![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Wikitaka |
![]()
Post
#1
|
New Member ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 24 Joined: Member No.: 76,720 ![]() |
For no reason, Xavexgoem protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.
What else does Xavexgoem have on his record? |
![]() ![]() |
Emperor |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,871 Joined: Member No.: 2,042 ![]() |
I'm kind of offended by Piss Christ. How do I get that taken off Wikipedia?
|
Tarc |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,124 Joined: Member No.: 5,309 ![]() |
All you have to do is admit that it's the Islamic aspect of this issue that makes it impossible for WP to compromise, irrespective of your own feelings in the matter, and we'd be in complete agreement with no need for further jawing on it. Y'know, whether they don't want to look at pictures of their prophet has never really been the issue. What puts the piss in my Cheerios is when they condemn the fact that the images are available period. That is what crosses into "tough shit" territory. Let's dub it "TOF". I've been partial to the "Kohsocracy", since the splinter group thing was largely a product of his infantile ego. Do you have any self-awareness of how much of a dumbass troll you are, or are we dealing with a bit of a Dunning–Kruger here, chief? |
HRIP7 |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 483 Joined: Member No.: 17,020 ![]() |
Y'know, whether they don't want to look at pictures of their prophet has never really been the issue. What puts the piss in my Cheerios is when they condemn the fact that the images are available period. That is what crosses into "tough shit" territory. |
Tarc |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,124 Joined: Member No.: 5,309 ![]() |
Y'know, whether they don't want to look at pictures of their prophet has never really been the issue. What puts the piss in my Cheerios is when they condemn the fact that the images are available period. That is what crosses into "tough shit" territory. Not just for the sake of being contrary, no. This isn't a Monty Python sketch. I find fault with milquetoast permissiveness, with people who just can't say "no". The Wikipedia people can say "no, we're going to keep the Muhammad article as-is" and life will go on. Negotiation and compromise and endless bickering can only be taken for so long before someone with balls gets up and says "shut the fuck up, this is how we're going to do it". Its ok to say "no" sometimes; hell my wife says it all the time. ("rimshot") This post has been edited by Tarc: |
HRIP7 |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 483 Joined: Member No.: 17,020 ![]() |
Y'know, whether they don't want to look at pictures of their prophet has never really been the issue. What puts the piss in my Cheerios is when they condemn the fact that the images are available period. That is what crosses into "tough shit" territory. Not just for the sake of being contrary, no. This isn't a Monty Python sketch. I find fault with milquetoast permissiveness, with people who just can't say "no". The Wikipedia people can say "no, we're going to keep the Muhammad article as-is" and life will go on. Negotiation and compromise and endless bickering can only be taken for so long before someone with balls gets up and says "shut the fuck up, this is how we're going to do it". Its ok to say "no" sometimes; hell my wife says it all the time. ("rimshot") The problem is with people who come to the article and don't know fuck all, can't tell the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni, nor between the light verse and a limerick, except they know that "muslims don't like figurative images of Muhammad". So it's simple: stick in lots of them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif) Encyclopedia done. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) No one argued that there shouldn't be any figurative images of Muhammad in the article. They're important enough to have a couple. Just that there were so many, it was really quite like having three images of Jesus as a woman in the article on Jesus. |
Tarc |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,124 Joined: Member No.: 5,309 ![]() |
The problem is with people who come to the article and don't know fuck all, can't tell the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni, nor between the light verse and a limerick, except they know that "muslims don't like figurative images of Muhammad". That is pretty much the golden definition of a bleeding-heart, the same that wring their hands over nativity scenes in the town square. Those sorts of people can go fuck themselves. QUOTE No one argued that there shouldn't be any figurative images of Muhammad in the article. You missed many sterling arguments made by Hans Adler and Ludwigs2, both of whom wanted none, with an honorable mention for Elonka who expected the article to retain a few images but would've been fine with zero. QUOTE They're important enough to have a couple. Just that there were so many, it was really quite like having three images of Jesus as a woman in the article on Jesus. This ignores the reality that Muslims who are offended are offended by any image inclusion. Retaining 2-3 won't mollify them, it'll only make those (the arguers) feel better in a "well at least we did something" kinda way. If an act of appeasement is going to accomplish nothing, then there's really little point in doing it. |
