Misplaced Pages talk:No Nazis: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:55, 10 September 2019 edit37.165.66.245 (talk)No edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:55, 10 September 2019 edit undo37.165.66.245 (talk)No edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit →
Line 43:		Line 43:

	:We wouldn't be banning people for being free-speech absolutist libertarian assholes. But we would certainly be disregarding that as a defense for racist imagery, and would describe anyone using that argument to defend someone who shares racist imagery as defending racism. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is absolutely not an environment of unrestricted free speech. We have all kinds of rules about what you can say when and where. If you aren't satisfied with that state of affairs, perhaps this isn't the project for you. ] (]) 13:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)		:We wouldn't be banning people for being free-speech absolutist libertarian assholes. But we would certainly be disregarding that as a defense for racist imagery, and would describe anyone using that argument to defend someone who shares racist imagery as defending racism. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is absolutely not an environment of unrestricted free speech. We have all kinds of rules about what you can say when and where. If you aren't satisfied with that state of affairs, perhaps this isn't the project for you. ] (]) 13:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

			Ikr that Misplaced Pages isn't for free speech but for encyclopedia. ] (])

	== Response ==		== Response ==

Revision as of 05:55, 10 September 2019

This page was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Endorsers

The following editors endorse the contents of this essay.

Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Jorm (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Nazi ideology is an ongoing contemporary problem worth recognizing and addressing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
―Susmuffin 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
–dlthewave ☎ 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
RolandR (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
oknazevad (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
pythoncoder (talk | contribs)

Free speech

This section "That the concept of free speech entails freedom to post race, gender, or identity-based slurs, insults, or promotion and glorification of violence, without any consequence whatsoever, and that any consequence brought upon them is an act of censorship." is not a belief that only racists believe. And this belief is not racist. Anarchists also believes that for example. So that's like a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.175.163.63 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

No. You do not get to use cries of "but muh freeze peach" as an excuse to be an asshole. Only assholes think this way. Anarchists (of which I am one!) do not believe this. Anarchists believe that all actions have consequences, including - and especially - speech. You may want to actually learn what the word means and what the philosophy entails.--Jorm (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right, but either way, the belief that this section describes isn't racist. It's a belief that racists have sometimes, but this belief in itself isn't racist. That's a stupid belief, but we banning people just for stupid beliefs is wrong. That's not just racists that have this belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.175.166.175 (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

We wouldn't be banning people for being free-speech absolutist libertarian assholes. But we would certainly be disregarding that as a defense for racist imagery, and would describe anyone using that argument to defend someone who shares racist imagery as defending racism. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is absolutely not an environment of unrestricted free speech. We have all kinds of rules about what you can say when and where. If you aren't satisfied with that state of affairs, perhaps this isn't the project for you. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ikr that Misplaced Pages isn't for free speech but for encyclopedia. 37.165.66.245 (talk)

Response

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have read this essay, and while I can agree with some of it, I believe it overstates its case. I think this is a bit sad, because having some really dubious stuff in there detracts from the effect of the solid points. So, point-by-point: - Intelligence. Put simply, we just don't know. Misplaced Pages's own page on Race and intelligence says that there's no conclusive evidence one way or the other about whether race affects intelligence (largely because of confounds and the wide variation in intelligence in general). Frankly, I don't know if we want to know the answer to that question, because if it's "Yes" in even the slightest degree it'll be a rallying cry for Nazi-like beliefs and the mere idea of a second Holocaust nauseates me. But let's not be dishonest and say it's "demonstrably false". There are a lot of physical traits that are known to statistically vary with what we term "race", from lactose tolerance to height to mitochondrial efficiency; much as I'd like to, it's hard to categorically rule it out. - Attractiveness. Beauty is subjective; it is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder. The eye of the beholder is, in general, sensitive to race. I don't believe there is such a thing as objective beauty, but I'm not going to lie and say that my personal, subjective rating of attractiveness is race-blind. It's not. If that's a sin, we're all sinners. - Censorship. Yes, any kind of official action by an organisation controlling a platform to remove content it doesn't like from that platform is censorship. That is what the word means. One can certainly argue that censoring hate speech is a good thing, but let's not arbitrarily redefine words in a no-true-Scotsman. - Pigeonholing racists. The essay says that racists "inevitably" come to Misplaced Pages to push racist ideology. I think this is more of a case of selection bias, in all honesty. Racists who come to Misplaced Pages and don't push racist ideology are not recognised as racists. Racists can have a life outside of racism, just like anyone else. Of course, due to that same selection bias, usually (not always) if you can tell someone's a racist it's because they are pushing racist ideology, but I think one can question some of the edge cases e.g. whether a Wikipedian who spends all their time on-wiki improving articles about algebra and gets doxxed as a white supremacist has actually harmed the encyclopedia. - And finally, pigeonholing non-racists. Frankly, we're a pretty diverse group, and to speak for all our reactions to racism is really a little presumptuous. Non-racists can have a variety of reactions to racism and racists, depending on exactly what we're calling racism. I think the vast majority of non-racists will abhor the literal Nazis and the Holocaust (some people are just amoral enough not to care; you don't need to be racist to be an arsehole), but reactions to someone believing conspiracy theories about Jews can range from abhorrence to annoyance and even to pity. So. I think that racist POV-pushers on Misplaced Pages are a problem. I think the big issue with them is that they're POV-pushing, which is antithetical to Misplaced Pages, but I recognise that racists make up a huge proportion thereof and that their POV is an especially objectionable one. I think blocking people pushing racist POV onto Misplaced Pages is entirely reasonable. So I actually agree with the meat of this essay. The problem I have is that it's tainted by these few places where it overreaches into inaccuracy. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Magic9mushroom (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have read this essay, and while I can agree with some of it, I believe it overstates its case. I think this is a bit sad, because having some really dubious stuff in there detracts from the effect of the solid points.

