User talk:Lewis

MY PERSONAL THREE PILLARS: TRUTH, HONESTY and a GOOD FAITH COMMITMENT TO LEARNING

Welcome to my talk-page.

The most fundamental principles that I'm dedicated to are TRUTH, HONESTY and what I'd call a GOOD FAITH COMMITMENT TO LEARNING.

These pillars aren't just meant for all of you, but I commit myself to abiding by them at least as equally.

Civility and kindness are also principles that I'm dedicated to, and would ask that they be observed as well. However, in the event that these secondary principles ever conflict with my three overarching pillars, TRUTH, HONESTY and GOOD FAITH, unfortunately these secondary principles must be temporarily set aside.

Please feel free to be as liberal as you wish in the the words and manner you choose to express yourselves. While certain obscenities may conflict with my commitment to civility, should any of you feel that in trying to convey an HONEST, GOOD FAITH expression of your TRUE feelings on any given subject, secondary principles as to civility and kindness must be sacrificed, so be it.

I appreciate both positive and negative criticism equally. All HONEST and TRUTHFUL expressions of ANY AND ALL objections to either MY CONTRIBUTIONS, and yes, even MYSELF PERSONALLY, should they be made in a GOOD FAITH COMMITTMENT TO LEARNING are welcome.

Even if any of you should conclude that I'm a lunatic, an idiot, or even if you object to my race, religion, nationality, gender etc, should these objections indeed be HONEST and TRUTHFUL expressions of your feelings, and should they be capable of being characterized as expressions made with a GOOD FAITH COMMITMENT TO LEARNING, they are, indeed, acceptable as well.

In other words, I'd much prefer for you to be honest and tell me you think I'm an idiot than carrying on pretending that you don't!

I should just add that I will not tolerate any acts of vandalism or censorship. But that's not because I consider these things to be offensive, but rather because I consider them to violations of my three pillars. To me, vandalism can be reduced to a simple violation of THRUTHFULNESS, since the vandalizing of one's talk or userpage inevitably leads to a false expression of who said what. Similarly, censorship leads to the misconception that someone did not express themself when in fact they did. Again, a clear breach of TRUTHFULNESS.

All that being said, I'd also just like to say that I greatly appreciate lightheartedness, humour, levity, and just plain good natured kidding around. By all means, my talkpage is absolutely not meant to be so serious and heavy that humour is inappropriate. Quite the opposite. Besides believing that humour for humour's sake alone is completely acceptable and welcome, I actually believe that many great truths can be conveyed better through humour than through any other means. In fact, my people have picked up on that one quite well.

For anyone who's had the misfortune of having never experienced a Rabbi's Sabbath sermon at a synagogue, I strongly suggest you visit one on any given Saturday morning. In attempting to convey to the congregation what he believes to be a rather profound message, the Rabbi will very often do so by telling a joke. Not only is the congregation entertained, but upon hearing the punchline, not only would you hear a roar of laughter, but more importantly, you'd see the congregation grinning and nodding their heads as if to say: "How true...How true".

So I'll repeat what I said at the very beginning, welcome to my talk-page, and please, don't hesitate to speak your mind! Lewis 01:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside, inside

That's really beautiful and welcoming what you wrote there. I feel really well here in your talk page. I think I may spend some time here. Unfortunately, non-native speakers of English who can only contribute with an intermediate level really suck at being humorous in this language. I think your talk page will be less formal a place than the rest of Wikimedia, and maybe here I'll learn how to speak English with a less formal tone and eventually I'll be able to make jokes like "the querent is now masticating" etc.

I think I'm going to visit a synagogue. Do you think the Rabbis here make jokes as well?

And, Lewis... I think you were right about Clio. I think the ideas she wrote are really dangerous, trying to give a rational but non-psychological explanation for the Holocaust. But I don't think she has any idea of the consequences of what she said. A.Z. 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have asked Clio what she meant by what she said before taking conclusions. a.z. 17:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nickname

Do you think my nickname is weird? This would be the right moment to change it, as you did. Those are my initials there, but I don't know if using my initials is silly. a.z. 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You remind me so much of myself it's scary! I thought I was the only one neurotic enough to worry about such nonsense such as whether or not my nickname is "weird" or not. :-)

First of all, "A.Z." has got to be the furthest thing from a "weird" nickname. "Loomis" - now that's a weird nickname!

Artur, I really hate it when I realize I'm starting to talk like a patronizing "grown-up" talking to a child, and I hope you don't take it that way. The fact is, though, that I am 15 years older than you so I can't help but say it: Artur, when I was your age (I can't believe I just said "when I was your age"! I feel like I'm turning into my parents!) anyway, when I was your age I used to worry about just about anything and everything. That's why I said you remind me so much of myself. But as I got older, I began to worry less and less. I'm sure you'll go through the same thing. Then once you get to be 33 you'll look back and say to yourself: I can't believe I was worrying about whether the nickname "A.Z." was weird or not. Who gives a shit what other people may think of my nickname. I know it's not offensive or anything, and that's really the only concern I should have. If people find it silly...well good for them. I actually have another example, but it's kind of private so I'll send it to you by email. (I just tried to send it, but I see you chose not to provide an email address when you registered. That's perfectly ok, the other example wasn't very important anyway. I'd just like to make sure that you understand that in providing an email address in your registration, the address remains private, only unless and until you reply from that address. Otherwise, your address will never be revealed to the sender. In fact, I suppose it's possible to send a series of emails back and forth without either party ever getting to know the other's email. But again, if you choose not to, I completely understand.)

I understand what you mean by closure. If you need it, take your time, and if you'd prefer to contribute in both places, that's fine too. It's just that I've completely HAD IT with the RefDesk. I tried over and over and over to explain myself and my behaviour, but no one ever believed me or took it seriously. I've finally come to the unfortunate realization that the Admins involved, and several of the other contributors are quite simply a bunch of irrational lunatics. Their complete lack of capacity to understand a logical argument is baffling. Their hypocrisy couldn't be more glaringly obvious, yet they seem incapable of even noticing it.

