SCP Thinks Its Shit Don’t Stink
NEWS/OPINION — Things SCP Staff have swept under the rug and hoped you would just forget about.
“If your principles change, they aren’t principles.”
SCP’s moral edifice pivots on inclusion in their social club. If you are in, you are human. If you are out, you are not. If you are out of their social graces, you have no rights. The only exception to this is Harmony’s deadname removal, to which I have given props to the SCP Wiki Staff for, though I have my suspicions this was a particularly easy ethical challenge for them, given the lucrative optics points to be scored politically here.
To instantiate my point, and to jog the collective memory of an easily-distracted userbase, I will list the major hypocrisies and loose ends that exist in the SCP Wiki, primarily its Staff, and list explicitly why each one bespeaks the intractable nature of the site’s pretty extreme ethical penury.
1. SCP-RU is Still Banned from WikiDot
Hypocrisy: “We #StandwithSCPRU in 2019 when the Russian branch is threatened, but have nothing to say in 2022 when it is completely gone.”
When Andrei Duksin threatened SCP-RU, the -EN branch went to great lengths to protect the Russian branch, including a massive social media campaign, #StandforSCPRU. This campaign raised over $160,000.
Yet earlier this year, when WikiDot idiotically Thanos-snapped the Russian branch out of existence, the SCP Wiki failed to protest this visibly in any Staff capacity, except for a few lines tucked away in their Site News:
SCP-INT and our representatives are working on a request to Wikidot’s administration to remove the geoblock; in these trying times, we ask once again our userbase to stand with SCP-RU.
Outside of this, there was nothing. Not even a Tweet about it.
Here is that message in the INT Discord server:
This is somewhat subdued of a reaction, despite the existential threat being everything they were afraid of in 2019. They haven’t promoted or updated anyone regarding anything about SCP-RU.
Why is the reaction so muted now, now that the threat doesn’t involve the English speaking community? Could it be that -EN doesn’t want to stand up if it might upset the platform that feeds them? I used to resist that thought, but now, I’m not so sure.
Meanwhile, in lieu of no apparent progress on -EN’s front, programmers in the -RU community have done what -EN has never been able to; the Russian branch has completed Project Foundation. -RU now has a fully-functioning WikiDot clone off of WikiDot.
If necessity is the mother of innovation, affluence is the mother of hypocrisy.
2. SCP Wiki Users Berate WikiDot for GeoBlock Bans, but Give Their Political Enemies the Same Treatment
Hypocrisy: “Banning entire groups of people for the behavior of a few is idiotic and doesn’t help anything, but that will be our go-to treatment for people who associate with people we dislike.”
This folds out of #1. When WikiDot made the moronic decision to punish all Russian and Belarusian users for the actions of one person, the SCP Wiki community rightly and loudly voiced displeasure and criticism of this decision.
Similar reactions came from the SCP Wiki Staff. However, in dealing with political enemies, this is the exact same method the SCP Wiki Staff (and a majority of the users) employ.
Take for example the Society for Containment Fiction Discord, which features a good number of diverse individuals. The SCP Wiki’s official stance on the Discord server is an abstract rubric applied to any who might be there.
It was also, in happenstance, this disciplinary case wherein an SCP Wiki Admin, Zyn, sent an off-the-record statement to this user, extorting them to disassociate socially with Harmony, who the SCP Wiki dislike. This was dangled in front of this user as a carrot-and-stick bait act, with the promise that if the user’s association with Harmony and the SCF Discord was recanted, they would lessen the discipline.
Note the exclusion of Zyn’s actual message, and the clean-up job clarified after this was forced into the public view. Zyn’s message to this user can be seen here:
Curious that this detail was omitted, it’s almost as if it is a bad look, attempting to extort individuals away from alternate communities. The user’s reply was more ethical than the SCP Wiki would like to admit:
The SCP Wiki was likely surprised this tactic didn’t work, because they have successfully extorted individuals away from what they see as competing communities in the past with relative ease. More examples of this abound, including the pre-emptive banning of innocent individuals in the SCF who have done nothing wrong, and WikiDot users who have co-citizenship with places like RPC.
