Wikinfo talk:Offensive material

From Wikinfo

As Stephen Gaskin suggested as a guide for action, "Is it helpful? Is it kind?" FJB 11:44, 25 Feb 2007 (EST)

Contents 1 Images of Muhammad 2 Totalitarianism 2.1 The New Wikinfo policy of OFFENSIVE material 2.1.1 Compare and Contrast 2.1.1.1 2nd Compare and Contrast 2.1.2 Communist killers 3 Cultural differences 4 On the "global community"

Images of Muhammad

Although they are of some interest as art, imaginary images of Muhammad are offensive to tens of millions of mainstream Muslims. Displaying them on Wikinfo is inappropriate. Fred Talk 10:59, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I disagree. I don't think it is inappropriate, rather do I think to censor science by obeying to these religious beliefs should be called so. Tens of millions of mainstream Catholics believe that the picture of a penis is offensive, yet a penis is an appropriate picture in biology, medicine or sexology. BTW, I find the Wikipedia articles on Nigger and White Trash pretty interesting, although it might be not desirable to have SPOV articles on pejorative terms. On the other hand I think that President Bush is much worse than Saddam Hussein (because Bush claims to be a promoter of "my" civilization and its values by using torture, murder, and deceit), while it should be easy to see that Hussein was a lousy dictator and criminal. - Mr Mancala 13:16, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, I have to agree with Mr Mancala here Fred, for what it's worth. There are groups of Muslims who do not see depictions of Muhammad as offensive. I think their viewpoint is also valid.--AaronCarson 13:57, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

You greatly underestimate the graveness of this offense. Fred Talk 18:03, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

To be reverent is a Virtue. It is not a Christian teaching but a Greek pagan teaching. We should not portray anything of Muhammed that is offensive to the Muslims. When it comes to religions, all religions should be free from irreverence by Atheists or smart a**es. In the rules of Christendom, no offensive religious material is to be promulgated. Respect toward all religions. The cartoons made of Muhammed should have never been published. I may go to war against the Muslim and he wars against me, but there is no right, no cause, no reason to lampoon the other's religion.WHEELER 19:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

What about Christians who misrepresent atheists? In the Secular Lifestyle Forum of the Internet Infidels I read frequent complaints from atheists that some Christians assume they must be immoral because they are atheists. I hope you agree that type of mnisrepresentation is at least as bad as making fun of religion. I'm an agnostic or weak atheist. You've just called me a smart a**e. I shouldn't complain because I've said things about Christians whom I consider irrational frequently enough. Wheeler, do you not think you should be consistent and not criticize atheists that way?Barbara Shack 15:18, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

WHEELER and Fred Bauder: We do no longer live in the Dark Ages. - Mr Mancala 01:13, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

What horrible nonsense. We are only a few thousand years into a dark age which will last for hundreds of thousands of years, the Kali Yuga. How else would you interpret the nihilism of a George Bush, a Karl Rove, or an Osama bin Ladin? It is the age of vice. If it is not a dark age, why are the horrors of the inquisition re-appearing? Fred Talk 06:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

What horrible nonsense. We don't live in the realm of Osama bin Laden. You may live in the realm of George Bush and Rove, I don't. But, even in the United States, you have freedom of expression and the separation of religion ("church") and science / state - two basic tenets of the Age of Enlightenment. - Mr Mancala 07:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

"Chris Ofili's multi-media work, "The Holy Virgin Mary," caused controversy in the United States by showing the Virgin as black, with a three-dimensional breast made from a ball of elephant dung. The piece outraged some Catholics, who saw it as a defacement of the Virgin. What many did not know was that Ofili himself was Catholic, and that he chose to draw upon his African roots to represent his idea of the Virgin Mary, using the elephant dung that symbolized fertility and the Earth in his culture." - Mr Mancala 01:56, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Apples and oranges, a symbolic desecration of a central Catholic icon does not bring calls for beheading. Iconic pictures of Muhammed offend on many levels, some quite sophisticated, some quite visceral. Fred Talk 06:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I disagree, it's not apples and oranges, it's all anti-religious bigotry. But I agree that posting the Muhammed cartoons here is simply provocative and is ONLY meant to provoke a response. Whether that response is a fatwa or simply something that brings ill repute on Wikinfo, it's not worth it, IMO. Besides, the images are available many other places online, as are provative and deeply offensive depictions of Christ, Mary and other religious figures, such as the famous "Piss Christ" exhibit, in which Christ's image was submerged in urine. - Nhprman 12:12, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