I must have asked the question at least a couple of dozen times, in at least as many ways, yet I've finally given up on getting through to them. Their skulls are beyond dense; they're inpenetrable. Though I've asked the question in every possible way I can think of, it's actually a painfully simple one: "Why is it that despite dozens and dozens of personal attacks on me by several users, not a single warning has ever been issued to absolutely anyone, yet should I utter what I believe to be a valid criticism of another user's post, despite not even mentioning a single person by name, but attacking the post and the post alone as being personally offensive, it is MY objection and NOT the objectionable post that gets deleted, and it is I, not the poster who gets reprimanded."

So one last time, I politely asked: "Please explain to me why you removed my post of objection. It was entirely civil by all accounts, and it attacked no one personally. What particular rule was I breaking this time?" The response I got to that one was enough to take the word "asinine" to a level I'd never even conceived. The gist of it was as follows: "True, your post didn't break any guidelines per se, yet it was clearly a cleverly disguised attack upon Clio, and as such a continuation of your campaign to malign her character". Well that was the final straw. That was it for me. I realized at that moment the utter foolishness of trying to convince any of my detractors of anything. They've already made their minds up, so what's the point?

What's next -- a pre-emptive block perhaps? "Why did you block me this time? Did I do something wrong? If so, please tell me!" "No Loomis, you've done nothing wrong. Well -- at least not yet. However it's almost certain that you'll eventually do something wrong once again, so we feel it to be only reasonable to block you in advance to prevent such wrongdoing from occuring in the first place". Uhhhhhh.....Ok?

Anyway, as I said, I understand your need for closure. I needed it too, that's why I struggled for so long to make absolutely sure that my position actually did make some sense, and the whole thing indeed wasn't a case of letting my paranoia get the better of me. I only called it quits when I finally built up enough proof in my mind that I was indeed right all along. And that's when I got my closure, and was ready to move on.

So as I said, I completely understand your need for closure, your need to prove to yourself in your own mind that the arguments you make indeed do make sense, and aren't just a collection of incoherent nonsensical outbursts.

If it helps Artur, I agree with your arguments completely. To be blunt, in my opinion at least, YOU'RE right and THEY'RE wrong.

One last thing, Artur. No, you're not my only supporter, Stu's got a great handle on things as well. And so do several others. Yet I don't know how much I can thank you for being the first and the only one to tell me that you understand and agree with my position that, though she was likely doing it unknowingly, Clio's remarks were very dangerous ones indeed. Thank you, that one means a lot to me. Lewis 00:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis, I really do worry a lot about things that, at the end, I find out that I should not have worried with so much. But this is because I have before in my life worried not-so-much with things that, at the end, I found out that I should have worried with a lot.

If my nickname isn't weird, I ain't gonna change it.

Oh, the patronizing thing. I see you as a friend and fifteen years is not even that much of a difference. It's so good to read your sentence saying that, when you were my age, you used to worry about anything and everything. I actually worried about whether the beginning of my last sentence ("it's so good") was too childish. And then, after that, I worried about whether it was gay. And then, after that, I was worried that you were not going to be my friend anymore because I could've written "It's very good" instead. Then I was upset because I didn't speak English very well and I might not understand the subtleties involved in the difference between "so good" and "very good". And then this made me think about the thread on the Help Desk about countries and nuclear weapons, and I was worried that you would discriminate against me because I'm Brazilian... It's better that I stop now. What I mean is that I am a little paranoid like you were and it was so very good to read your sentence and to know that, at the age of 33, it will end. Though this that you are making is but a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are helping me become less paranoid by saying that at 33 I will not be paranoid, and then I will believe it so (very) much and I will not be paranoid anymore when I turn 33.

(I am going to provide my e-mail address now as I am curious about your example)

I don't know yet if I'm going to keep contributing on Wikipedia. The idea of Wikiversity is much more attractive and interesting.

I am glad you are so sure you are right and they are irrational lunatics. It's so weird to me when I see dozens of adults saying things that I think make no sense and, even after hearing my objections, continuing to do so like if they had not heard it. I feel like I'm crazy.

I, unlike you, did not yet go through all the debate it takes to get to the point where you are now. No one tried to delete the stuff I wrote, no one accused me of campaigning to malign another person's character. So I am tired, but not fed up.

When you say that you agree with my arguments, do you mean the arguments on the RD talk page? I didn't know you were reading that! If that's what you are referring to, thank you!

It's good to know that the fact that I understand and agree with your position means a lot to you. And it means a lot to me that you kept your position even amidst so much opposition! It really does. a.z. 02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I only mentioned the age "33" because that happens to be my age right now. I didn't mean to say that it'll happen only on your 33rd birthday. It happens gradually, bit by bit, each year more and more. So no, you won't have to wait an entire 15 years! I'll go and write the email now. Lewis 08:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I did understand what you meant! It's just, you know, that my English is intermediate and I wasn't able to make it clear what I was thinking when I wrote that. a.z. 09:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lewis that what other people think of you becomes progressively less important the older you get. And A.Z. isn't at all weird, although it is a bit vanilla. Perhaps you might want to pick a nickname that includes a favorite hobby, your location, your occupation, a saying you like, etc. I actually tried out several nicknames at Wikipedia, but found many were already taken, like Shaken Not Stirred. Is your English good enough to get the double meaning there ? StuRat 02:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, unfortunately I can't get the double meaning. There's something interesting in what you wrote, though: "think of you" meaning "think about you". Yet, when I said I know "little of Law", Lewis said I should say "little about Law". a.z. 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you watch W:James Bond movies you will know that he always asks for his martini "shaken, not stirred". It also means that, while I may occasionally be shaken by the hostility of others, I won't be stirred into leaving Wikipedia. StuRat 07:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore

I was not sure whether I was going to come here and say that, but then I remembered your principles stated above and then I saw you saying that you respect me on War and Iraq, so I decided to do it.

