QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th February 2010, 7:41pm)
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 7:34pm)
I like kids, I don't want to have sex with them (or anyone under 35 for that matter) does that make me a paedophile?
You give the kiddy-fiddling brigade too much credence, and Joe Public too little. They can make their little proclivities sound as positive as they like it's never going to become mainstream, it's never going to be accepted by the world at large. There is no danger whatsoever of their POV ever becoming accepted, and if you ask me, if they're busy typing then they aren't busy fiddling.
[...]
I still think that all this wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth every time the "p" word is mentioned is overkill and will ultimately have more of a detrimental effect on society than the kiddy-fiddlers themselves.
Meanwhile, back on the farm, the erstwhile regulars of WR go into paroxysms of outrage every time someone edits a paedophile-related article and then accuses them of being at the very least a latent paedo or even a supporter. These threads are absolutely drenched in lynch-mob adrenalin, moral indignation and holier than thou attitudes.
It seems that these days over the top paedo outrage is as fashionable as lipstick lesbianism.
"The reason I spend so much time at Wikipedia is that their Paedophilia article is the top result for that term on Google, making it an important platform for us." (quoted from a pedo message board).
"Platform"? So what? They are the most hated sub-species of human on the planet. What do they need a platform for? And even if they do get one who the fuck is going to vote for them?
Frankly I'd far prefer they out themselves attempting to gain a "platform". I'm all for people knowing who their local paedo is, what I'm against are the low-brow, mouth-breathing fuckwits camping outside their doors with banners and broken bottles.
If there's a paedo living in a house on my street and I know he's there, then that works for me. I want to know where the fuckers are, not frighten them underground where they'll get up to god knows what.
QUOTE
QUOTE
By all means bring in the NPOV squad when they try to twist things to their own advantage, but why worry if he/she is a pervert if he/she is editing a 'normal' article.
I have already said that it works the other way round. Those who try and impose neutrality are quickly hounded and blocked.
Unfortunately this has now been oversighted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222250643But I can tell you what it says. It is a discussion where two SPA's are discussing how to prevent an 'attack' on one of their favourite articles. One says "I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). "
An indef block of the anti-SPA followed within hours.
I can't say I disagree, but that's just as likely to apply to, say, a Croatian as it is to a paedophile POV pusher.
I still think that it tickles me how upset people get when an paedo-related article is tweaked with a POV slant. What the hell difference is it going to make? It's their balls and brains that make them do what they do, not badly written prose in a dying online encyclopaedia.