So, your true reason is that you would be afraid of being beheaded? Depictions of Muhammed are allowed by progressive, enligthened Sunni Muslims and also by Shi'ites. It was permitted in Muslim art for centuries. - Mr Mancala 07:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It is just a matter of doing what is right. Kind of like not serving bacon unexpectedly to Jewish guests. Fred Talk 10:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Acknowledging that, I wouldn't mind seeing an article about some of the less virulent aspects, and branches of Islam. Even if we don't depict the images, I believe some mention could be made of the branches of Islam which do not strictly forbid the use of images. --AaronCarson 07:01, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Major considerations are: There are no authentic images; Those who object are numerous and quite serious. Fred Talk 10:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Allow me to point out the obvious. Encyclopedia dramatica, Wikileaks and other internet sources do it with gusto. They present tasteless, offensive and probably illegal information with gusto. There is plenty of internet space for those who wish to present this sort of "scientifically interesting", emotionally invective, distasteful drivel. Let me state the obvious. You are free to edit at those sites.

What we have here at Wikinfo is a free editing attitude. Freedom in this sense means a lack of barriers. But the way to destroy freedom is to stand on the other person's toes while you talk to him. Or put your face in his and let him feel your spittle as you shout in his face. If you are going to maintain this freedom you must respect the other person, you must not be boldly, grossly offensive to him. Let's keep it that way. Else he will do the same to you.

How about an article that tells WHY such cartoons are greatly offensive -- and without examples of the cartoons? And another article -- again without the damn cartoons -- that discusses the point of view put forth by WHEELER and Mr. Mancala, but within the bounds of good taste that we find elsewhere here in Wikinfo. As opposed to the drivel that goes on at Encyclopedia dramatica. Terryeo 00:00, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Your response is inappropriate. The subject of this thread aren't the Danish cartoons, but "depictions of Muhammed". -Mr Mancala 12:21, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I appreciate your advice. I understand the specific subject to be "should we allow offensive depictions of Muhammed". I say that when two people stand on planet Earth, the two arrive at common agreements. Because they do, both continue to be relatively free. Freedom carries responsibility. That responsibility tells you how to continue your own freedom. While allowing the other person the same freedoms. When you perform actions against the other person that result in serious death threats by the other person, then you are reducing your freedom. Terryeo 10:04, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually the discussion was, "should we allow any depictions of Muhammed."--AaronCarson 16:43, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and Terryeo is point on. If displaying images of Muhammed drives a significant number of people into a murderous rage, given that no authentic images exist anyway, if it is that offensive, it is inappropriate to display one. Fred Talk 16:49, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Totalitarianism

It seems to me that only one person is singled out for this treatement---good ol' AH. But I did some looking and it seems that Karl Marx is receiving Kid's glove treatment!

The New Wikinfo policy of OFFENSIVE material

As has been noted, Totaltarianism is very offensive and we can not give postive, SPOV, articles to totalitarian offensive people. In the first paragraph of Adolf Hitler we have this line:

"Under his leadership, Germany started World War II and committed the Holocaust, an act of genocide that killed millions.

"Hitler is one of the 20th Century's most unpopular figures, and today is almost universially condemned."

