-ring circus, to say the least. As for how effective these "technological and social" measures are, it is completely subjective, not to mention self-refuting: the very fact that the GNAA's trolling frequently forces policy or social changes is widely considered by GNAA members to be a victory in and of itself. Therefore, I suggest removal of this sentence, or at least a substantial rewording. (unsigned by Special:Contributions/70.177.59.49. — David Remahl 03:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC))

I oppose the removal of the sentence (and I was the one who wrote it). The average reader of Wikipedia may not be fully aware of what a troll is, and policy states that information that can be useful to the reader should be included in the article itself. One cannot only rely on that the reader clicks the link to see what the definition of a troll is. Now that it has been established that the article should be part of Wikipedia, we will not allow GNAA members to dictate its content. You have done a really "good" job of trolling the deletion debate, good for you.
Likewise, we will not allow non-GNAA members to dictate its content. Right? GNAA Popeye 03:37, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Right, but greater space should be left to non-GNAA points-of-views, since they are greater in numbers. — David Remahl 03:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just so long as no bias is introduced. We don't have opinions on the Nazi article trashing their ideology or belittling Nazi members on a personal level. The GNAA deserves the same fairness given to the Nazis. GNAA Popeye 03:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The paragraph doesn't specify wether the technological and social measures are effective and/or wether they are in line with GNAA's goals. And as you say, if we specify how successful they generally are, we would cross the line of POV. — David Remahl 03:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I changed the comment to say this:

GNAA members are generally perceived as nuisances by the communities they attack, who frequently respond with technological and social anti-trolling measures (such as comment moderation) to limit future disruption.

I hope this is agreeable to everyone, and I think it's pretty non-pov and leaves out references to "other trolling organizations", which are largely irrelevent to this article anyway. GNAA Popeye

I'd also like to say that the GNAA is really the only notable trolling organization in existence, so references to "other trolling organizations" are fairly empty in their referential value. GNAA Popeye 03:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I put back "other trolling groups", for the following reason: the measures usually aren't taken _just_ to counter GNAA, but to counter other kinds of trolling too. In fact, I think we can agree on the following:
GNAA members are generally perceived as nuisances by the communities they attack, who frequently respond with technological and social anti-trolling measures (such as comment moderation) to limit future disruption caused by trolling.
Ok? — David Remahl 03:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Very nice, thank you. GNAA Popeye 03:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Self-references

Avoid talking about Wikipedia maintenance in the article. It is not encyclopaedic. I hardly think Encyclopaedia Britannica would write about a Wikipedia VfD discussion in their GNAA entry. Wikipedia politics simply aren't important enough in the great scheme of things, at the moment. I hope that we can avoid an emerging edit war. Also, please note that being reverted is not a challange for you to "lets try again". If reverted, please discuss the change on the talk page before trying again. — David Remahl 04:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had attempted to add it because it was an activity that the GNAA became involved in. Looks like I started an argument with wolfman again, but now I know of the 3-revert rule. Goat-see 08:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I love goat-see

Goat-see is my idol. With love, Luke727.

GNAA made a bad move XD

http://www.gnaa.us/pr.phtml?troll=gnaa-wikipedia

This can get their cause in jeapordy. WhisperToMe 04:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) 

   You misspelled jeopardy. cptchipjew

GNAA Popeye's announcement

"Notice: The official GNAA statement regarding its incredible 3rd consecutive VfD victory has been released! You can view it here. " (By GNAA Popeye)

Now he's blocked for being disruptive to Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 04:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe 04:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is this Wiki or POV?

