Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[Web Fred]

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?

[Web Fred]

I'm generally supportive of efforts to rid the project of nudity and porn in places where one does not expect to find it, e.g. a Commons search for cucumbers or the lead image of the pregnancy articles. Sex in public is frowned upon by virtually every social, ideological, and cultural norm.

I actually prefer, from an aesthetic PoV, the nude pregnancy pic over the current 'covered' one.

Cucumbers shoved up pussies I can take or leave, unless of course I'm the one doing the shoving (and in any case, butternut squashes are so much more impressive).

[Somey]

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.

[Somey]

Let me know when you actually get around to making one.

Part of the problem is that using terms like "butt-hurt" only proves the points being made by the other side. You're obviously insensitive to concerns based on religion - we get that - but the fact that you can't express that in such a way as to suggest anything beyond simple insensitivity (if not actual racism) allows the opposing side to use your statements as evidence that your insensitivity is the only significant motivating factor. And of course, you're not even denying this.

There's a simple premise here; an online encyclopedia should not self-censor its coverage on Muslim/Islamic topics because adherents are offended.

That's not a "simple premise," that is (as it has been all along) an opinion. As I've already pointed out, online encyclopedias are under no obligation to not "self-censor" for whatever reason might strike their fancy, and in fact Wikipedia "censors itself" all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Just not this time, and not this reason. But like I say, you still haven't stated a reason other than, basically, "we shouldn't have to care about people who are butt-hurt over this particular issue."

Anyway, this is all pointless - you're just not listening, the reason why you're not listening is abundantly clear, and as long as all objections can be casually swept away as "whining," you're not going to change.

[Tarc]

And of course, you're not even denying this.

There's nothing to deny when what you're claiming is relevant (sensitivity) actually isn't.

Anyway, this is all pointless - you're just not listening, the reason why you're not listening is abundantly clear, and as long as all objections can be casually swept away as "whining," you're not going to change.

There's nothing constructive to listen to other than your pussy-whipped handwringing. You don't get to instruct people who are not followers of a particular religion to adhere to that religion's beliefs, that's all there is to it.

[Web Fred]

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?

[Eppur si muove]

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?

Free speech is a lot easier to defend when you're not the target. 100+ years ago anrachists used to talk about propaganda by the deed. The 43 Group had seen what fascism meant in practice. When Hamm and co preached the superiority of a master race over the Jew and then the supposed inferior people put the master race to flight, that served to disprove the nonsense that the far right preached. And it wasn't just butch Jews who made them run but the likes of the rather camp Vidal Sassoon. There was no more effective way of showing the nonsense behind the Mosleyite thinking.

[EricBarbour]

Tarc, Somey, etc, you're wasting your time. This thread is hosed.

[Web Fred]

Tarc, Somey, etc, you're wasting your time. This thread is hosed.

It is now you've arrived from the depths from which you came!

[The Joy]

Tarc, Somey, etc, you're wasting your time. This thread is hosed.

The only way to end this thread is to say the Forbidden Word:

( Mod note: Spam removed, *don't* re-add )!

That ought to finally get Selina's attention.

Edit: Wha....? Wiki-pediocracy without the hyphen is a spam word? I've heard of spamming links, but not words.

This post has been edited by The Joy: Thu 10th May 2012, 9:50pm

[Somey]

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: Thu 10th May 2012, 9:57pm

[Web Fred]

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?

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.

[Emperor]

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.

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.

[dtobias]

Edit: Wha....? Wiki-pediocracy without the hyphen is a spam word? I've heard of spamming links, but not words.

This forum has a BADSITES policy now? WR has officially "jumped the shark" just as WP did when it had its own BADSITES madness a few years ago.

[Tarc]

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."

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?

[Somey]

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.

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.

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!

[dtobias]

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 how exactly would anybody force the battle into a more appropriate venue by those standards? Battles aren't like Super Bowls or Olympic games, where some officials get to decide their location in advance; they break out where they happen to break out, convenient or not. If a bunch of people decide to start arguing about the issue on Wikipedia, then even a dictum from Jimmy Wales himself wouldn't stop it (attempting to ban everybody in the argument might just make them all angrier and the battle even more vicious and intractable). Do you expect everybody involved in Wikipedia with some sort of opinion on the prophet-image controversy to simply spontaneously shut up and defer to the outcome of a debate conducted in some other place that's cold, wet, muddy, and miserable?

[The Joy]

I feel like people are tip-toeing around this, but what if Islamic terrorists start researching who's adding images of the Prophet to Wikimedia sites, determine who they are, and start killing them? Or worse, going after their families, friends, acquaintances, and other innocent people?

Wikipedians deal with edit wars and online "whining," not live-and-death decisions. They don't take reasonable Muslims seriously, but what if bodies start falling when unreasonable Muslims come into the equation? In all seriousness, are Wikipedians truly prepared to die for "information must be free?" When Anonymous planned a war against the Mexican drug cartels, the cartels responded by hanging the mutilated and tortured bodies of hackers around cities with signs saying "This is what happens to hackers who cross us" or something like that around their necks. Don't think I'm being hyperbolic or overly morbid. People have died for something as "silly" as posting depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and online anonymity cannot always protect you.

It's a dark and morbid hypothetical, but one I think Wikimedians really need to consider when dealing with these kinds of issues.

[Emperor]

It's a dark and morbid hypothetical, but one I think Wikimedians really need to consider when dealing with these kinds of issues.

If anything, that pushes me in the "show the pictures" direction. Terrorists might be able to intimidate a few dozen nerds but if a few thousand stand with them it won't be so easy.

It's a slippery slope if you let threats of violence dictate content on Wikipedia. If a few pixels on a computer screen drives them into a homicidal rage then really it's something wrong with them, not us. It would start with pics of Mohammed and end with all the homosexuality articles, Jewish articles, Christian articles being controlled by Muslim thought police and their lily-livered enablers.

[Michaeldsuarez]

...

Seriously Nab, go be a nigger somewhere else.

(And as my racial makeup is best described as "Oreo", I get to say that.)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=71080866

Fae is apparently using this comment to claim that the Wikipedia Review is calling people "niggers". Selina (are you still around here somewhere?) needs to look into restoring the moderation abilities of moderators.