HRIP7 |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 483 Joined: Member No.: 17,020 ![]() |
QUOTE They're important enough to have a couple. Just that there were so many, it was really quite like having three images of Jesus as a woman in the article on Jesus. This ignores the reality that Muslims who are offended are offended by any image inclusion. Retaining 2-3 won't mollify them, it'll only make those (the arguers) feel better in a "well at least we did something" kinda way. If an act of appeasement is going to accomplish nothing, then there's really little point in doing it. This ignores the reality that I was not trying to prevent offence to Muslims. I was simply trying to get Wikipedia to present the topic in a normal, middle-of-the-road manner; i.e. without shouting: Oy, we heard you don't like images. Guess what? We put LOADS OF THEM in! Because we can.â„¢ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/obliterate.gif) |
Tarc |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,124 Joined: Member No.: 5,309 ![]() |
Oy, we heard you don't like images. Guess what? We put LOADS OF THEM in! Because we can.â„¢ The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked. Stop being such a fuckwit. It would be a form of a disclaimer, which the Wikipedia did away with a long time ago. If something offends you, then fuck off and don't look at it. Btw, Snape killed Dumbledore. And Katniss marries Peeta. |
The Joy |
![]()
Post
#10
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,839 Joined: From: The Moon Member No.: 982 ![]() |
Oy, we heard you don't like images. Guess what? We put LOADS OF THEM in! Because we can.â„¢ The "because we can" argument has been thoroughly debunked. Stop being such a fuckwit. It would be a form of a disclaimer, which the Wikipedia did away with a long time ago. If something offends you, then fuck off and don't look at it. Btw, Snape killed Dumbledore. And Katniss marries Peeta. That's a very close-minded view. We all make compromises every day. This ultra-libertarian "information must free" view you and other Wikimedians have does not work. It will not work. Wikipedia and its sister projects will suffer in time for this stance. I doubt Wikimedia's major donors will be pleased knowing that Wikipedia is maintained by a community that absolutely refused to reasonably compromise and cooperate. A simple, technical solution can satisfy both sides, yet you and others would fight to the (hopefully proverbial) death to prevent that. Wikipedia relies ultimately on readers, the majority of which do not subscribe to your views. Are you prepared for an eternal wiki-war of attrition? The arguments for and against these images have gone on for centuries. In the end, this wiki-war and others like them will tear apart Wikipedia. The reading public and the donors will not approve. You will have nothing. All because no one was willing to compromise. |
Web Fred |
![]()
Post
#11
|
Pervert & Swinger ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 739 Joined: From: Manchester, UK Member No.: 17,141 ![]() |
|
The Joy |
![]()
Post
#12
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,839 Joined: From: The Moon Member No.: 982 ![]() |
That's a very close-minded view. We all make compromises every day. So why should it be WP making the compromise? Why can't the offended Muslim just switch off images in his/her browser and understand that not everyone shares their beliefs? I've become so jaded with the Wikipedia "community" that I always assume the worst with their decisions. Are the images to actually educate or say "screw you!" to Muslims? I would say the latter. On an individual level, I can understand and admire some Wikipedians. But as a group, it is a great beast. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) I doubt my compromise would work. Fundamentalists on both sides would hate it. On one side, the images would be under "draconian disclaimers" and, on the other side, the images would still be there. You can't win. Good gravy, I'm channeling GBG. I made myself sad. |
Tarc |
![]()
Post
#13
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,124 Joined: Member No.: 5,309 ![]() |
Are the images to actually educate or say "screw you!" to Muslims? I would say the latter. The only way the "screw you" option would have any credibility would be if there were images in the article that were intentionally derogatory, e.g. the Jyllands-Posten comics or the image from Dante's Inferno. None of the images are like that though, they are simply there to accompany the text of the article itself. Nothing more insidious or devious. |
nableezy |
![]()
Post
#14
|
Junior Member ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 79 Joined: From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago Member No.: 11,908 ![]() |