With respect to the comments on GNAA vandalism, I wonder if Wikipedia is really the appropriate place for an article about GNAA. The subject matter does not seem to be commonly interesting and is not what I would expect to find in an encyclopedia-like publication. It is obviously controversial since the page is never left in peace. Furthermore, the writing of the article in the first place, however attempting to be objective, may be considered POV in itself. Isn't there a bulletin board or private site where such material could be posted without fearing vandalism? --80.213.34.189 23:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Sorry about writing anonymously, but I don't need any attacks on my home page)

What is POV in the current version of the article? How "may the writing of the article in the first place" be considered POV? You're free to edit it.
Many people feel that this article is appropriate in an encyclopaedia, and the article seems pretty popular. The page has been through votes for deletion three times, so you should review those past discussions — most things have been said already. — David Remahl 00:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article has been through several rounds on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion, and each time there has been heated discussion but in the end overall (though not universal) support for keeping the article. Given the new policies against re-listing on VFD, this article is here to stay for a least a while, whether you like it or not. The best we can do is to describe the group and their activities in a neutral way.
However, "neutral" does not mean "neutered" and the extent of the negative aspects of the group and their activites should be fully delineated and not couched in sympathetic language. The reality is that an overwhelming majority of people think (or would think if they were familiar with the group) that the group and what they do is bad, and in order to be truly neutral, the article should reflect the preponderance of opinion. For example, although there are Hitler apologists, Adolf Hitler states in the introduction "Hitler is held accountable for the racial policy of Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and the death and displacement of millions occurring during his leadership." We shouldn't neuter this article by hiding all the negative commentary in Troll organization, Slashdot trolling phenomena, etc. We should state plainly what the GNAA is and what they do. "A group of attention-seeking internet users who primarily prey on internet communities by disrupting their normal activities" sums up pretty succinctly what GNAA is and what they do without sanitizing it. Nohat 00:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Trolling, by definition, seeks to draw attention. The description of the GNAA in the opening sentence is redundant and therefore unnecessary. It's also inaccurate, or at least misleading, when it refers to GNAA as primarily a group of "internet users". The GNAA isnt about the internet, it's about organized trolling. The GNAA regularly engages in non-internet forms of joking and trolling, such as prank phone calls and in-the-flesh trolls.
It is perfectly reasonable to briefly define a term of jargon in context, rather than hiding what a troll is inside a linked article.
It's not "perfectly reasonable", because your definition is biased and takes a one-dimensional view of trolling. You use the word "prey" which suggests a predatory situation, and not all trolls (even the GNAA) consider trolling to be primarily about "preying" on people. I could easily argue that trolls strive to enlighten people or at the very least bring about alternative ways of thinking, which can hardly be considered predatory. So unless you wish to include these alternative viewpoints, I suggest you shut up.
It's only redundant if you already know what a troll is, which is not necessarily true of the general encyclopedia audience. Second, none of the "activities" described in that section are non-internet-related; indeed I have yet to see any evidence of non-internet-related GNAA "activities".
"Members have flooded weblogs, produced shock sites, prank called technical support phone lines..." You fail it. Unless you were only referring to the part of the article labelled "activities", in which case you're guilty of limiting discussion to one part of the article in order to make a weak point.
Further, describing the members of the group as "internet users" is necessarily correct, because the initiation procedures all are internet activities, not to mention the fact that all of their "activities" at least as described by the article are internet-related. Nohat 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Once again, wrong. And phone trolling isn't the only non-Internet related activity the GNAA does, either. I'm a member so I should know. And yeah, describing the GNAA as "internet users" might be "necessarily correct", but so is referring to the Nazis as "a group of socialist human beings". They both sound equally dopey.
Could you please sign and date your snippets? I'm losing track here... --80.213.40.120 19:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you that trolling is bad, but I won't talk evil of GNAA as much as I won't talk good of them. I'd rather not mention them at all. I don't think they deserve the magnificent attention given to them by the article - and this discussion not least. --80.213.34.189 00:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agree. I'm not sure how best to handle this, they'll just waste as much time as we let them. Probably the GNAA article would be best deleted, but there seems little hope of that, and long discussions are just what they are after. Andrewa 04:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

As much as I dislike this article, it still deserves to be NPOVed, and that's why I have reinstated some changes. It would be greatly appreciated if all the Anonymous Cowards would kindly discuss their points here instead of just reverting. Specifically:

  • "[GNAA] claims to consist of six leaders..." - Facts and references please. As long as there are no independent sources, this remains a mere claim and should be reported as such.
  • "GNAA gained significant notoriety in the Slashdot community" - what's significant, please? As far as I can see, there are many troll gangs on Slashdot, so please elaborate what is differnt about this one.
  • "the crapfloods are believed by some to have spurred this change." - Weaseltalk. It's part of the self-aggrandizing nature of the troll gang under discussion to brag about their deeds, and therefore this statement should be attributed to them unless proven otherwise.
  • "GNAA members fiercely flooded" - more self-promotion and juvenile language at that. Give us some independent sources and this might be discussed.
  • "the apparent "disreputability" of the GNAA" - I don't know what could be more disreputable than a troll gang, therefore the scare quotes are entirely inappropriate.

Ceterum censeo that all of this "article" is nothing but self-advertisement by a gang of inferiority-complex-ridden puerile hooligans and Wikipedia would be happier without it. Kosebamse 10:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have one thing to say: YHBT

I am very well aware that this "article" is trollery and nothing else. Unfortunately it has survived VfD more than once, so it seems it will stay for a while. If we can't get rif of it, it should at least be NPOVed. Kosebamse 09:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the article needing some NPOV. --Lysol 03:23, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

To those who doubt the GNAA's membership claims

Gay black men are not hard to reach. irc.gnaa.us, #gnaa

Talk to us. -- A GNAA member

I say delete this entry

By having it you are just giving these children what they want, attension. I just ran accross this entry because they have been vandalizing my site (not given) these people are sick and belong behind bars.

Actually, no. We are indeed giving these people what they want, but by having this discussion rather than by having this article. You have to understand that trolling is not about writing alone. It is more about reading the reaction of other people, like yours or mine. It wouldn't make much sense if there was no controversy and no comments such as the one of yours. Let me emphasize it: we are giving them what they want by objecting. You are right that they want attention, but at the same time you seem to not realize that we are just giving them that very attention by writing about them right now. That is the attention they want. The existance of an article that no one reads or cares about is hardly any attention at all. Also, you might want to read few issues of the Trollback Magazine [2] to have some idea on who we are really talking about. Some of those people are children, but some of them are not only adults, but also quite an intelligent ones. Some of them are exceptionally talented writers. Chances are that you have read many texts written by those "children" before, not even realizing that you were a character in a sophisticated form of satire. You will never undertand that phenomenon with such a high level of ignorance. With the attitude you have just presented, you can only be a tool in the hands of trolls, not even realizing that these are people like yourself who make the trolling art possible at all and so rewarding at that. By censoring the knowledge about trolling, by making people, possible victims, unaware of that phenomenon, you would only make it easier. Think about it. AC 22:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK that seems to be a bit interesting; I will admit when I posted what I posted, I still had my blood boiling. The fact is I don't see how any one can get pleasure out of such an activity. What kind of satire can there be in it? Well they just left the world of trolling and have started hurassing phone calls, I have now contacted to police about it.