(This is insular approach is well-documented on another blog post.)
This guilt-by-association is applied by non-Staff members of the community ubiquitously to the point of common knowledge that is in no need of evidentiary instantiations, but here are a sample few, and from the same individuals who berated WikiDot for its un-nuanced, scorched-earth approach.
Let’s look again at the above condemnations of WikiDot, and place them beside the same individuals doing the same thing to people they don’t like:
There are others examples. Plenty. Trust me. Or, better yet, go look yourself.
It takes a remarkable and repellant mind to condemn innocent people under the abstract rubric of group affiliation. There is no ethical or philosophical difference between WikiDot’s banning of Russia and Belarus for the actions of one person, and the SCP Wiki’s denial of service to individuals for merely associating with Harmony.
WikiDot’s inane for blocking a group of people for the behavior of one person. And yet, the same is ok when SCP Wiki members and Staff are the ones doing the blocking.
(I have detailed this xenophobia in another blog post.)
3. Dexanote and DrEverettMann Still Haven’t Been Censured
Hypocrisy: “We can issue hundreds of disciplinary cases to non-Staff members in the time it takes to work out a promise that two Admins would be punished for worse actions.”
Dexanote and DrEverettMann acted afoul of their responsibilities and positions, and led and approved (respectively) the leveraging of the site’s disciplinary construct against a user, based on an unfounded, unexamined personal vendetta. A thread was created and a vote held on whether to expedite the punishment, because — as numerous Staffers noted in Recaps — the delay was a very bad look.
The decision is between (1) continue the investigation at its current pace, or to (2) enact the censure in the interest of expediency and closure; pros and cons are laid out for each option. The unofficial vote count for this discussion is 13 for option (2) and 3 for an alternative to both. The voting was unanimous; censure Dexanote and Mann prior to an overhaul of any underlying policies.
And yet, the thread would be treated to a set of political ellipses, with one extension after another granted by fiat:
Pretty soon, months had passed, and there was no action resulting from this. There was, however, always an excuse.
By March, any potential imminent action on the topic was frozen in a Staff-wide policy memorandum. This freeze was in order to rewrite the entire Charter, which it was said, needed to be done before Dexanote and Mann could receive their censure. (In case you are not reading the links, this is the exact outcome the Staff unanimously voted against in the November 2021 thread.)
This policy freeze would delay any progress on the censure for 45 days. The announcement stated:
“As such, we are calling for a staff-wide vote to temporarily halt additional policy proposals for at least a period of 45 days + voting time with an exception of emergency discussion (i.e. discussions or policy that poses an existential threat to the site if not dealt with in a timely manner during this time period).”
The censure of Dexanote and Mann was, of course, not deemed an emergency.
At the expiry of the 45 days, the Staff asked for an extension of another 28 days. This was, in part, due to no progress having been made on the promised Charter rewrite.
By May 2022, the Staff again asked for a policy freeze extension. However, the rest of the Staff had caught on to the fruitlessness of this approach to getting things done, and struck the extension down.
When this policy freeze was lifted, Dexanote and Mann’s censure was not pursued, and it hasn’t been mentioned again up until this day.
In that time, the Staff’s Disciplinary Team has actively processed hundreds of new cases, several of these being performed by Dexanote or DrEverettMann himself. Back in March, over 75 new cases had been brought forth since the promise of Dexanote and Mann’s censure; that number has likely doubled by now. Dexanote had presided over 5 of those and DrEverettMann one. Additionally, by March, 60 new policies and proposals had been submitted, 19 of which saw voting, resolution, and action. That policy proposal count has likely hit 100 by now.