All of the images in the article relate to the text nearby, i.e. the Black Stone image appears next to a passage describing...wait for it...the Black Stone, and its significance to Muhammad's life. Out of curiosity, why did you pick that image? Because your use of it refutes your point. See, for example, this diff. Where exactly was the passage describing the "significance" of this event in Muhammad's life? It wasn't there, and it hadn't been there for three years. The material was added to the article most recently in a rather obvious, and successful, effort to keep the image regardless of the importance, or even the veracity, of the event it depicts. The only way the "screw you" option would have any credibility would be if there were images in the article that were intentionally derogatory, e.g. the Jyllands-Posten comics or the image from Dante's Inferno. None of the images are like that though, they are simply there to accompany the text of the article itself. Nothing more insidious or devious. I actually think the image from Dante's Inferno is one that should be used. If the point of the images is actually to educate, then the image that provides the most educational value, bar none, is that illustration. Put that in the section on European and Western views, replacing that useless "Muhammad Preaching" image, and remove the other images that serve only to adorn the article, not provide any "education" (Just looking quickly, the one about the last sermon and the one meeting Gabriel would fit that in my opinion, especially the Gabriel one). |
Tarc |
![]()
Post
#15
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,124 Joined: Member No.: 5,309 ![]() |
All of the images in the article relate to the text nearby, i.e. the Black Stone image appears next to a passage describing...wait for it...the Black Stone, and its significance to Muhammad's life. Out of curiosity, why did you pick that image? Because your use of it refutes your point. Um, no, it doesn't. The image was included without any mention or connection by the article at first, removal was proposed, but instead several editors worked on adding a section to the article to support its rete ntion. Imagine that; a measured, collaborative effort to solve a sensitive/controversial issue. That's what editing the Muhammad article was like before the butthurt, i.e. Ludwigs and HansAdler, descended. ...wringing their hands over something that has nothing to do with them, that they have little actual understanding of... Oh, I think I have a LOT more understanding of it than you, You have about as much understanding as the poor white girl in my image example above does about black culture, i.e. nothing practical. |
nableezy |
![]()
Post
#16
|
Junior Member ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 79 Joined: From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago Member No.: 11,908 ![]() |
Um, no, it doesn't. The image was included without any mention or connection by the article at first, removal was proposed, but instead several editors worked on adding a section to the article to support its rete ntion. Imagine that; a measured, collaborative effort to solve a sensitive/controversial issue. That's what editing the Muhammad article was like before the butthurt, i.e. Ludwigs and HansAdler, descended. Bullshit. A number of editors decided that an image on a topic that receives little weight in real biographies of Muhammad (see for example Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad") must be kept, and that anybody who wanted to remove a trivial image on a trivial, and perhaps bogus, event was a BadMan who wanted to OMG CENSOR OMG!!! So they added text to support the image. Not the other way around. That other way around being the one that would make sense if the "fuck you, I'll do what I want because I can" reason was not a, and likely the, driving reason for a number of your compatriots passionate support for what is a useless image. |
Tarc |
![]()
Post
#17
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,124 Joined: Member No.: 5,309 ![]() |
Um, no, it doesn't. The image was included without any mention or connection by the article at first, removal was proposed, but instead several editors worked on adding a section to the article to support its rete ntion. Imagine that; a measured, collaborative effort to solve a sensitive/controversial issue. That's what editing the Muhammad article was like before the butthurt, i.e. Ludwigs and HansAdler, descended. Bullshit. A number of editors decided that an image on a topic that receives little weight in real biographies of Muhammad (see for example Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad") must be kept, and that anybody who wanted to remove a trivial image on a trivial, and perhaps bogus, event was a BadMan who wanted to OMG CENSOR OMG!!! So they added text to support the image. Not the other way around. That other way around being the one that would make sense if the "fuck you, I'll do what I want because I can" reason was not a, and likely the, driving reason for a number of your compatriots passionate support for what is a useless image. Can I have an English translation for this fuckwit's blathering? An image was added. Someone suggested removal because it had little connection to the text. Text was added. Image was kept. Its not rocket science, el Che. |
The Joy |
![]()
Post
#18
