Misplaced Pages talk:No Nazis

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simonm223 (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 6 September 2019 (→Response: Not sure why anyone thinks a rebuttal essay is necessary on the talk page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:55, 6 September 2019 by Simonm223 (talk | contribs) (→Response: Not sure why anyone thinks a rebuttal essay is necessary on the talk page.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

WP:VERYFINEPEOPLE

The Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_9#Misplaced Pages:VERYFINEPEOPLE closed with a split result. Given a number of editors found it problematic, and another shortcut is displayed, there is little to no reason to display this shortcut on the page. It can continue to exist and be used by those who want to use it but we should not display it here. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to restore this - make a case here please. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The redirect can still be used(due to no consensus on deletion). The shortcut has, however, been identified as misleading and contentious.

There is definitely no consensus to keep the shortcut, we already know that from the deletion discussion. The default move is to not include it - shortcuts are a measure to highlight useful links for those who want to link a section or page in a shortened way. The "shortcut" here is longer than the page name(useless as shortcut) and additionally a contentious link that may confuse people. Can we remove that, now?Lurking shadow (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If I interpret correctly, AfD works by "There is no consensus to delete". It's another matter for its inclusion in the article. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If I see a shortcut, I know that I should be able to use it without irritation or other problems. If there is no consensus for a shortcut then editors have a problem with that shortcut. Which means it should be removed. If there is no consensus to delete a redirect then it is definitely not an acceptable shortcut.Lurking shadow (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

We should not display a controversial shortcut. The RFD shows that some good faith editors find it problematic so there is no good reason to force the display of the shortcut on a highly emotionally charged topic for am essay. Display here detracts and distracts from the point of the essay, politicizing it. Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"Racism is bad" is an inherently political statement so that reasoning doesn't wash.--Jorm (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, care to expand on that statement? Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What should I expand on? Do you not grasp that holding a position about human rights and empathy is political, or that your argument that "politicizing" an already political essay doesn't make sense?--Jorm (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Racism is aberrant, not a political view. Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh. In my experience, racism is anything but an aberrant viewpoint; it seems fairly common and the fact that we have to constantly discuss it here indicates that it is becoming more mainstream. I guess you use a different definition for "politics".--Jorm (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly strong view on the redirect one way or another, but I think there's a better argument for not including it than the RfD: the shortcut box would have four redirects and that is a bit excessive. I can't imagine ANI having WP:HAPPYPLACE and the like there: it would clutter it and cluttering with jokes is less than ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's a shortcut for a section.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Should be removed. It's an inside joke that won't make any sense to the vast majority of readers. This essay is not intended to be humorous. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I misread where it was. My bad. I still think two redirects aren't needed there, but it is less of an issue than at the top. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: as the creator of the redirect, I would be fine for it to stay out. I did not realise that it could be so divisive. I still think it's apt, but would not want to see edit warring over it. But I do hope that people continue to use it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Deprecate While I appreciate the attempt at humor this is going to be seen by more than a few as a political shot at the Clown N Chief. Best to give that a pass. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)