You said: "Smart asses who couldn't fight even if they wanted to because they're just so grossly obese that they'd never be allowed on the battlefield, guys like Michael Moore consider you a fool and a stooge."

Now, there seems to be two problems there. The first is that you made a personal attack to Michael Moore. This is a logical fallacy, there is no reason to do that here on Wikiversity. Imagine if Michael Moore decides to participate in our discussion. I know you think he is an idiot, but if he comes here and discusses with us, you can attack his arguments using your arguments and show everyone that he is wrong, instead of saying "you're fat".

Even if he never comes here, the fact is that you probably can say much funnier things if you take the time to address each argument that he uses to support his positions and then show how they're absurd. You're really good, as far as I have seen, at showing the absurdity of certain arguments and being funny at it, like you did with Friday's argument that "this goes against Wikipedia policy". I just hope Friday doesn't find it offensive to him, since it's clearly not a personal attack.

I understand someone might think that there is inherent importance to the fact that Michael Moore is so fat. Maybe you think his obesity somehow matters to the discussion, but you did not make it clear. For instance, you could have reasoned that people should not listen to the opinion of people who are not able to fight because they're obese. Or you could think that Michael Moore envies the soldiers so much and that's the real reason why he does all that he does: because he'd like he weren't so fat and so he wants to bring down the morale of those fit soldiers.

The second problem is that you've offended obese people. There are cases of obesity caused by a variety of illnesses, and those people would really be offended to know that you think there is a relation between obesity and being stupid like you think Michael Moore is. If Michael Moore happened to be paraplegic, you would never say "he is so paraplegic that would never be allowed on the battlefield".

Well, that's it... I hope you don't think this whole thing is just boring political correctness. I just don't want Wikiversity to start becoming disrupted and not welcoming to people who think like Michael Moore and people who are obese. And also to any human, since resorting to personal attacks and discrimating against people because they have a disease should offend everyone! However, if you do think it is boring political correctness, we can discuss this. In fact, I'd like to talk about it, since now I'm worried about you thinking of me as someone who will check if everything you say is PC. a.z. 03:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I was indeed personally attacking Michael Moore. Plain and simple. I think he's a disgusting despicable excuse for a human being. But as I said above, I have no problem with others personally attacking me, and likewise I feel no guilt about personally attacking others. Once again, I hold a rather counterintuitive view on personal attacks. I actually see the guidelines against personal attacks as being a big source of the problem back at the RefDesk. Sooner or later, the admins start taking sides, and begin allowing their "friends" to personally attack their "enemies" to their hearts' content by looking the other way and letting them get away with murder, while issuing stern warnings to those who can't help but defend themselves by returning with a personal attack of their own. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see the honesty of a personal attack, while perhaps incivil, as being the lesser of the two evils.

As for my remarks about his weight issue, I remember getting into a discussion with someone who objected to my referring to the Iranian dictator as "that insane Iranian midget", telling me that is was inapropriate to make reference to his physical stature, as it's bears no relevance to the fact that he's evil. To that I answered that I refer to him as a midget only to belittle him (pardon the pun). Similarly, I'd find nothing wrong in referring to Hitler as "that clown with the ridiculous mustache" or Mussolini as "that bald Italian oaf". Now I've got nothing against fat people, small people, bald people, Italian people, professional clowns or people with unusual mustaches. I just find it necessary at times to bring certain despicable people down a peg or two by making a few insulting remarks about what are otherwise characteristics irrelevant to their madness.

Personal attacks are indeed wrong most of the time. As are ad hominem attacks. Yet I believe there to be several rare occasions where they are indeed appropriate. For example, be honest with me. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad invited you over to Tehran for tea, to have a completely friendly and cordial debate as to whether the Holocast indeed actually happened, or whether the whole thing is one big hoax, how would you respond to that kind invitation? If it were me, I'd feel it would be by moral obligation to fire off a full salvo of personal attacks upon the guy, "You're inviting me to debate whether the Holocaust happened or not? Go fuck yourself! I wish you die and go to hell, you mother-fucking, retarded, insane midget!" Is that a personal attack? You better believe it! It's got to be one of the most vile personal attacks imaginable. Yet is it at all inappropriate given the hypothetical exceptional circumstances I provided? Hell no! In fact, by far the most innapropriate response would be to actually treat the monster with respect, accept his invitation and sit down for a friendly discussion of the matter.

