User talk:Marie Paradox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:23, 14 November 2012

This is an alternative account of SgtSchumann.

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Marie Paradox! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 03:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girard

Hello there, thanks for replying. I'm not trying to slam down on RG as some kind of collaborateur, but his thinking - if it's seen as a system, and that is what he urges - could be said to have some very disturbing implications, and he hasn't been the subject of that much scholarly discussion, nothing like the amount of serious debate from many different angles around Foucault, Deleuze or Baudrillard. Most people who discuss him seem to be very much his disciples in a way.

The fact that he resided in the US for most of his life, plus his estrangement from what was in vogue in those decades, probably contributed to a lack of reception in France: he must have appeared very isolated. I've seen and heard a few people say, in a cheeky manner, that he is a grandiose thinker - a man who builds himself into his system and disarms or disregards all counter-arguments, and there's some truth to that I think. His way of expounding his views really is superconfident in a way that's unusual among modern thinkers, while his ideas about the origin of religion are startling. He should be discussed more. Strausszek (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

white privilege

You do realize that you immediately deflate your own argument when you say that scholars who write on white privilege presuppose that it exists. That does not in any way mean that the general population presupposes that it exists. You both make a totally unfounded extrapolation AND passively-aggressively call me a racist. I find this highly offensive. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing this in response to both your comment here and your comment at Talk:White privilege:

If you're trying to say that by mentioning the Cobb County school board, I've called you a right-winger and "passively-aggressively call[ed] you a racist", you're mistaken. I'm simply saying that it's not in Wikipedia's policy or interest to emulate the Cobb County's disdain for scholarly consensus while using the exact same phrase that it used. (Have you read "Evolution as Fact and Theory"? You should come away from it with a better idea of why it's inappropriate to say something is "only a theory".) If you want to believe that we should give more value to what the "general population" believes, I suppose that's your prerogative, but like it or not that's not Wikipedia's way, so if that's the case, I can't think of any valid reason for you to be here. Your continued anti-intellectualism and your propensity to put diatribes in multiple places (the page of the actual entry, the entry's talk page, and users' talk pages) are making it difficult for me to believe that you're acting in good faith. This looks to me like sour grapes: Either the references you need to support your view don't exist, or you'd rather take the path of least resistance and lash out at the people who do real work than do some work yourself and find the references. Put up or shut up.

I generally don't call people racist, but I will assertively call your arguments what they are: racist. I don't doubt that you're a revolutionary communist. It's not news to me that there are revolutionary communists who deny that white privilege exists. "I can't be racist, I'm a communist/socialist/anarchist" is regurgitated so frequently that it deserves its own bingo card square. That's one of the ways white privilege manifests itself in leftist circles: White people find a political discourse that allows them to derail conversations about racism and make it all about an oppression that affects white people as well. I'll be diplomatic on the entry's talk page and approve of edits I don't agree with, as long as they're backed up by relevant sources. But if you want to come to my personal talk page and flaunt your white people head-up-the-ass syndrome, don't think for a moment that I'm going to mince words while calling you out on it.

--Marie Paradox (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical white-privilege-believer bullshit. NATIONALIST bullshit. I am not having this discussion with you. If anything, I am more anti-racist than you (see the progressive labor party if you want proof)Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did not write the Cobb County section in the least. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The point is that you used the exact same phrase the Cobb County school board did (only a theory) while doing the exact same thing they did (flout scholarly consensus). And aren't you "not having this discussion with" me anyway? I will seriously consider holding you to your self-imposed standard and remove any further comments you make here. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for your positive input at talk:White privilege, I'm very pleased that we've found common ground. I hope my little attempt at humor didn't bother you; most of my early work at WP was in science articles. More recently I've focused on theology and history, so I have to admit I have no real experience with Humanities topics. I'm very much looking forward to learning as we work together. Thanks again and happy editing, Doc Tropics 14:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. This is a very difficult area to write about. I have suggested that we start a new section on how the theory has been received by the academic community. I think that the more the article is in the third person the better. Racepacket (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For finding a nice source for the Christianity article - the article about NT Wright on the Gospel. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. It has been a joy to work with you and other editors of Christianity. I hope to have more opportunities to do so in the weeks to come. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your perspective would be valuable: Anti Christian Sentiment (Israel)

Hi there. I've noticed your collaborative work on the Christianity article and was impressed by your spirit of cooperation, sensibility and knowledge of the subject. I'm currently trying to resolve issues on another article: Anti-Christian sentiment particularly pertaining to incidents in Israel. I have opened a RfC and outlined the problem here. I would be grateful to have your input should you feel so inclined and think it worth your time. Regards, Veritycheck (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. If you have any recommendations regarding the language you think most accurate to describe the spitting attacks, it would be valuable to help us achieve a consensus. Veritycheck (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarized the consensus and edited the article Anti-Christian Sentiment accordingly. Please see that it meets your approval. Veritycheck (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gendered noun

Regarding your edits to The Wachowskis, you appear to have a misunderstanding of what MOS:IDENTITY means by "gendered noun". Names are not gendered nouns, and there's no reason to avoid them. Instead of reverting, please continue the discussion on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Marie Paradox. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Standard English

Re: your recent edit note for a "White Privilege" revisions--both "comprised of" and "comprising" are standard English. Another reader accused you of being passive aggressive; I agree. I also consider this quote from you, "white people head-up-the-ass syndrome," to be positively racist.

Somehow it's okay to be racist, as long as it's anti-white racism?! Jerk!!! Too bad you have influenced this article. Apostle12 (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 Regarding your edits to [[The Wachowskis]], you appear to have a misunderstanding of what [[MOS:IDENTITY]] means by "gendered noun". Names are not gendered nouns, and there's no reason to avoid them. Instead of reverting, please continue the discussion on the talk page.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 13:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 {{talkback|Cuchullain}}
+== Standard English ==
+Re: your recent edit note for a "White Privilege" revisions--both "comprised of" and "comprising" are standard English.  Another reader accused you of being passive aggressive; I agree.  I also consider this quote from you, "white people head-up-the-ass syndrome," to be positively racist.
+Somehow it's okay to be racist, as long as it's anti-white racism?!  Jerk!!! Too bad you have influenced this article.  [[User:Apostle12|Apostle12]] ([[User talk:Apostle12|talk]]) 05:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)