Now, under the influence of Karl Marx, many ideologues committed atrocities such as the Holodomor where 3,500,000 Ukranians were starved to death. Lenin and Trotsky Completely killed the Royal Family of Russia, butchered 200,000 Orthodox Clergy, monks and nuns and numerous Christians and Aristocrats. The Spanish Red Terror following Marxist ideology killed 72,344. And Mao Tse-Tung, implementing Karl Marx in China, called the Great Leap forward, killed 43,000,000 of his own people. Communism is a murderous ideology. This man is responsible for untold millions of people and Marxists have killed more people than National Socialism ever did. So, in accord with the New Wikinfo Policy against Offensive Material and against Totalitarian regimes and ideologies---it is only fair that Karl Marx gets the Hitler treatment!WHEELER 19:36, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's also remember the countless American dead, wounded, and surviving that fought the communists of the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Let's remember the Tet Offensive when communists killed 18,000 people in just Hue city alone in cold blood. Let us remember that Communism is a Totalitarian ideology and is responsible for millions of deaths.WHEELER 19:45, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Compare and Contrast

I love this method. I learned it my Catholic high School. Let's compare the opening for the article for Adolf Hitler and the opening for Karl Marx. Shall we.

"Under his leadership, Germany started World War II and committed the Holocaust, an act of genocide that killed millions.

Hitler is one of the 20th Century's most unpopular figures, and today is almost universially condemned."

This is the Karl Marx opening---Do you notice a difference?

Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883) was a 19th century philosopher, political economist, and revolutionary. Often called the father of communism, Marx was both a scholar and a political activist. He addressed a wide range of political as well as social issues, and is known for, amongst other things, his analysis of history. His approach is indicated by the opening line of the Communist Manifesto (1848): “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Marx believed that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, capitalism itself will be displaced by communism, a classless society which emerges after a transitional period in which the state would be nothing else but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.[1][2][3]

On the one hand, Marx argued for a systemic understanding of socioeconomic change. On this model, it is the structural contradictions within capitalism which necessitate its end, giving way to communism:

“ The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. ”

  — (The Communist Manifesto)[4] 

On the other hand, Marx argued that socioeconomic change occurred through organized revolutionary action. On this model, capitalism will end through the organized actions of an international working class: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." (from The German Ideology)

While Marx was a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence was given added impetus by the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution, and there are few parts of the world which were not significantly touched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century. The relation of Marx to "Marxism" is a point of controversy. Marxism remains influential and controversial in academic and political circles.

While Hitler is "condemned", this word nowhere appears in the article of Karl Marx. Where Hitler is cited for committing the Holocaust in the first paragraph, Karl Marx is not attributed to any of the crimes of his ideology. Marx 'remains Influential and controversial". Did NOT Lenin and Trotsky in the Russian Revolution KILL in the name of Marx! Did NOT Rosa Luxemburg and Kurt Eisner in their Spartacus Revolutions in Weimar Germany not only killed people, instigated revolution, but also destroyed the monarchies of Germany? Did not the Spanish Republicans in the Name of Marx kill thousands in the Spanish Civil War? Did NOT Stalin in order to bring about Marx starve some 3,400,000 of his own people in the Ukraine? Did not Mao kill some 43 million of his people in the name of Marx? Did not Pol Pot kill some 2,000,000 million of his own people in the name of Marx!

Let us compare HOW Adolf Hitler is treated and Karl Marx is treated---Way different! Who caused more deaths? Karl Marx has. Yet, his article is a PUFF piece! New Offensive Material policy at Wikinfo--we are NOT to treat Offensive people with SPOV.WHEELER 19:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

2nd Compare and Contrast

Let's compare the opening of the Nazism article with the opening of the Communism article:

Nazism

The dictator Adolf Hitler rose to power as leader of a political party, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP for short). Germany during this period is also referred to as Nazi Germany. Nazism was also called National Socialism (German Nationalsozialismus). Adherents of Nazism were called Nazis. Nazism has been outlawed in modern Germany, although tiny remnants, known as Neo-Nazis, continue to operate in Germany and abroad. Some historical revisionists disseminate false propaganda which denies or minimizes the Holocaust and other Nazi acts, and attempts to put a positive spin on the policies of the Nazi regime and the events which occurred under it. Clear physical evidence and hundreds of witnesses prove that the revisionist theories are false, misleading, unethical, and potentially harmful by allowing important lessons about human history to be forgotten.

Now let's look at the Communism opening paragraphs:

Communism is a theory and system of social and political organization with roots in traditional culture, religious community and utopian socialism. Communist practices include holding of land in common, cooperative living and working arrangements and equitable sharing of economic goods.