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,839 Joined: From: The Moon Member No.: 982 ![]() |
Um, no, it doesn't. The image was included without any mention or connection by the article at first, removal was proposed, but instead several editors worked on adding a section to the article to support its rete ntion. Imagine that; a measured, collaborative effort to solve a sensitive/controversial issue. That's what editing the Muhammad article was like before the butthurt, i.e. Ludwigs and HansAdler, descended. Bullshit. A number of editors decided that an image on a topic that receives little weight in real biographies of Muhammad (see for example Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad") must be kept, and that anybody who wanted to remove a trivial image on a trivial, and perhaps bogus, event was a BadMan who wanted to OMG CENSOR OMG!!! So they added text to support the image. Not the other way around. That other way around being the one that would make sense if the "fuck you, I'll do what I want because I can" reason was not a, and likely the, driving reason for a number of your compatriots passionate support for what is a useless image. Can I have an English translation for this fuckwit's blathering? An image was added. Someone suggested removal because it had little connection to the text. Text was added. Image was kept. Its not rocket science, el Che. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse, though? |
nableezy |
![]()
Post
#19
|
Junior Member ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 79 Joined: From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago Member No.: 11,908 ![]() |
Can I have an English translation for this fuckwit's blathering? An image was added. Someone suggested removal because it had little connection to the text. Text was added. Image was kept. Its not rocket science, el Che. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse, though? That's the point, though it may be difficult to understand from a fuckwit, so I'll try in smaller words and less blathering. Tarc insists that each image is there not because of the personal prejudices of those who insist on keeping them, but because there is some educational value when an image augments the text. That is clearly untrue, as text is added to support the image. People insist on using images regardless of the images connection to the text, and the fact that an image was in the article for 3 years with not one word related to it in the text makes the point obvious, at least to those who arent, willfully or because they are really just that stupid, sticking their heads in the sand. This post has been edited by nableezy: |
Tarc |
![]()
Post
#20
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,124 Joined: Member No.: 5,309 ![]() |
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse, though? Not really important if the end result is an improvement to the article. That's the point, though it may be difficult to understand from a fuckwit, so I'll try in smaller words and less blathering. Given your trolling of the I-P topic area for years now, that'd be no small miracle. QUOTE People insist on using images regardless of the images connection to the text, That would be a lie QUOTE and the fact that an image was in the article for 3 years with not one word related to it in the text makes the point obvious, at least to those who arent, willfully or because they are really just that stupid, sticking their heads in the sand. That's the beauty of the "anyone can edit" encyclopedia, right? The "So Fix It" mentality. The article is now fixed, so you can proceed to shut the fuck up about it. The funny thing is, I've generally been on the same side as this clown over the years in the I-P battles. But touch his prehistoric religious tenets in the slightest?! Oooo, the gloves come off. This is why I would gleefully nuke the whole fucking region into glass if my finger were near the shiny red button. |
nableezy |
![]()
Post
#21
|
Junior Member ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 79 Joined: From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago Member No.: 11,908 ![]() |
People insist on using images regardless of the images connection to the text, That would be a lieThat's the beauty of the "anyone can edit" encyclopedia, right? The "So Fix It" mentality. The article is now fixed, so you can proceed to shut the fuck up about it. I assume by "fixed" you mean giving an excessive amount of weight to an unimportant and possibly bogus episode just so that you and your pals can say "look at me, I can do what I want!"The funny thing is, I've generally been on the same side as this clown over the years in the I-P battles. But touch his prehistoric religious tenets in the slightest?! Oooo, the gloves come off. Dumbass, have you not noticed that I said use the image from Dante's Inferno? Do you know anything of what I have written on the topic on-wiki? You are drawn to controversial topics because you think taking some tough guy stance on the internet actually means you are a tough guy. You act like you were Obama's protection, and that you spoke for the oppressed in Palestine in the face of overwhelming opposition, or that you are the dyke that stops the