I'm just feeling a bit guilty that in trying to explain why I feel it's ok to refer to people like Moore as obese, I resorted to referring to such monsters as Hitler, Mussolini and Ahmadinejad. There's obviously no comparison. THAT was wrong. No matter how badly I despise Moore, mentioning him in the same breath as those other REAL monsters is going way too far. Moore may be an annoying prick, but he's certainly no monster. Lewis 13:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that, by making personal attacks against W:Micheal Moore, you're sinking to his level. He often shows Bush picking his nose or in some unflattering pose or stumbling over his words, when he should instead attack the Bush policies he despises. I recently saw "W:Fahrenheit 911", BTW. I should also disclose that I have common origins with MM, as he worked in W:Flint, Michigan for GM, and made his first movie "W:Roger and Me", at about the same time I went to college there and worked for GM. I often agree with parts of his movies, like that Bush has an inappropriately close, personal relationship with the bin Laden family, but do hate how he resorts to silly attacks that have nothing to do with the real issues, much like W:Rush Limbaugh. I'd say we should all focus on the real issues. StuRat 02:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Stu actually made some remarks on his talkpage concerning insults targetted toward fat people or ugly people that actually made me rethink this issue a bit. I realize that there are indeed limits concerning attacks on even the most despicable of people. For example, no matter how much I may despise the man, I'd never resort to referring to Louis Farrakhan as "that antisemitic nigger". That's just plain wrong, no matter how little respect I have for the man. Here in Canada, one of the policians that I dislike the most, Svend Robinson happens to be openly gay. Actually I believe he quit politics after he was arrested for stealing a diamond ring for his boyfriend a couple of years back. Yet I realize now that no matter how little respect I have for the man, I'd never refer to him as "that phoney, opportunistic faggot". That too would be wrong. Yet for some reason, insulting Moore by calling him "obese" just didn't seem as "wrong" as the above two examples. Thanks to you guys, though, I now realize that that too is wrong. I recall watching some news segment on TV very recently about how despite it being considered socially unnacceptable to pick on people based on their race or sexual orientation or whatever else, for some reason it's still considered ok to make "fat jokes". I guess I fell into that trap, but thanks to you guys, I realize now the wrongness of it all. On the other hand, I'm not sure you've changed my mind about how I would refer to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (or Hitler or Mussolini for that matter) in my above hypothetical. I guess this type of thing is a tough call and depends very heavily on context. But thanks anyway, I did indeed learn something through your comments. Lewis 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! It just occurred to me that this is officially the first thing I've "learned" at Wikiversity! This indeed is a great place, and I look forward to continue learning as much as I can here in the future! Lewis 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats ! StuRat 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I read in 2005 about two teenagers who were hang hung in Iran for being gay:w:Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. I can't avoid thinking of those two boys every time I see or hear about Ahmadinejad.

I feel sorry for Ahmadinejad. If he, instead of becoming the president of Iran, was perceived to be insane and were now in a psychiatric hospital, alone in a room, being treated as the insane person that he is, taking his medicine and talking to the psychiatrists at the hospital, I would not enter his room and scream "YOU SICK CRAZY BASTARD HOMOPHOBE, FUCK YOU!" etc. I would feel compassion for him, and I would be sorry for him because he is sick. He would not ever be able to have gay friends, nor Jewish friends, and no friend of his would be a true friend, since he is incapable of love.

I don't know when Ahmadinejad became this "monster" that he now is, but I believe that, if there is a person somewhere in there, this person has some compassion and empathy and those things, despite the fact that they are well hidden right now. I can imagine Ahmadinejad when he was only a child and I can imagine he as a normal person with normal friends. If I were his friend back then, as a child, and I were gay (or Jewish), I would then ask him: "Ahmadinejad, should you be captured by evil people and brainwashed to start hating gay people and desiring to hang them, and should you become the president of Iran and then one day decide to go and conduct of those hangings yourself, and should I be there in that place at that moment, and should I have a gun in my hands and the certainty that no one would know where a shot of that gun would come from, what should I, your friend, do?" The normal answer of the normal person would be: "I hope you, as my friend, shoot me in the face, give me a painless death and avoid that I commit such an atrocity!"

I only said all of this to say that screaming "Go fuck yourself! I wish you die and go to hell, you mother-fucking, retarded and insane!", screaming all of this to Ahmadinejad is not disrespectful to him nor to anyone. Indeed, if you did not have the chance to put him in a hospital or to kill him, this would be one of the most respectful things that you could do to him. It is not a "personal attack" if you do not believe that the person itself is evil. It is, well, an attack on evilness. It looks to me that saying those things would be a warning to people listening to you at the time, so everyone realizes and keeps in mind that they're dealing with Evil there. But if he were not the president and he were in a hospital, and he could never do any harm to anyone, then I can't see the reason to say those things to him.

This is just an idea, I spent some time thinking about all the things that Lewis said and the thoughts above are not a conclusion, but just thoughts that I've been having while trying to find out whether I agree with him or not. Maybe you two can spot something wrong in my reasoning and help me find out what is the truth on this matter. I'm glad that Lewis won't call the politicians that he doesn't like "you faggots", though.

Please, if anyone finds offensive what I wrote, tell me and lets talk and try to understand each other! a.z. 04:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think executing homosexuals is just because of Ahmadinejad, that's a general W:Sharia law thing. That and abusing women seem to be among the worst aspects of the law. I believe Muslims who convert to other religions can also be executed under Sharia law. BTW, the past tense of "hang" is "hanged" or "hung". StuRat 07:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I can see that, but I don't think it implies the need to change my reasoning.

Thank you for telling me when I make English mistakes, StuRat. I'd really like it if people did it more often, since it would take too long for me to realize I was making mistakes if you didn't tell me. That way, I can learn much faster. I'm not seeing where I have used the past tense there. I have to go now, so if you have the time to cross it and write "hung" next to it, I'd appreciate that! a.z. 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I made the correction. StuRat 23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you understand my position quite well, A.Z. But just to make it clear, the reason why I'd refer to Ahmadinejad as an insane midget would be to ridicule him in front of others. Though speaking to him in such a way may seem like a totally uncalculated, unplanned burst of outrage, indeed it would be quite the opposite. The purpose of making that statement would be a completely calculated, planned attempt to expose his insanity to others. It is these "others" who would really be my target audience.

In fact, hypothetically, if I were alone with the man speaking privately, my tone would be entirely different. I wouldn't insult him at all. Rather, I'd likely take a much more calm, reserved and patronizing approach, a more "kill'em with kindness" approach. I'd probably act rather cordial, leading him to believe that I can actually understand his views, and once I gained his trust, I'd then go on to make some rather bizarre remarks, all in a calculated attempt to confuse the man to such a degree that he'd walk out of the meeting completely puzzled and disoriented. It's not that I'd be under any illusion that I'd actually be able to "get through" to him, as that would seem to be next to impossible. Rather, it would merely serve as an attempt to totally throw him off guard and to some degree or another shake his confidence and self-assuredness. This is of course a complete hypothetical, as there's obviously zero likelihood that I'd ever speak to the man in real life.

