QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 12:46pm)
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie". It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist." I suggest the latter is because people like to cover up their own moral bankruptcy, but I'm open to correction. Like I said, there are always two or more sides to a story. Maybe.
Huh? So you're saying that if someone
tries to articulate two or more sides to a story, then he is "promptly" called a "commie"? Is that what you're saying? Not only is that claim obviously false (I've frequently articulated multiple sides to controversies, and I have never been labelled a "commie" for my trouble), it doesn't even make sense. Communists are not generally known for being even-handed or especially concerned with nuanced, neutrally-stated truth.
And what does this have to do with "moral bankruptcy"? The only thing on these themes that resembles moral bankruptcy would be the behavior of various communist regimes in the last 100 years--than which there has not been any more morally bankrupt, at least in terms of body counts. Is that, perhaps, what you're vaguely driving at?