Communism is intended to be a classless society in which all property is owned by the community as a whole and where all people enjoy equal social and economic status. As a political movement, Communism, working through the agency of a highly centralized and disciplined political party, the "vanguard of the proletariat", promised to overthrow capitalism through a workers' revolution and redistribute the wealth into the hands of the proletariat, or working class.

WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW!

How come Communism is communism (sympathetic)? How come this Totalitarian ideology gets a FREE Pass! While compare it to Nazism's treatement? Shouldn't they get the SAME treatment!WHEELER 20:34, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

How close is the discussion getting to "the usual invocation" [1]?

The basic difference is - Marx developed a theory #which others developed in some cases in a negative way# - but some of the points have been incorporated into other topics: Hitler was a ruler.

Put it another way: to what extent can (a) the Purges and the Great Famine in the USSR be derived from Marx' writings and (b) the activities of the Third Reich be derived from Mein Kampf? Jackiespeel 14:38, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Those are nice questions, as few believed Hitler meant what he said about Jews in Mein Kampf; turned out he did. Fred Talk 16:26, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Hitler said what he would do - and did it, when he had the opportunity. The chain of connections from Marx to (activities of unpleasant Communist leader of choice) is less clear. That is the distinction.

Can we get back to the main thread, rather than continue down this line of discussion. There is a distinction between "being controversial but polite" and "being provocative and deliberately annoying" (using slightly weasel words to clarify) Jackiespeel 19:06, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

If you have but one person on the planet, he may do as he wishes. But put two on the planet and they have to agree, to continue to survive. Freedom requires certain behavior. You don't stand on the other person's toes when talking to him. There is some responsibility to freedom. You have to recognize the other person exists and has the right to his own opinion. So you don't piss on his porch while you talk about his religion, for example. Terryeo

There are two strands here: (i) what constitutes offensive behaviour and what is acceptable - "common courtesy, not using inappropriate language, knowing when to agree to disagree, not going out to deliberately provoke" etc (and saying "I only meant to start a discussion" #can# imply intentionally offensive behaviour: ). The problem is there is a grey area dividing what is "definitely acceptable" and what is "definitely unacceptable" - which can vary from case to case (which is where the problems arise). (ii) comparing Marx as theoretician and Hitler in power - the comparison is probably better made between "theoreticians of the left and theoreticians of the right in the 19th century - compare and contrast" and "Lenin and Hitler - compare and contrast." Both these topics, however, belong in a different article (or two). Jackiespeel 09:31, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree that there is a gray area, Jackiespeel It could be viewed, perhaps, as a scale. Anchoring one end, "Definitely acceptable" and marking the other end, "Definitely unacceptable". In real life, Law defines these ends. Face to face and in person, law punishes the definitely unacceptable. So far, law has not clearly defined this gray area on the internet. But if we tread on toes hard enough, if we offend enough people badly enough, as sure as god made little green apples, regulation will come about. Today we use our own good sense when we post. I hope good sense will be enough because I don't want our internet freedom to become severely regulated. Terryeo 12:59, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

The boundaries and nature of the grey area are fluid - which is a problem for law.

The main option is to stay towards the known acceptable end of the field, and accept that there will be some areas where accidental annoyance is caused (leaving the playground-namecalling groups to themselves). Jackiespeel 14:10, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Another thing to be taken into consideration, is that in addition to firm enforcement, we need to not dump all over someone who crosses the line. There is probably a way any information can be included, for example, as a signed article. Fred Talk 14:18, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

"Naturally, Hitler knew all too well that the Nazi Revolution was 'the exact counterpart of the French Revolution'; and he thought himself not only as 'the conqueror but also the executor of Marxiswm---of that part that is essential and justified, stripped of its Jewish-Talmudic dogma'. He was particularyly proud of the extent to which he has learned form the political methods of the Social Democrats. He averred on record that 'worker-calisthenic associations, cells from the factory workers, mass demonstrations, propaganda pamplets written especially for the multitudes, all these new means of political struggle used by us are Marxist in origin.'" Kuenhelt-Leddihn, Eric Von, Leftism Revisited, pg 158.