I'm only saying this because even relatively unimportant and unknown people such as myself, in our lifetimes, run into our fair share of "Mini-Ahmadinejads" in the course of our lives. I know I do. (I realize that terming these people "Mini-Ahmadinejads" is something of an ironic redundancy, I just couldn't think of a better term!). And when I do, this is precisely how I interact with them. Gain their trust by pretending to be able to relate to them, then completely confuse and disorient them by making the the most puzzling of assertions. I actually find the technique to be quite effective, as I've actually succeeded with it on occasion. These people would begin by ranting and raving in the most offensive of manners, only to find themselves so utterly confused that rather than rant and rave, their confidence and self-assuredness shaken, they just finally shut up.

I hope that by saying all this no one will conclude that I'm some sort of manipulative sociopath. I'd only behave this way when interacting with the sickest, most evil lunatics. All those "Mini-Ahmadinejads" of the world. I'd never act in such a manipulative manner with people I actually respect. I realize this post may come off as being a little too "out there", even for me, but after all, we're all allowed to have our occasional "out there" moments! Lewis 22:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Stu's helpful comment about "Anti-Bigotry Bigotry"

Lewis, this was more of a rant than a question. As such, I think it might be better here than on the Help Page, so I'd appreciate it if you would move it, and my reply, here. I won't touch it myself, though, if you disagree. I just wanted us to be on our best behavior here in our new home, so we don't alienate anyone here. StuRat 02:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Bigotry Bigotry

The good people of the world, in the course of the 20th century, finally came to recognize that racist, sexist, antisemitic, homophobic etc. remarks were wrong, incivil, and unacceptable in a civilized society. That of course was a very good thing.

Yet over the course of the past several decades, something rather bizarre has happened. Of course racism, sexism, antisemitism and homophobia continue to be considered wrong. Such people are considered disgusting and ignorant, which is of course true. The bizarre thing, though, is that a new form of hatred has been added to the list of "wrongs". Whereas the original "bad words" used to be "Nigger", "Cunt", "Kike" and "Faggot", today, it almost seems as if you're committing an even greater act of incivility by accusing another of being a bigot.

Nowadays, the act of "accusing" another of being racist, sexist, antisemitic or homophobic, no matter the truth of the allegation, has almost become to be seen as a form of bigotry in and of itself.

For example, it's almost gotten to the point where its considered more offensive for a Jew to call a non-Jew an "antisemite" than it is for an antisemite to call the Jew a "Kike".

The way things are heading, as ridiculous as it sounds, I can almost foresee a day when the racists, the sexists, the antisemites and the homophobes of the world will be designated as the real "minorities, vulnerable to hatred, and in need of anti-hate legislation", and those who oppose them will come to be referred to as digusting and ignorant "anti-bigots", who just don't get that the poor bigots just can't help themselves, indeed, as ridiculous as it may sound, some prominent psychologists and psychiatrists may actually conclude that bigots were "born that way" and to despise them for their bigotry is indeed an ignorant and disgusting display of what they'd describe as the "anti-bigotry".

OK. Maybe I'm taking the illustration a bit too far, but I did so to make a point, and to request as much input on the subject as possible.

Back at the Wikipedia RefDesk, a user known as Clio the Muse made the statement: "Where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism (Nazism)". As a Jew, I found that statement to be terribly disturbing. "Explaining away" Nazism as being the "natural result" of "bitterness and discontent" seemed to me to be the very essence of what I consider to be "Nazi Apologism", and so in discussions at my talk page, I explained how I found that this user, not simply due to this statement, but several others as well, as I put it, "seems to display a tendency towards Nazi Apologism".

And that's when all hell broke loose. "How dare you accuse her of being a Nazi Apologist!", "What a hateful thing of you to say!", "Please clean your act up or get lost!"

Huh? What the hell? They're actually angry at ME? They're accusing ME of some sort of hate-mongering?

Perhaps she isn't a Nazi Apologist, but then again, perhaps she is. These people do exist, after all. For one to wind her way into Wikipedia is by far not the most unlikely of events. In fact to assume that absolutely no bigots exist at Wikipedia is to me a far more ridiculous assumption than my assumption that one who mentions that "where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism" is indeed perhaps a "Nazi Apologist".

But then again, maybe she was indeed "born that way", and I was indeed the wrong one for making disparaging remarks about what is merely a natural trait of hers, beyond her control.

Alas, I suppose that would make me a despicable "anti-bigot".

But, then again, I honestly can't help but resist my anti-bigotry urges. How can I be hated for something I can't control. I never "chose" to be an anti-bigot. I was just born that way!

Please don't hate me!

I'd welcome as many comments, opinions, remarks, criticisms, feedback, whatever, as possible. I'd really like to hear other people's opinions on this most bizarre "anti-bigotry bigotry" phenomenon that seems to be developing.

Thanks in advance for you input!

