Tue 18th September 2007, 5:01am
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 17th September 2007, 11:49pm)
Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
In other words, the point of this is to equate "outing" of "editors" with stalking, sexual humiliation, and threats of physical violence. Obviously any sane person would realize that this is completely absurd, and indeed this has been the point of the anti-censorship argument all along.
So I can only conclude that the people pushing this on Wikipedia are insane.
If they can't make the distinction between identifying a person on the one hand, and threatening them with actual violence
on the other, then that's the only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn.
This is honestly why I have grown to like the pro-BADSITES arguments. The absurdity of it all seems to dishearten many decent contributors. With the current ARBCOM case, I am seeing more new names opposing BADSITES-ish rulings than supporting.
Isn't it comical that such an issue had/has the potential to cause so much disruption, bad blood, and bickering? It's great! If arbcom can in anyway quash this issue, I think I would be somewhat disappointed.
SV still has my pity. That she has created such a reality for herself (full of shadowy individuals wanting to sexually humiliate, stalk, and physically threaten people) is depressing, and I do feel bad that is the world she perceives. However, what is more depressing is that she manages to manipulate others into perceiving this reality. I do not want to wake these people up to this fact necessarily, or they may just drop the BADSITES stuff altogether and actually do something useful, but I would just like to ask them, "is this actually what you see?" If answered affirmative, my next question would be, "then why subject yourself to such depravity?" Jimbo doesn't seem to mind you editing in such a slum, but an empathetic person like myself would suggest that your mental health is more important than Jimbo's top ten website.
That last sentence could lead me into a Musical Linguist/ElinorD length epic about objectivism and how in relation to that WP editors are nothing but suckers anyway
, but I'll spare you.