Muslim fanatics, of which I am apparently one, from overwhelming Wikipedia with Wahhabi tenets. Youre not. I dont give a fuck about that article, I dont care how many pictures you put up. I think you are stupid for taking many of the positions you take, but I aint exactly what you would call rigid in my practice of religion, so if you think that posting some image or saying some nonsense will offend me then, well, I guess we can add one more bit of stupidity to your tally. If there is an image that actually is educational, serves some purpose beyond fulfilling your desire to act like the hardest man on the internet, then use it. Thats why I said use the Dante's Inferno image. The others serve no purpose, they are there with the aim of offending others or due to some misguided bunker mentality of "we must protect the wiki!!!". Or because some wannabe tough guy decided that this was the next fight for him to take on the internet. Where you fall in that list should be fairly obvious.This post has been edited by nableezy: |
Tarc |
![]()
Post
#22
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,124 Joined: Member No.: 5,309 ![]() |
|
Web Fred |
![]()
Post
#23
|
Pervert & Swinger ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 739 Joined: From: Manchester, UK Member No.: 17,141 ![]() |
... Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else. (And as my racial makeup is best described as "Oreo", I get to say that.) Nigger or nigga? Enquiring minds wish to know. Oreo eh? Hmmm? Does that mean you're green and furry? Or blue? |
Tarc |
![]()
Post
#24
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,124 Joined: Member No.: 5,309 ![]() |
... Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else. (And as my racial makeup is best described as "Oreo", I get to say that.) Nigger or nigga? I am a nigga. Nableezy is acting like a nigger. I long ago stopped trying to explain the difference to white people. And by the way, if I'd said "I long ago stopped trying to explain the difference to crackers", that would be actually racist. My original comment was not. I freely admit that it was trolling though, in the classic Usenet-era definition of that word. It was also a test of sorts, to see if there actually is anyone actively moderating this place. I think we got our answer on that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) This post has been edited by Tarc: |
nableezy |
![]()
Post
#25
|
Junior Member ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 79 Joined: From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago Member No.: 11,908 ![]() |
|
Web Fred |
![]()
Post
#26
|
Pervert & Swinger ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 739 Joined: From: Manchester, UK Member No.: 17,141 ![]() |
|
Eppur si muove |
![]()
Post
#27
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 304 Joined: Member No.: 9,171 ![]() |
|
Web Fred |
![]()
Post
#28
|
Pervert & Swinger ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 739 Joined: From: Manchester, UK Member No.: 17,141 ![]() |
Also, FYI, an Oreo is white on the inside. And tastes like shit too. Why can't Americans make decent chocolate? At least the equivalent British metaphor, the Bounty Bar, is almost edible. That's the coconut, and yes I agree, but if you pick off all the chocolate then that's not too bad. Racism being bad doesn't mean that expressing racist ideas isn't free speech. There are expressions of racism that aren't free speech: silently beating up a neighbor because of what race he is would be one such thing. There are expressions of free speech that can be debated about whether they constitute racism; expressing a critical view of affirmative action policies is one such thing (which some will consider racist to even bring up, while others may find it to be an area of legitimate philosophical disagreement). But some things fall in both the category of "racism" and the category of "free speech". I agree totally. Racism is a disgusting thing, but not being able to express your thoughts is far worse. It depends on who's preventing the expression of your thoughts. If it's Tony Blair, the cops, the CPS, and some hypocritical magistrate locking up some fuckwit student from Swansea who tweeted a load of nonsense when drunk then that is bad. The State cannot be trusted when it resticts free speech and the Blairite race laws are just window dressing while the afore mentioned cops, CPS and magistrate continue to be part of the system that locks up a disproportionate number of black people. On the other hand, when Vidal Sassoon and his mates in the 43 Group beat up Jeffrey Hamm and the other preachers of race hate, that was good suppression of free speech. Hamm, Mosley and co would have set up death camps in the UK if they were given the chance and a quick demonstration that they were no physical specimens of a master race helped prevent far worse nastiness. There's no such thing as "good suppression of free speech". Free speech is an all or nothing thing. And if you want the "good" then you have to accept the "bad" too. But who decides what is good and what is bad? |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#29
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