Lewis 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups do have the right to have hate speech protected in the US under the First Amendment to the Constitution. I think that, as long as they don't advocate violence, they can rant on about how some groups are evil and worthless and others are superior. You commentary also reminds me of a short TV segment I saw staring Bill Cosby. He was alone in a chair, smoking a cigar, pretending to be a bigot. He ranted on about why he hates every ethnic, religious, and other group there is. Then, at the end he says "You know, there's only one person on Earth who isn't in any of the groups I mentioned, and I hate him, too, because he's a bigot". StuRat 01:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Montreal

Hi Lewis,

Have I ever mentioned that I've been to Montreal ? I stayed at the Hotel Roussillon in Longueuil and worked at Pratt & Whitney for a couple weeks (teaching a computer class). The first thing I encountered when entering the city via the airport was customs agents wearing turbans ! Yea, I'm sure they're going to protect Canada from us American terrorists, LOL. The next "experience" I had was a suicidal taxi driver in a Renault LeCar going so fast that it actually managed to leave the surface of the bridge as we crossed the river (think Dukes of Hazzard). I also recall that, due to Bill 101, the radio stations were required to play French much of the time. So, I would find a good radio station only to have them switch over to frog-speak. Then I would find another English radio station only to have the same thing happen again and again. Let's not forget the food. The cafeteria at Pratt & Whitney served something called "boiled meat". The scary part is that nobody was willing to identify the dead animal carcass from which it came. The pizza served had all the toppings buried under a layer of cheese, so you had to guess what you were getting. Then my poor rental car overheated trying to go up that huge hill. Quite an experience ! StuRat 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I also tried to learn some French for my trip, but when we go to 77 being called something like "sixty-seventeen", I gave it up. The hotel also made it impossible for me to get more than 4 hours sleep. They had an atrium in the center with loud parties until about 4 am, every night. Then the maid would be pounding on the door at 8 AM, even if I put a "non molestier" sign on the door (if you omit the sign, do they molest you ?). StuRat 02:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL ! a.z. 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you were rather impressed with our fair city! I'll comment more later on a whole bunch of things you wrote, as I can write an entire rant on each one of them! But for the sake of brevity, let me just say now, I've been to Detroit a couple of times as well. Well, I'm not sure you can actually say I've really "visited" the city, as I was just passing through...rather quickly...making sure all the car doors were securely locked and the windows up. ;-) Lewis 14:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't make your way up to 99! 99 in French is expressed as "quatre-vignt-dix-neuf". The literal translation of that into English is: "four-twenty-ten-nine". When you were here, did you come across any of those pizza places where they'll sell you a slice for only four-twenty-ten-nine cents? Lewis 18:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I'm particularly irritated when people assume that the French (from France) are pretty much one and the same people as the French Canadians. I can't help but laugh at the ignorance of those who depict French Canadians the same way they depict the (European) French, that being as rude obnoxious and arrogant, and invariably wearing a beret and one of those silly black and white striped shirts, while carrying a bag filled with a bottle of wine, some smelly cheases and finally that pièce de resistance, one of those long, thin, crusty breads sticking out of the bag. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The French Canadians and the French-French are like night and day. Despite the silly politics, the Québecois people have got to be among the kindest, warmest, most humble, least snotty, most accepting and least racist people in the world, pretty much the exact opposite of their European counterparts. I consider myself lucky to live amongst such a kind, generous people.

Pretty much the only thing they share with the "French-French" is the French language. Assuming that because the two speak the same language (or almost the same language), they must share the same cultural values and mentality would be, to put it in terms Artur would understand, akin to assuming that the (European) Portuguese and the Brazilian peoples are pretty much one and the same, simply because they speak the same language. Now I'm not all that familiar with either the Portuguese or the Brazilians, but I'm willing to bet that Artur would confirm my suspicions that the Brazilians and the Portuguese are so different it's like night and day.

To put it in terms Stu would understand, imagine hearing someone say that the Americans and the Brits, culturally speaking, are pretty much one and the same people, all because they both speak the same language.

Stu's correct in saying that Canadian English is a mixture of American and British English. In some respects, such as spelling, we're more like the Brits. In fact I'd say that our spelling is far more British than American. We seem to follow pretty much all the British English spellings, with only a handful of notable exceptions. I can only think of two cases where we've rejected the British spelling because it just sounds so damn archaic, those being "tyre" and "gaol". We're with the Americans with regards to those two words. Here it's "tire", not "tyre", and "jail" not "gaol".

As far as accents go, perhaps this is only from my perspective, but the Canadian accent, (I should really be saying accents because even in Canada, our accents vary by region,) though definitely different from the American in many respects, is still by far a lot closer (by far a lot closer? Quite the oxymoron I've just used!) to the American than it is to the British. The way I see it, our accent would seem to be no more than another regional variant of what I would call the "North American English" accent. In fact it would appear that our accent is rather similar to the North Dakota/Minnesota/Wisconsin type accent. But that's only from my Canadian perspective. Perhaps to Stu we indeed sound like a bunch of Brits.

Since we seem to be into trivia, and since you both seem to be familiar with Friends, here's a trivia question for you both: Of the six actors that play the six main characters, five are American, and one is Canadian. You've probably already read it or heard about it somewhere, in which case you'd already know. But on the off chance you don't, would you be able to tell by accent alone which one is the Canadian?

If you know that one already, perhaps this one you don't know: Of the actors that played the main characters in the original Star Trek series, two were Canadian. In fact one is from Montreal and grew up just a couple of miles away from where I am right now. Assuming you didn't already know who they are, by accent alone, would you be able to spot the two Canadians? Lewis 18:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm unable to spot the Canadian in Friends. I didn't even know they had an accent of their own... a.z. 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble detecting Canadian accents myself. The one word that's a dead give-away is "out". In US English, it's said "owt", while in Canadian English it's pronounce "oot". Also, "about" becomes "aboot", and a "boat" becomes a "boot". Canadians also seem to speak more formally. So, while I might say "I'm gonna..." a Canadian would likely say "I'm going to...". Or have a Canadian say "z" and they say "zed", instead of "zee" in US English. I know that William Shatner (Kirk) is Canadian, and would guess the other was James Doohan (Scotty), as the fake Scottish accent would obliterate any Canadian accent underneath. I would guess Chandler was the Canadian on Friends. StuRat 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Right on all three. I realize that I wasn't being fair, though, when referring to Doohan, since Scotty's accent was completely fake (as was Chekov's, come to think of it). Shatner grew up not to far from where I live, and even went to McGill like I did. As for Matthew Perry (Chandler), I believe he's from Ottawa.