Now suppose you want to deny these quotes of Hitler (like his being a Christian during his campaigning), Please look at the German National Socialist Flag---Red. What color was the communist flag? SOLID RED. The German national socialists took the Commie flag, put a white circle in the middle (had occult/symbolic meaning) and added a swastika (another occult symbol). National Socialism is the dialectic of Marxism. One can't deny that. Karl Marx advocated egalitarianism. You have to kill in order to bring that about. Karl Marx preached hatred of higher classes and sought to "revolutionize the proletariat" so that they would have power. Just because he wasn't IN power doesn't mean his thoughts, his ideas, his message was reponsible for others to kill. Many Many people were afraid of communism. There are many victims of communism. Our battlegroup in the 80's pulled boat people from the Indo-Chinese sea fleeing communism. Why do you write a "manifesto" for? to motivate people to ACTION.WHEELER 21:32, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Can a separate article on Marx (or Lenin) and Hitler compared be created as the discussion has nothing directly to do with Wikitalk: Offensive material.

The point is - "most people" will assume good faith etc and accept that the use of language varies across the internet, and the world in general: and that sometimes people say things which accidentally cause annoyance/confusion. A ritual of "That statement may cause annoyance because...", "Fair enough, no offence intended", "None taken" probably occurs fairly regularly - and a standard exchange could be developed for Wikinfo. The problem, as said above, are the people who set out to cause annoyance while being disingenious about it: and the disagreements over irreconcilable viewpoints. Those who are willing to cooperate with a request to write a Wikinfo article stating their viewpoint and their opposition to another viewpoint (in a duly courteous manner) are not the problem (and in part this is what Wikinfo is for - do you agree Fred?)... and "some people will create a wholescale long-running row/edit war/exchange of insults over the use of grey/gray." (Using an example of a trivial difference arising in this discussion to highlight a problem.) There will be a consensus on "what is broadly acceptable", "what is acceptable in these contexts (and noting that there are areas where annoyance may arise and why)" and "what is generally unacceptable": some issues can be foreseen and a procedure for handling can be devised. It is also possible "to acknowledge that this part of the debate and its boundaries are debatable - use all due caution" - and there will always be the problems unforseen and the unknown unknowns (and arguments over retroactive legislation). Shall we say that there will be white hats, black hats, grey hats, poachers turned gamekeepers (and the reverse) - and one should err on the side of caution if uncertain.

As for contentious and controversial topics (the interpretation of events from a particular religious/political/other stance) - perhaps "a standard introduction" should be devised - "This interprets xxxx from the viewpoint of yyyy. Please put comments on the talk page, and cross link to articles on the subject from alternative viewpoints." - and a listing of all such pages and invitations to be found somewhere leading off the Community Portal page. Unlikely angles are always possible: The Princes in the Tower/Richard III - the Borgia comparison (they #were# around at the time).

The majority of people are willing to cooperate, or at least agree to disagree even if they adopt overtly unusual viewpoints. Those who overtly cause disruption can be readily identified and dealt with appropriately are not the problem - it is in the fuzzy areas which cause the issue, and those who adopt weasel words/covert negatives and reworkings who cause the problems ("Mack the Knife" gives a variant on this.)

And, to put it another way - the Schleswig Holstein Question caused much vexation and discussion in the mid-19th century and several wars - but who now remembers it (and the same remark could probably have been made in 1908)?

Jackiespeel 13:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Communist killers

"We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags." By Stephen Plocker Stalin's Jews We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish Published: 12.21.06, 23:35 / Israel Opinion Retrieved 2008-4-11

"Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system." (ibid)

The Nazis got their idea of concentration camps from the Soviets. The Nazi concentration camps were imitating their forerunner--the Soviet Concentration camps called "Gulags". Who killed more people? Communism did. Before Hitler ever started the final solution, Genrikh Yagoda killed some 10 million people. WHEELER 22:51, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Certainly Genrikh Yagoda deserves the "HItler treatment". However, the question, "What was he thinking?" is interesting. Fred Talk 07:52, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

This special treatment for Communism is now being discussed in the EU:

(BRUSSELS) - Can communism be compared to Nazism? Does communism's record deserve as unequivocal a condemnation as that of Nazism? And should communism's modern-day adherents and apologists be rejected as firmly by Europe's political mainstream as those of Nazism?