As if this wasn’t glaring enough, the Staff have quickly and easily suggested, voted, and enacted a censure of at least one, lesser Staffer. (archive)
Does it seem like a few Staff are untouchable? Do there seem yo be rampant double standards applied here? Does it seem like the Staff is interested in applying its disciplinary standards to themselves?
4. No Further Legal Pursuit of Andrei Duksin
Hypocrisy: “We promise to exhaust all legal options in the pursuit for justice, yet we’re OK with ghosting donors after the first legal attempt failed.”
The last update of the GoFundMe states that the legal pursuit of Andrei Duksin is “far from finished”, and that the SCP Wiki representatives will “continue trying regardless until we have a definitive ruling protecting SCP for all content creators, or all legal options are exhausted”. Yet these representatives haven’t been as diligent as to even provide so much as a check-in, much less an update, in 9 months.
As stated, the SCP Wiki raised over $160,000 in legal defenses against Andrei Duksin. With that much given, much should be made of it; there is a responsibility to pursue what they said they would. (There should also be some transparency with the spending, but that is a lost cause to argue for at this point; no one seems to regard this as important.)
The SCP Wiki representatives lost their initial court battle, but have euphemized this loss by stating that they have the opportunity to take this to another court. There have been no updates or motions in this direction since November 2021.
Has the Russo-Ukranian war made further legal action impossible? Did Andrei Duksin essentially steal away in the chaos, never to be heard from again? Have any steps been made even to being this next hearing? No one knows. Those with the funds aren’t interested in keeping anyone who gave it to them abridged.
A sure way to inspire confidence in the people who took you at your word.
5. Duksin’s Trademark Never Had the Ability to Threaten -EN
Hypocrisy: “We will fight shady business practices by shadily soliciting your money from you.”
In the thick of the Andrei Duksin scandal, the SCP Wiki’s Community Outreach team produced numerous informational fliers that claimed things like the SCP Wiki (English branch) was under threat of being taken down by Duksin. Yet, this was never a legal possibility, and the then-captain of that Outreach team seems to at once understand this, and also endorse misinformation to social media outlets that contradicts that.
It is hard to say how much money was donated under the false pretense of it being for the defense of the English SCP Wiki. Most, I choose to believe, would have donated regardless. But, it seems as though the Staff got enough dough to put down the pretense of solidarity with the Russian branch. In their darkest hour, -EN representation to their larger public is nowhere, much less helpful or enthused.
6. Instances of Copyright Infringement on Site
Hypocrisy: “We are adamant and loud about issues of proper CC attribution, and will quickly issue take-down notices for improper attribution of CC material, but will allow ourselves to copy others’ CC material without attribution just fine.”
The community bloviates and preaches until they are blue in the face about proper CC attribution.
It is a hot-button issue, even detailed in their rules:
But the SCP Wiki also knowingly steals and allows copyright infringement on their site when they want to, or when it benefits them. They look the other way if their political enemies are the subjects of non-attribution, even if it is on their own site. And for years.
I personally have been plagiarized by the SCP Wiki Staff, that done in full awareness and without proper CC-mandated attribution. I did post-4000 contest supplemental awards and misc trivia in 2018, it looked like this:
The next year, the Staff reproduced the exact same awards, using the same code for the SCP-5000 contest.
Here are some side-by-side screencap comparisons.
5K on the left | 4K on the right:
Recently, Harmony was blatantly plagiarized regarding a term released as CC, “neololfoundation”.
The term “Neo-lolFoundation” was first used by pixelatedHarmony on an episode of the Confic Call-In podcast in January 2022 (@ 52min 17sec), and has been used abundantly in the SCF Discord server, in blogs, podcasts, and streams since then. I have used the term so much, my phone predicts it in text.
The term also appeared on a KiwiFarms thread about the SCP Wiki, again posted by pixelatedHarmony (aka “punished ‘venom’ PH” ) on April 19, 2022.
“Neo-lolFoundation” was released from being a proprietary term to a CC BY-SA 4.0 license upon its publication to the Containment Fiction Wikipedia in February 2022.
During the SCP-7000 contest, WikiDot user PlaguePJP falsely claimed to have coined the term.
Obviously a joke, but a legally-actionable one. This is a failure of CC attribution and is subject to a DMCA take-down.
Harmony approached PlaguePJP about the theft and infringement, and you may be able to anticipate how much this WikiDot user cared for proper CC attribution once he was gladly abusing it:
Here’s the voting record for PlaugePJP in regards to whether or not the CC license of the Wiki should be upheld over Harmony’s request to have her articles removed:
This is a legally-actionable acknowledgement of copyright violation and non-attribution, and a denial of a cease & desist request. The higher-ups at the SCP Wiki don’t seem to care that Harmony now holds the nuclear codes for the SCP Wiki.
Subsequently, larger influencers in the SCP Wiki began introducing the above misinformation to their audiences. For example, SCP Wiki members and social media influencers (e.g. TheeSherm, Grigori Karpin, and Billith) would — none the wiser — use “neololfoundation” in a popular stream, perpetuating Plague’s intentional misinformation to thousands of viewers.
The SCP Wiki staff are aware of this:
Now. If you had to guess what are some of the Wiki’s most fundamental principles, things that they would always stick to despite who a situation might be applied to, would it be proper CC attribution? Then why is nothing done here?
The difference seems to be whether the one being infringed upon is liked or not. If not, then they will look the other way, comfortable with the odds of those wronged not acting upon it, though the option exists to file a DMCA against the site. Yet they “had” to take down SCP-173’s image because there was the possibility of a DMCA claim.
The roots on this tree are as thin as corpse’s hair.
7. SCP-009-J’s Images Aren’t CC Compliant
Hypocrisy: “We have a strict no-tolerance policy for non-CC-compliant images, unless we don’t want to take them down just yet.”
This folds out of the previous, but the amount of pageantry and theater around the SCP WIki Staff’s removal of SCP-173’s image in February 2022 makes this it’s own too.
At the time, Staff said that it had come to the unfortunate moment at which the famous image must be removed. They claimed that it was the last remaining non-CC-compliant image on the site. They also said that, morally, it’s immediate removal was the right thing to do. Even the potential for a lawsuit, or even a DMCA take-down, was too much to responsibly bear. They claimed to have taken the iconic image down, despite a legal agreement, with heavy hearts.
(I’ve detailed elsewhere why this was mostly a move to save the SCP Wiki from their own legal paranoia, and to relieve the Licensing Team from their just desserts.)
Yet in response to someone calling Staff out as to why SCP-009-J’s non CC images are still up, their official response is essentially “we’ll do it when the time is right”, citing other things that need to happen first.
Why is SCP-009-J a less pressing issue than the clearly stagnant case featuring an old, non-litigious man as the potential villain? Both of the articles in question had copyright infringing material on it. In fact, SCP-009-J has numerous, while SCP-173 had only one.
Why is it the immediate and uncompromising right thing to do for SCP-173’s image, but not for other non-CC-compliant images on-site? What happened to doing the right thing? What happened to the pressing legal or moral matters?
It seems to have gone the way of that conspicuously-missing, usually-omnipresent license box notice from this specific article.
Poof.
8. Slur Use in SCP Articles
Hypocrisy: “Slur use is not OK or tolerated at any time, or any place; except if a slur exists on an older SCP article.”
In a recent suggestions thread, a user writes:
“Hey, you said anything, right?
Can someone change the use of “ret — -d”on scp-1938-j?
…
edit edit edit: Did you know there are uses of the N with the Hard R? I didn’t. Not saying they shouldn’t be here, just never bothered to search until just now.”
There are others:
In response to one of their articles displaying the word “retarded”, the SCP Wiki Staff officially says that to go back and remove it would be “overreach”.
But they elsewhere state saying such a thing is against official rules.
Additionally, SCP Wiki members and Staff instantaneously condemn anyone for having said anything like this word, ever. They wholesale damn alternative projects like RPC for having slur usage in their articles.
Oddly, there is no hesitation of “overreach“ when it comes to investigating and punishing others for the offsite use of this word either.
9. Age Limit Raise/Un-Raise
Hypocrisy: “We care about the safety of our vulnerable, underage users most of all, but more than that, we don’t want to get sued.”
In the fallout to a scandal involving the sexual abuse of minors in their community by top-level Staff, the SCP Wiki Staff proclaimed loudly that the protection of their underage users is of paramount importance.
Yet, since the discussion became hotly re-debated in September 2021, and to the great discomfort of the higher-ups, the Staff have kept afloat a policy that they understand handicaps minors from reporting sexual abuse to them.
When the thread became too uncomfortable, the higher Staff essentially put a stop order to the discussion, and said that it will be re-worked and re-proposed at a later date.
But like the promised Dexanote and Mann censures, this “round 2” would never come.
As detailed earlier, at some point after, they would put a memorandum on any new policy proposals, so that they could completely rewrite their Site Charter; an activity that was for Staff, by Staff, and only interested in further protecting Staff’s own culpability in their other hypocrisies. (The Charter rewrite was motivated by a constitutional crisis whereby top Admins, for some reason, couldn’t receive the slightest of punishments for their mistreatment of others. See #3.)
This would suggest that the Charter Rewrite was more important than settling the age limit issue, which mandated a social and judicial disadvantage to the site’s underage users. It would suggest that, I should clarify, if the Staff had anything on the docket in the way of that promised re-proposal.
When asked about it recently, the Staff now say they are attempting to contact lawyers over the issue for guidance.
And we already know how punctual the SCP Wiki Staff is regarding any matters involving lawyers.
It remains to be seen if any steps have been taken to contact any lawyers over this matter. There are no stated date deadlines for any action pursuant to this “dire” issue’s completion, much less progress. It is also not at all clear how SCP Wiki Staff representatives would pay for such legal services.
(I’ve detailed the hypocrisy regarding the Age Raise in another blog post, “Moral Chameleons”.)
10. Author Autonomy is Only Important When You Are Liked
Hypocrisy: “We can’t abide an author’s wishes for their work because it is CC, but you should abide an author’s wishes for their work despite it being CC.”
In the 2021 Death of the Author, the SCP Wiki community voted overwhelmingly to declare that there is no moral argument that trumps the legal terms of the site’s CC license. Moral issues didn’t matter in light of the license, the Site stated. It is now in the rules:
Harmony wished her CC works be treated in a certain manner, but they were CC, so the SCP Wiki could do whatever they wished with that material by virtue of its legal license. That was the definitive and deafening conclusion.
Fast forward just a few months, and the site is in an uproar about a gun enthusiast group utilizing the GoI’s name “Are We Cool Yet?”.
DrEverettMann, the Master Admin who remained uncensured, lent his personal WikiDot account — the one that controls the entire site — to his inactive and account-less buddy/roommate to make a public statement morally rebuking the gun enthusiast club. Official Staff made a subreddit thread about it to promote the author’s statements and wishes.
The outrage from the Staff and community is now filled with cries to disregard the cold, legal terms of the CC license, in favor of a moral argument. And get this; a moral argument based on an appeal to the original author’s wishes.
It’s true that the gun enthusiast group hadn’t properly attributed the SCP Wiki or the GoI’s creator in the proper fashion. But this is not what the site was up in arms about. They felt as though the group should disaffect themselves from the “Are We Cool Yet?” name solely on the premise that the author didn’t want them using it.
In some cases, the exact same individuals who voted that Harmony’s wishes for her article content be stripped from her on legal grounds, are the same who later believe that someone’s CC works should be controlled and dictated by the original author.
The difference was purely a matter of what side they found themselves suddenly on.
(We detailed the hypocrisy of this AWCY? Arms event on Confic Magazine.)
11. The First -ES Incident Went From Disciplinary Cases to Official Double-Down in the Second
Hypocrisy: “When you send strongly worded letters to us, it’s harassment and a permaban. When we do it to you, it’s righteousness.”
Hypocrisy: “We will discipline our staff members who were out of line. (10 months later:) Hey, nevermind, you have to say you were wrong first.”
Hypocrisy: “In 2021, we were not legally required to respect authors wishes, so we didn’t. In 2022, when it was our wishes not being respected, we ignored the legal reality.”
Hypocrisy: “We advocate the support and expression of marginalized voices, except those who we marginalize.”
Hypocrisy: “We demand you delete our articles because we ask out of spite for you to, but if you ask us to delete your articles, we will deny it because we think you ask out of spite.”
Hypocrisy: “We will refuse to take down a user’s articles because there are just so many of them, they are central to our collection, and they have been posted over the course of 10 years. We will also demand you take down our articles despite there being so many, despite them being central to your collection, and despite that they’ve been posted over the course of 10 years.”
This all is, in so so many ways, a continuation of #10. This is a constant, metronome-like motion of the SCP Wiki’s most vocal members. They routinely contradict their prior statements. A good example of this is The Cerastes Incident, where the literal same people who voted that Harmony’s content wasn’t hers to control due to it being CC, said that Cerastes shouldn’t be allowed to utilize DrMagnus’ CC material because it was “his”. The same people say the opposite things, depending on who is involved.
Another dramatic example of SCP members flip-flopping from a strict legal interpretation of site works, to the opposite moral insistence is the Staff’s initial and recent re-visit of the first-ES Incident.
In the first -ES Incident, SCP Wiki members realized that the Spanish branch wasn’t including specific LGBTQ+ Foundation logos in the header. This caused quite the international incident with -EN participants berating -ES members in a Discord server… -ES members who, by the way, were themselves LGBTQ. ES’s policy applied to any and all logos, not just LGBTQ variants, but this seems to have been lost on those at -EN. Continually.
This speaks to the in-group zealotry of the community. It was not a problem that -ES wouldn’t allow any other specific icons until it had to do with the political darling topic of the SCP in-group. Then, it was a problem.
At the time, and in the Recaps for those months, -EN leadership chastised the Staff representatives for acting in a petty and undiplomatic manner. It was mentioned numerous times that Staff would be opening disciplinary cases for those who were vehement to -ES.
This also stands in glaring hypocrisy to the ultimatum decided upon in February 2021, where Harmony’s wishes for her article were shot down in favor of a strict legal interpretation. “The works are CC, so we don’t have to.” was the firm position. “Moral arguments don’t trump the legal terms.” Uh huh.
As of today, SCP Wiki leadership have disinterred what was long thought to have been buried. They cannot let the -ES incident go, and are back for a second go-around; -ES Incident Part II.
Here, holding true to their previously strict legal interpretation would mean the SCP faithful recognizing that there is no meaningful moral argument to direct at -ES on the basis of author wishes. They refuse to acknowledge that they have ethically stripped themselves of any recourse to this exact discussion and situation. By deafening decision. To an coliseum’s worth of approval and applause.
And yet, now that the tables are turned…
Note the above: such “strongly worded letters” is what Harmony was banned for sending, in this exact situation of ethical disagreement and protest.
As the tagline of this hypocrisy section states; when Harmony does it, it’s “harassment”; when they do it, it’s righteousness.
Sending strongly worded letters of ethical disagreement and philosophical protest is also the exact reason that I am stated to have been permabanned in an Anti-Harassment manner as well.
(You can view for yourself all of the strongly worded letters I was banned for sending here: 1, 2, 3, 4 — all messages captured on the bottom of these pages).
A few more direct contradictions, for good measure:
With all of -EN now demanding their wishes be respected for their CC works, the hypocrisy is now off the charts. They have found themselves in the same posture with -ES as Harmony was with them. They are now pining to disregard the strictest interpretation of the CC license and imploring -ES to give them moral consideration. Why should -ES honor their moral appeal when they spat on Harmony’s? Why should -ES ignore the legal reality when they cited it as the deciding factor? How on God’s green Earth could these individuals from -EN withstand asking for what they cheerfully denied to those who asked it of them?
-EN is like a debtor who begs its loaner to forgive its debt, and then after having been forgiven, turns around and throws its own debtors in jail. Read these statements with the decision to remove Harmony’s author autonomy in mind:
Part of an -ES statement on the issue:
And after the request was denied:
Additionally, in the fallout, some EN authors voice and support the idea that -ES’s policy for a conservative system of logos is “repression”:
Things overlooked by S D Locke (and the tens of people supporting this Tweet):
- Per the CSS policy on the SCP Wiki, -EN’s Tech Team decides what CSS and logos are allowed in the first place. This is arbitrary.
- ES’s policy is predicated on -EN’s policy. Both are equally arbitrary. The difference is that EN’s arbitrariness came first.
- At the present moment, SCP Wiki users can’t apply the Black Highlighter Theme without a Pride logo attached as default. This is arbitrary.
- In order to claim “repression” is taking place, you have to ignore the uniqueness of the Pride logo’s expression in the world of SCP Wiki CSS. (There is no BLM logo, no INT-branch-specific logo, no Uyghur Muslim logo, or any other under-represented or marginalized peoples’ logo.) The decision to consider this (or not) before making the claim of repression is arbitrary.
To justify my above claim of BHL having a mandatory Pride logo (unless you customize it further, which you either have to have some tech skills for, or get the Tech Team to approve of).
In conclusion, there are no words…
…and the loudest voices scream uninspired, while the quiet passages of wisdom…
“I know people realise its not enforcable under the Creative Commons License. However, I think this goes against the spirit of the Creative Commons License we have chosen to use on the SCP Wiki, which deliberately relinquishes control over what people do with your work, so I dislike it on principle. This request also shows a lack of appreciation for the hard work that translators have put into bringing your works to a non-English speaking audience. I can’t say I have a better suggestion for resolving this, but speaking in a personal capacity I’m not a fan of this idea or how much support it has.”
… are a lone voice in the wilderness.
(The first episode of this hypocrisy was covered extensively both by Harmony on Confic Magazine and on my blog post “The Pride Before the Fall”.)
(The second is being covered on this blog and elsewhere.)
We are again and again, back to a singularity of insanity and a hypocrisy so extreme, words fail. These instances above would lead one to believe very firmly that the SCP Wiki’s primary performance art isn’t writing, but politics. The motive for thought and action at the SCP Wiki is overwhelmingly a political chemotaxis of a one-track hive-mind, the same as the rudimentary tracking of a single-cellular organism, that will shift like an amoeba to take whatever ethical shape it needs to.
The SCP Wiki is first a political site, second a writing one.
There are officially and ostensibly no principles at play in the above scenarios on the part of the collective SCP Wiki. They rush from one side of the boat to the other in such a manner as to risk capsizing themselves. They have no moral, ethical, or philosophical rudder. Their default position is a rat’s nest of hypocrisy and supreme, virtuoso-levels of ignorance regarding them.
I have never seen self-inflicted idiocy of this magnitude. It’s total inversions of stated “principles” like these that make SCP the laughing stock and true moral lowlife of the containment fiction space.
Read:
A Warning Against Hypocrisy
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteriesa wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Seven Woes on the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’
You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.
— Jesus Freaking Christ, Matthew 23:1–36
Major source — SCP Wiki Staff’s Official Responses to Suggestions: https://archive.ph/VcfHz
© Lack of Lepers