It's true that we pronounce "about" differently, but I think the difference is isn't recognized correctly. It's true that Americans pronounce it "abowt", but we certainly don't pronounce it "aboot". I've never even heard of any assertion that we pronounce "boats" as Americans would pronounce "boots". On that one, I think we pronounce it pretty much the same as Americans do. With a hard O as in "oat" or "soap". So with regards to the way we pronounce "about", rather than characterize it as sounding like Americans would pronounce "a boot", I'd say that it would much more accurate to describe our pronunciation of "about" as being very similar to the way Americans would say "a boat". Lewis 18:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are limitations in how well I can represent a particular pronunciation in writing. I can recognize and imitate Canadian speech patterns better than I can write them down. I think there are some nonstandard Canadian accents, too, like in Newfoundland. I'm not as familiar with those. Do you agree that Canadians are less likely to use informal words, like "gonna" ? StuRat 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it's difficult to represent pronuciations in writing. That's why I resorted to the "rhyming" technique. Actually, if had any idea about how that IPA system works, that would probably be the ideal. Unfortunately I have no clue how IPA works, so the next best thing is what I call the "rhyming" technique. Or even better, when available, the homophone technique.

For example, Americans often equate the Canadian pronunciation of the word "about" with how they would pronounce "a boot" as in the piece of footwear. Well, that's where I disagree. We definitely don't pronounce the word "about" the way Americans would pronounce "a boot". Rather, we pronounce "about" more like the way Americans would speak of that particular watercraft known as "a boat".

With regard to the use of informal words, this is how I see it. It's not that we're less familiar with them when speaking among friends, or in other informal situations. In such cases we use them all the time. It's just that unlike Americans, we tend to hold back a bit more on using informalities in otherwise rather formal situations. For example, generally speaking, our politicians would definitely tend to hold back and speak rather formally in front of the press. Occasionally certain politicians, especially those from the western provinces, tend to break that tendency, and speak in a far more "folksy" manner, such as Alberta Premier Ralph Klein. And they only benefit from doing so, as Klein has. But that's because he's in Alberta. Alberta is probably the closest we have to Texas. And Klein is the closest we have to GWB. Back east, the Albertans are seen as a bunch of oil-rich, colourful, cowboy hicks. On the other hand, I'm sure the Albertans see politicians from Ontario as a bunch of stuck-up, overly formal talking heads and stuffed-shirts. These are the guys you seem to be referring to. And it's true, they should loosen up a bit and stop being so artificial and formal. Lewis 00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Lewis, I just saw your last e-mail. I wanted to send you a reply, but it seems that you have not specified a valid e-mail address. a.z. 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just sent it. Of course, wiki may screw up again and if it does, just tell me. And Stu, the only reason I didn't send one to you is because we've emailed in the past, and I assume you already know my email. Just tell me if you ever need it again, I'll resend it to you as well. Lewis 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that we're on the subject, it's not that I'm not thouroughly enjoy chatting with you guys, but I seem to be having trouble understanding what Wikiversity indeed is. I looked around, and pretty much nothing else was going on. Now that I feel comfortable here, I'd love to start contributing to the general Wikiversity population, I just don't know how. Perhaps I was a bit quick in claiming to understand what Wikiversity is. So far I love it, but at the same time, I really don't precisely understand exactly what it's all about. If either of you can help me understand it better, and/or perhaps give me suggestions as to how I can begin to actually contribute, I'd be grateful. Lewis 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At the top of this page it says "Please help Wikiversity finally decide its motto and slogan, and research scope and guidelines". If you pick on those links I bet you will find helpful discussions, and also have the opportunity to ensure that we don't end up with over-restrictive rules as in Wikipedia. In short, I think this is the place for original research, with studies reviewed by others and published here. StuRat 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to send you that e-mail now, Lewis, but now it's too late and I need to sleep. I'll write it another time. But thank you very much for writing yours :-) a.z. 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late ? Aren't you the one who stays up until 2-3 am ? StuRat 02:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I went to bed at 5:30 AM on Monday morning and woke up at 8:30 AM! I am kind of tired and I don't think I could write anything now... Also, I have a bit of trouble writing... I think too much about what I'm going to say and then at the end I say nothing! But if you start chatting with me now, I'll stay awake until I eventually... I don't know, sleep over the keyboard. a.z. 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I wouldn't mind chatting a little before going to bed. How about trivia? But not about etymology this time. a.z. 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what US presidents have been impeached ? StuRat 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure... Richard Nixon only? a.z. 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he resigned before he could be impeached. But two Presidents were. StuRat 03:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know that one... I guess Eisenhower? a.z. 03:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One clue is that "impeached" doesn't mean "removed from office", it actually just means they held the vote to do so, whether it won or failed. StuRat 03:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton then! a.z. 03:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very good ! The other one is rather obscure, it was Andrew Johnson (not Lyndon Johnson). He was impeached after the US Civil War because he wanted to punish the South with his "Reconstruction" policies, while Congress was opposed. The impeachment failed by one vote. StuRat 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

...and that leads into a joke: "Why did Bill Clinton wear wool boxer shorts ?" StuRat 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Should I know? a.z. 03:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It gets cold in the White House, and they helped to keep his ankles warm. :-) StuRat 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

 :-) Sorry to make you wait StuRat, there was a problem with the Internet connection, but now I'm back. Do you speak any other language besides English? a.z. 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a petit bit of French. StuRat 04:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Do you travel abroad? a.z. 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to Canada (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, etc.) , and I haven't done that since they added a passport requirement. Do you ? StuRat 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I've only been to the US that one time (and the time I was born), but I would like to travel a lot one day. I was trying to figure out what you're interested in so I could ask trivia questions that you wouldn't find boring. a.z. 04:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Politics, religion, science, nations from around the world. StuRat 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Random fact: out of the last twenty edits to Wikiversity, 16 were made by you and me!

