QUOTE(Emperor @ Thu 10th May 2012, 5:44pm)
I'd argue the opposite, that Muslim civilization had pretty much driven itself into the ground until ~200 years ago when Napoleon invaded Egypt. Westerners built the Suez canal, developed ways to feed large populations, how to extract oil from the desert, etc. UAE for example, has been prospering while interacting with the West.
Those are good points, but I believe you have to ask yourself just how
popular these developments were, and who really benefited. In other words, if you build a canal or an oil pipeline that does little more than enrich the ruling class and allow them to more effectively oppress the masses, what happens when the masses finally overthrow the rulers? In this context (i.e., religion and online encyclopedias), IMO we have to think in terms of popular sentiment for or against the West (as well as the Russians and Chinese, I might add) and how that might drive policy and diplomacy, not the other way around.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Fri 11th May 2012, 9:25am)
This forum has a BADSITES policy now?
Evidently so. Only it's even more inexplicable, because the criticism of WR that's taken place on the site in question has been restricted almost entirely to a non-public subforum.
QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 11th May 2012, 11:42am)
So since Muslims where shat upon by the West for a century or so, that gives them the proverbial I'MaVictim Card to play from here on out?
That depends on how you define the word "victim" (not to mention the word "shat"). Generally speaking, I would say "no,"
unless the people playing that card are Palestinians. But whether or not you accept the idea that Muslim insistence on the suppression of iconography is based on a perceived right to feel victimized, they're going to make that part of their argument regardless. My own point has mainly been that Wikipedia is a terrible, if not the worst possible, venue for the argument to take place, because it will actually
prevent a resolution of the problem.
I guess if I had to come up with an analogy, it would be that if you're in a situation where the only way to win is for both sides to stop fighting, you should
want your battlefield to be cold, wet, muddy, and miserable - because then people might say, "y'know, this really isn't worth all this trouble after all." You
don't want the battlefield to be nicely situated in the comfort of your own suburban home, where you're surrounded by milk and cookies and throw-pillows and comfortable footwear, because then it will just go on forever. The conflict is still hurting some people, economically, psychologically, and in some cases even physically - but as long as it remains "fun" (not to mention "free") for a non-negligible minority of people on both sides to participate in it, it literally might never end.
And yet,
personally I have no problem with this. It makes Wikipedia look bad, and I'm not a political cartoonist. I wasn't planning to take a trip to the Middle East any time soon either, as I generally don't like traveling much in general. So hey, carry on! Knock yourself out! (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)