So, point-by-point:

- Intelligence. Put simply, we just don't know. Misplaced Pages's own page on Race and intelligence says that there's no conclusive evidence one way or the other about whether race affects intelligence (largely because of confounds and the wide variation in intelligence in general). Frankly, I don't know if we want to know the answer to that question, because if it's "Yes" in even the slightest degree it'll be a rallying cry for Nazi-like beliefs and the mere idea of a second Holocaust nauseates me. But let's not be dishonest and say it's "demonstrably false". There are a lot of physical traits that are known to statistically vary with what we term "race", from lactose tolerance to height to mitochondrial efficiency; much as I'd like to, it's hard to categorically rule it out.

- Attractiveness. Beauty is subjective; it is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder. The eye of the beholder is, in general, sensitive to race. I don't believe there is such a thing as objective beauty, but I'm not going to lie and say that my personal, subjective rating of attractiveness is race-blind. It's not. If that's a sin, we're all sinners.

- Censorship. Yes, any kind of official action by an organisation controlling a platform to remove content it doesn't like from that platform is censorship. That is what the word means. One can certainly argue that censoring hate speech is a good thing, but let's not arbitrarily redefine words in a no-true-Scotsman.

- Pigeonholing racists. The essay says that racists "inevitably" come to Misplaced Pages to push racist ideology. I think this is more of a case of selection bias, in all honesty. Racists who come to Misplaced Pages and don't push racist ideology are not recognised as racists. Racists can have a life outside of racism, just like anyone else. Of course, due to that same selection bias, usually (not always) if you can tell someone's a racist it's because they are pushing racist ideology, but I think one can question some of the edge cases e.g. whether a Wikipedian who spends all their time on-wiki improving articles about algebra and gets doxxed as a white supremacist has actually harmed the encyclopedia.

- And finally, pigeonholing non-racists. Frankly, we're a pretty diverse group, and to speak for all our reactions to racism is really a little presumptuous. Non-racists can have a variety of reactions to racism and racists, depending on exactly what we're calling racism. I think the vast majority of non-racists will abhor the literal Nazis and the Holocaust (some people are just amoral enough not to care; you don't need to be racist to be an arsehole), but reactions to someone believing conspiracy theories about Jews can range from abhorrence to annoyance and even to pity.

So. I think that racist POV-pushers on Misplaced Pages are a problem. I think the big issue with them is that they're POV-pushing, which is antithetical to Misplaced Pages, but I recognise that racists make up a huge proportion thereof and that their POV is an especially objectionable one. I think blocking people pushing racist POV onto Misplaced Pages is entirely reasonable. So I actually agree with the meat of this essay. The problem I have is that it's tainted by these few places where it overreaches into inaccuracy. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Magic9mushroom (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Cultures

How is this racist? "That the various cultures of white people are better than the cultures of non-white people" Cultures aren't equal, this may mean that the European and American culture did progress more than African, which is a fact. Cultures aren't equal. 37.165.66.245 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)