The debate over the historical record of communism simmers on in the European Union.

Forced onto the bloc's agenda by its new ex-communist member states, the issue was most recently broached at a European Parliament debate in Strasbourg on April 21.

Reflecting deep-seated divisions among member states and political camps, the parliament ultimately failed to agree on a common declaration. Some argued that charging communism -- at least, in its Stalinist incarnation -- with crimes against humanity would provide long-overdue historical justice. Others, however, saw it as an attempt to rewrite history for populist gain.

These questions go to the heart of the divisions which still linger in Europe between the EU's old and new member states. Most of the "old" countries tend to see no need for a new historical reckoning. The Soviet Union is seen as an ally in defeating Nazi Germany, and communist parties still exist.

The new member states, however, tend to view the issue as a critical part of reuniting the continent. Throughout the Soviet bloc, communist oppression cost the lives of millions of people, deprived the rest of freedom, and placed their countries behind the Iron Curtain for half a century.

From http://eubusiness.com/Enlargement/communism-eu.01

Obviously, this is becoming a hot topic. Communism gets a free pass. As a Christian, a Greek, knowledgeable about Orthodoxy, these have all been victims of Communism. More people were killed, more people oppressed, more people jailed, more people poisoined under communism than National Socialism! Yet, ONLY "Nazism" gets special treatment.

And this is what it's all about:

""The leader of the smaller European United Left, French politician Francis Wurtz, was more outspoken. He rejected the idea of a "Nuremberg of ideologies" and said putting Soviet-era crimes on a par with those of Nazism "relativizes" the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities. Even if lawmakers could find a common stance on the issue, the best the body could do formally is pass a moral judgment on communism. The real powers on such matters lie with the member states.

See, only the "holocaust" matters. The holocaust is a religion and that anything that detracts from its glorified position will not be accepted. Triple the amount of Christians died under Communism than Jews under the holocaust--yet, only Nazism is condemned.

""For those seeking to condemn communism for crimes against humanity, it's been an uphill battle.""

For those of us who remember and know history and are not conditioned by the mass media, the truth is that Communism committed MORE crimes than Nazism ever did! Italian National Socialism committed no crimes as far as I could tell. I don't know of ONE instance of communism that it didn't start murdering all sorts of people. Italian National Socialism was quite benign! Why should Italian National Socialism be lumped with German National Socialism?WHEELER 08:55, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

For what it's worth, I was a bit taken aback when, while visiting Europe a few years ago, a young person said, "Oh, Stalin wasn't so bad. People exaggerate what he did." And recently here in the USA, I overheard a young boy (probably aged 13) in a cafe telling a friend, "Stalin was cool. I'm really into him right now. And he only killed his own people, so that's okay." Luckily, the girl he was with rebuked him. There's flabbergasting ignorance out there, and there's no excuse for denying the crimes of Communism. It's not a harmless ideology, even if one can claim that it's well intentioned in its goals (and even that is obviously debatable. But Wheeler, I'm afraid it may be a losing battle to create parity between Nazism and Communism here on Wikinfo, if for no other reason than it isn't recognized as such in greater society.

(I do have to correct Wheeler on one thing: There was no "Italian National Socialism." It was called "Fascism," and it surely used violence against its enemies, something even they would have admitted. But it's true that by comparison, it was as gentle as a lamb compared to German Nazism's ravenous wolf.) - Nhprman 11:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

A topic that rouses emotion, that different people view very differently, is just the sort of topic that does well on a Wiki. I know some things, you know some things, yet neither of us has all of the information available. And both of us evaluate the importance of certain data as being more important than another piece of information, such as the young teen thinking "it was okay" because Stalin only executed Russians. With the potential for 2 or more articles we have a platform that can present two, at least slightly different, colors of communism. Terryeo 12:57, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Exactly. Well said. - Nhprman 01:43, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

WHEELER, or anyone else, is welcome to put every fact in the Black Book of Communism in the relevant articles. Fred Talk 13:43, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Cultural differences