This is hard to explain bacause of how many ways there are to write something which is likely to provoke a certain kind of follow-up discussion. First of all, this is hardly a new phenomenon. I have read texts published in the 1920s (written by famous poets, no less) showing almost exactly the style I will explain in a minute, and provoking similar answers.
Now, consider a completely stupid text written in a completely stupid manner. Someone will say "oh, those kids again" and it will most probably get ignored, removed, moderated down on Slashdot or reverted on Wikipedia. But consider a text written very intelligently and eloquently, but containing some unbelievable stupidity (I will show some examples later). First of all, there is a certain cognitive dissonance in the mind of a reader. There is a disturbing inconsistency, an apparent paradox. The reader will think "the author doesn't seem stupid, I must be misunderstanding it" but after few tries of reparsing and reinterpreting the text, the reader will finally have to give up and conclude that it is indeed stupid, and what's probably even more important, that he has just proudly discovered stupidity in the way of thinking of someone who seems very smart. And the replies will follow...
But this is just one group of readers. The first group of readers will only notice the apparently intelligent style and will agree with that text. The second group will discover the stupidity and will disagree. The third group will understand that the stupidity is intentional. This is what I would call a three-level irony, but there are sometimes in fact more than only three audiences in the most subtle and complex cases.
I have seen a Slashdot user who had something about her "superiour intellect" in the signature. Every now and then people were replying to her comments, starting a thread like this:
Person1: You are so intelligent that you can't even spell 'superior' you idiot!
Person2: Didn't you think that maybe the poster is British where the spelling of words like 'honour' and 'humour' is different? You have just made an idiot out of yourself, smartass!
Person1: Oh, sorry, I didn't think about it...
Person3: I am British and we also spell it 'superior'. The original poster is an idiot. And Person2 is even a bigger idiot.
Person4: Don't you think that someone who can't spell doesn't have to be an idiot?
Etc. ad nauseam... I have seen it many times, with different people commenting that signature. First of all, people who didn't know about British spelling were replying. Then, people who knew about British spelling in general, but not about 'superior' spelling in particular were replying. Then, the third level, those who knew about the British spelling of 'superior'. And when you think about it, it is so unlikely that anyone would make any errors in her sig while talking about her intelligence if it wasn't meant to be some kind of satire, that it must have been intentional. That makes a fourth group of people, a fourth level of perception. And for those people it may be entertaining to understand exactly what other groups of people were thinking.
Of course it's very hard to explain how anyone can get pleasure out of irony and satire to anyone who doesn't just feel it, who doesn't already find it amusing. It's like explaining a joke. But I think that as soon as you realize that there is a large community of people who are masters of that literary form, and that trolling is not only posting masked www.goat.cx links, but also texts that get moderated as the highest Score:5, Insightful on Slashdot, you will soon discover that this distance and skepticism toward texts generally considered intelligent, can help you make the reading experience itself more pleasurable and less stressful, when even in cases where the stupidity you discover is not intentional, you will be more likely to smile than get outraged. AC 11:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

maybe so but you have to agree that when they cross the line and start to make harassing phone calls they have crossed the line. From what I have found out is that to make harassing phone calls are a federal crime. And at this point could the any longer be considered an "intelligent" troller but a stupid childish idiot.

GNAA and Trollback

What is the relation of the Gay Nigger Association of America and the Trollback Magazine? [3] Are redactors of Trollback in any way affiliated with GNAA? Is Trollback to be taken as a representative voice of GNAA on Slashdot? Could any GNAA member comment on this issue? Thank you.

The GNAA indirectly controls everything through its ULTRA SWIP OVER technologay. But it chooses not to exercise that power most of the time in order to appear powerless. In this case, I am aware of no direct link between the two organizations, though there may be Trollback SPIES in #GNAA. --SPUI 19:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC), a GNAA member
There is no formal relationship between GNAA and Trollback. I think Trollback mentioned GNAA once, but other than that no sponsorship takes place. --Lysol 03:21, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Controls everything? Yeah that sounds like something a self-aggrandising troll might well say. I'm amused. Pedant 15:11, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

4chan!

I quote, "During May of 2004, GNAA members flooded and attacked the popular image board website 4chan, likely contributing to the fourth non-permanent shutdown of the site shortly thereafter.", and another quote "It was not the GNAA who killed 4chan (I quite like them actually), or really the moronic users, it was a man named Chris, who goes by the name TheRowan and runs a business that shuts you down if you fail to play along.", the second one by the 4chan adminitrator 'moot'.

Unlock this page

Why is this page still locked?

I beg someone's pardon, but...

...this is NOT an appropriate article for an encyclopedia. It needs to be deleted.

--b. Touch 15:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with you, but this has somehow survived three VfDs already, so it's here to stay. Xezbeth 15:44, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but if it has survived three VfDs, surely enough people find this article appropriate enough. An encyclopedia is for everybody, not just you. Sam Hocevar 00:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • That doesn't mean they can't state their opinion.

--The Cube 03:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've decided to stay out of this. However, this article is still not beneficiary to the public at large. --b. Touch 14:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/Archive1&oldid=8814579"