There's no such thing as "good suppression of free speech". Then it's a good thing that nobody here is suggesting that your "free speech" be "suppressed," isn't it? It has been suggested that this website should choose to disallow people from making racist remarks on it, and that it probably would if we had people with moderator rights. In any event, you'd be perfectly welcome to make those remarks on your own website - I'm sure nobody here would lift a finger to stop you, much less actually "suppress" you. This website was never meant to be a public utility. |
Web Fred |
![]()
Post
#30
|
Pervert & Swinger ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 739 Joined: From: Manchester, UK Member No.: 17,141 ![]() |
There's no such thing as "good suppression of free speech". Then it's a good thing that nobody here is suggesting that your "free speech" be "suppressed," isn't it? It has been suggested that this website should choose to disallow people from making racist remarks on it, and that it probably would if we had people with moderator rights. In any event, you'd be perfectly welcome to make those remarks on your own website - I'm sure nobody here would lift a finger to stop you, much less actually "suppress" you. This website was never meant to be a public utility. Errr, could you point out where I left a racist comment? Anyway, this is all pointless - you're just not listening, And you are? |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#31
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
Errr, could you point out where I left a racist comment? Here, but I was using "you" in the general sense, not referring to you specifically (if at all). And you are? Of course. In fact, I've already stated, fairly clearly, that I fully understand that Islamic attitudes towards unwanted iconography are highly problematic in a modern technological society, and that it would be better for everyone if they liberalized in that respect. But of course, I'm not the one using someone else's website to flip the bird at those attitudes and claiming I have a "free speech right" to do so, as if Wikipedia (or WR, for that matter) is a public utility. Nor am I the owner of a website on which that particular bird is being flipped. And unlike the person(s) doing the bird-flipping, I actually understand why they (the Muslims) resist that kind of external pressure - they have longstanding traditions to uphold, and their history is littered with examples of them getting screwed in a huge way when they've given in to Western cultural pressures, not to mention Western military and financial "hegemony." You guys, if you understand that at all, simply don't care. Which is fine, but again, don't tell me you don't care (or don't understand) because you have a "free speech right" to not care and not understand. You do have a right to be uncaring, ignorant, and stupid; just don't insult the rest of us by thinking we will ever believe that those aren't the rights you're choosing to exercise in this case. This post has been edited by Somey: |
Web Fred |
![]()
Post
#32
|
Pervert & Swinger ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 739 Joined: From: Manchester, UK Member No.: 17,141 ![]() |
Errr, could you point out where I left a racist comment? Here, but I was using "you" in the general sense, not referring to you specifically (if at all). Huh? Where in that post was there any racism? QUOTE And you are? Of course. In fact, I've already stated, fairly clearly, that I fully understand that Islamic attitudes towards unwanted iconography are highly problematic in a modern technological society, and that it would be better for everyone if they liberalized in that respect. But of course, I'm not the one using someone else's website to flip the bird at those attitudes and claiming I have a "free speech right" to do so, as if Wikipedia (or WR, for that matter) is a public utility. Nor am I the owner of a website on which that particular bird is being flipped. And unlike the person(s) doing the bird-flipping, I actually understand why they (the Muslims) resist that kind of external pressure - they have longstanding traditions to uphold, and their history is littered with examples of them getting screwed in a huge way when they've given in to Western cultural pressures, not to mention Western military and financial "hegemony." You guys, if you understand that at all, simply don't care. Which is fine, but again, don't tell me you don't care (or don't understand) because you have a "free speech right" to not care and not understand. You do have a right to be uncaring, ignorant, and stupid; just don't insult the rest of us by thinking we will ever believe that those aren't the rights you're choosing to exercise in this case. I think my point is proven simply by the number of words you are using. From what I see, from a virtual PoV, your mouth is moving but your ears don't seem to be. I've asked several pertinent questions which have gone unanswered by those who wax lyrical on how their understanding outstrips mine. There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy rearing its ugly little head in this never-ending thread, most of it coming from you sunshine. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |