Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Application: - bunk |
→Application: r to Coren |
||
| Line 2,016: | Line 2,016: | ||
:I swear, NOTCENSORED has become Wikipedia's [[pepper spray]], and there are too many people spraying it just so they can get whatever they want, no matter how ridiculous. it's nuts. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
:I swear, NOTCENSORED has become Wikipedia's [[pepper spray]], and there are too many people spraying it just so they can get whatever they want, no matter how ridiculous. it's nuts. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Ludwig, have you even ''considered'' that the reason you feel you are the "butt-end" of so much rejection is because most people actually believe you to be simply ''incorrect''? That the limits you believe there should be are simply honestly ''not shared'' by most people? Why must you presume that anyone who disagrees with you about what is or is not a serious problem do so because they are mistaken, and never consider that ''you'' might be? — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 18:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
::Ludwig, have you even ''considered'' that the reason you feel you are the "butt-end" of so much rejection is because most people actually believe you to be simply ''incorrect''? That the limits you believe there should be are simply honestly ''not shared'' by most people? Why must you presume that anyone who disagrees with you about what is or is not a serious problem do so because they are mistaken, and never consider that ''you'' might be? — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 18:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::(e/c) Coren, I ''know'' that people think I'm incorrect, and I'm more than willing to consider the possibility that might be true. However - and you and many others seem to miss this important point - I'm not just voicing an opinion, I am making an argument (and a damned good one, at that). I expect a certain number of people to tell me to shut up and go away, of course. That's the nature of politics everywhere; there's always a [[Maginot line]] of die-hards who try to protect even the worst ideas out of deference to the status quo. Getting through that line is a question of patiently explaining and re-explaining until the fortifications weaken and the argument starts to sink in, and after that happens we can have the ''real'' discussion which will ''actually'' decide the issue. On this particular issue the fortifications put the historical Maginot line to shame, but... We'll get to the real discussion as soon as people are ready for it. |
|||
:::If you think I enjoy this kind of thing, think again; my periodic fits of pique ought to tell you otherwise. But I've never been the sort to let my own emotional states interfere with reason, and I'm certainly not inclined to let other people's emotional attachments get in the way either. If you want me to admit my position is incorrect, ''show me'' that my position is incorrect; do that and I'll drop this like a hot potato on a cold day. But be aware that if you actually engage this issue with me I expect you to have the same open-mindedness and willingness to accept reason that I have. fair enough? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::So the new argument is we are going overboard with the policy of not being censored because we offend the wrong sorts of people? The problem is to delete something entirely, the only purpose to do so in the case of muhammad, is to cater to religious prescripts of a faith. Granted they are a large faith but it is still trying to justify we should not worry about offense unless there are enough people or a specific group of interest involved. The fact is, over time there have been no less than half a dozen justifiable reasons to keep the pictures but they have been dismissed by specific individuals, when these same arguments are in line with other content on this project. The fact that there seems to be some sort of claim that "these images have to do more because they are offensive" is hog wash. At the end of the day the idea that people are offended and it shouldn't be so doesn't carry the day so as soon as I see some reasonable attempts at using policies that actually would be an impact not a simple IDONTLIKETHAT I will be happy to debate things at length. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
:::So the new argument is we are going overboard with the policy of not being censored because we offend the wrong sorts of people? The problem is to delete something entirely, the only purpose to do so in the case of muhammad, is to cater to religious prescripts of a faith. Granted they are a large faith but it is still trying to justify we should not worry about offense unless there are enough people or a specific group of interest involved. The fact is, over time there have been no less than half a dozen justifiable reasons to keep the pictures but they have been dismissed by specific individuals, when these same arguments are in line with other content on this project. The fact that there seems to be some sort of claim that "these images have to do more because they are offensive" is hog wash. At the end of the day the idea that people are offended and it shouldn't be so doesn't carry the day so as soon as I see some reasonable attempts at using policies that actually would be an impact not a simple IDONTLIKETHAT I will be happy to debate things at length. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{outdent}} |
{{outdent}} |
||