I once got into trouble in the Secular Lifestyle forum of the Internet Infidels. I wrote, “Please try not to be a loser.” I got a PM from a moderator asking me not to use such language again. Afterwards I thought long and hard and decided that ‘loser’ is a stronger insult in America, especially in the Bible Belt of the United States. In centre-left groups in Britain it’s also insulting but not quite so bad. We can all make such mistakes.Barbara Shack 19:09, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Barbara, I don't know all about it, I'm not by any means an expert. But I too have seen Islamic folk strongly react to a phrase holding the word "loser". My understanding is that Islam requires a person to "submit to the will of the allmighty", thus, from God's point of view we are all equally "losers" in the highest sense. Narrowly, by submitting to the will of one's God, one gives up the idea that their own self - volition, their own power of choice is not supreme, is not the best, is not the highest thing they can be aware of. In this highest sense, everyone is equally a loser. And so to use the broad phrase, "you're a loser", the person thinks something like: "Yes, I am a loser, I am less than God. He might be reminding me of my status through the mouth of that other person." Perhaps a phrase like, "Don't be a loser in earthly matters" would communicate the idea you wanted to put across. Again, I'm not an expert. Terryeo 14:30, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

On the "global community"

This was recently edited in:

"The internet is new. Methods for getting along with each other are still under development. On Wikinfo we are proposing an international community, contributed to by all races, religions and people. We can not post material that is grossly offensive to any part of our community. If we do, we isolate ourselves from people who would otherwise contribute. Freedom has but one price and that is eternal vigilance. If we post responsibly then we hold freedom in place. But if we post irresponsibly, with gross offense, we erode our own freedom. Because greatly offended people will fight such posts. Greatly offended people are not going to see grossly offensive posts as freedom. The emotional content will over ride the informational content."

I find this paragraph and the preceding to be manipulation. That it is a given that a "global community" is what we all are after.

I don't think so. Western Civilization is Western civilization. It is not Eastern Civilization. How can one mix East and West and not destroy each other. Who says that we are to reach a "global community"? That the standard is freedom? I thought the standard is Truth. When and who said this: ""We can not post material that is grossly offensive to any part of our community."" Because "If we do, we isolate ourselves from people who would otherwise contribute."

I don't know how this works in the real world. God put enmity between good and evil. Enmity is hatred. Good and evil can not exist and yet this paragraph assumes so. Taxwoman's contrib offend the Christians mightily on this site as probable my articles on race offend the global builders and leftists on this site. Point is in Western Culture ever since the beginning of Christendom in 325 A. D., pornography has always been censored and forbidden and race always existed. Now, Pornography is allowed and anything on race is censored. What is called the transformation of values. Yet, the transformation of values is not considered by this article.

One can not square the circle and this Wikinfo policy of "Offensive Material" attempts to do the impossible--which is impossible.

Who said we are becoming a "global community"? Why must we? Who said that?WHEELER 16:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is simply what is happening. Fred Talk 18:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is not Consent being manufactured? Are we being socially conditioned unconsciously for this? Has this been democratically chosen or is this forced upon us by the political, intelligentsia, and academic elite?

If democracy is so great, why is this pushed upon us and none of us have voted for it? Where is the vote? I see Ireland defeated the European Union vote. So I don't think the common people want this.WHEELER 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It was I who made the post referenced to. It is my opinion and not a decree, as everything I write is but my opinion. I don't have the job of making decrees for God nor Government, for organization or country. It is my opinion. The simple fact remains, anyone is able to post with another opinion, contrary to mine, opposite to mine, to disagree with what I have posted. That you, or anyone, can post opinion points out the democracy of the situation. All voices speak with equal loudness. All voices speak with equal tools. All voices speak with equal opinion and none is a decree. Well, except Fred who might decree in order to keep Wikinfo running. And it is perfectly fine with me if people create individual, even isolated communities that never communicate beyond their borders. A society of left-handed, blue-eyed, blond-haired short people could establish a private holding in Oregon and refuse all other bodies. And it would be much easier to establish today than yesterday because there is the whole planet to draw from. Whereas in yesteryear it would have been very difficult to talk to even 100 left-handed blond-haired short people. Terryeo 23:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)