How come you like nations around the world and don't travel abroad?

Hmm... I can't think of any trivia... you can ask more if you'd like. I think it's gettin late for you as well. a.z. 04:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I do travel ... on the Internet. My friend I play chess with is in New Zealand, Lewis is in Canada, you're in Brazil, etc. Trivia Q: Why are England and Scotland distinct cultures despite being on the same small island ? StuRat 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Does it have anything to do with the Roman Empire? Or the French? Or the vikings maybe... a.z. 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

First guess was right, it was because the Romans conquered and "civilized" the area that is now England, up to W:Hadrian's Wall. StuRat 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, can you explain to me why Portugal was never incorporated into Spain ? StuRat 04:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fuck my paranoia! I actually had thought of Hadrian's Wall, the only reason I didn't mention it was because I was afraid you were gonna think I knew nothing of history and was just talking crap.

That last question may be difficult to answer and not have such a clear answer as "because of a wall". I do not know. a.z. 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure myself. Part of it seems to be that Spain was busy fighting off the Moors for centuries, and Portugal was unaffected, but there must be more to it than that. Also, a Portuguese man was angry at me for calling it Portugal, he said the name was just "Portu", if I recall, do you know anything about that ? StuRat 04:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I know Portugal fought the Moors a lot, indeed that was the reason why the king came to have such a great power (not common at the time in Europe). All the conquered lands from the Moors became property of the king and so the country managed to focus its resources to become the first exploratory power of the Age of Discovery. a.z. 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, didn't Portugal briefly have the most powerful naval force in the world, between the Vikings and Spain, around 1400 AD ? StuRat 05:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I think I really need to sleep, StuRat! Good night. I like talking with you. a.z. 05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, Good night ! StuRat 05:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Lewis, I just wanted to thank you for coming over to Wikiversity in such a spirit of learning. :-) The Wikiversity:Help desk is a great place to start, and perhaps to kick-start a learning project or two. I noticed you asking about Wikiversity above, and I'd be happy to fill you in. Maybe see Wikiversity:Welcome, newcomers and Portal:Education/Wikiversity model for a start - or join the #wikiversity-en channel on Freenode IRC. Wikiversity is still being defined, but it's mainly about developing learning materials, as well as learning communities (active, collaborative learning projects). There's much more to say of course, but it'll no doubt come out in discussion. Cheers! Cormaggio ^talk 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you really mean this ?

"I can respect those who disagree with me on strategy. I just can't respect those who disagree on principle."

I can certainly respect those who disagree with me on principle, as long as they can defend their beliefs and treat others with respect. StuRat 18:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it's correct to call yourself a "pacifist" if you support the war in Iraq. Pacifists oppose war, and certainly oppose wars were they were not attacked first. (I don't consider myself to be a pacifist, although, per above, I respect them even though I disagree on principle.) StuRat 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's all semantics, I suppose. I just looked up the word "pacifist" in the dictionary, and it doesn't mean what I originally thought it meant, and so you're right, I suppose I'm not a pacifist either. What I meant in describing myself a pacifist is that I abhor violence and war, yet I believe that military action is at times a necessary evil, though still an evil.

As for principle, I get the feeling that I meant it in a somewhat deeper sense than you did. In the particular context where it came up, I was saying that I don't respect those who are so anti-war, that they'll fly to Tehran and plant themselves as human shields in a misguided attempted to frustrate the plans of the US or Israel or whoever else that cares to eliminate Iran's nukes.

Also, as I mentioned, despite the fact that I abhor violence and war, I'm totally against anti-war protests and would never participate in them (unless, I suppose, if I felt the war in question was so wrong that I believe it absolutely must be stopped immediately). As I explained, I find them to be naive, counter-productive, and that their worst feature is that I can't help but see them as demoralizing our troops, and motivating the enemy, causing our soldiers to be that much more vulnerable. To that extent, I find it difficult to respect anti-war protesters.

Without getting into the Vietnam War itself, as I have mixed feelings about it, one thing that I don't have mixed feelings about are the anti-Vietnam War protesters. Some see them as heroes, but morale was so incredibly low among the troops there that I can't help but attribute at least some of the blame for the mission's failure and the extent of US casualties directly to the fact that the US troops that were sent there knew full well that such an enormous, and extremely vocal portion of their fellow Americans back home didn't simply think that their mission was "strategically unwise" but much worse, that it was "wrong", and they, by extension were "wrong" for participating in it. It's not that I can't respect someone for being of the opinion that Vietnam was not only "strategic unwise", but actually "the wrong thing to do". The former I can definitely respect, and the latter, well I suppose theres some validity to their arguments as well.

I know that you're against that war. But would you say that it's because you found it to be a strategic mistake, or because you feel the mission, even if it was a total success and little to no Americans were hurt was still "the wrong thing to do"? Lewis 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Vietnam war was a bad idea from the start. As history has proven, it wasn't the lead domino in a series of dominoes that would cause the world to go communist. I think the Vietnam War protesters, in that they got the war to end more quickly, did the soldiers and the world a favor. I do, however, think that calling soldiers "baby killers" and such was a bad idea. StuRat 22:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I also see that you can't stay away from the Ref Desk talk page. Some suggestions:

1) Stop threatening to leave and never come back.

2) Please learn to be more succinct. Nobody wants to read a reply that long.

3) Logical arguments are difficult to find if couched in angry diatribes. They may be there, just not easy to spot.

4) Here are some flamingoes that aren't birds: [1].:-) StuRat 22:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Well I have pretty much left. I no longer have an account or a user page to speak of, and my signature is in Red. This time I never even made any announcement about my leaving or anything. All I did was make the satirical remark meant to poke fun at how nobody seems to follow even their own rules with any consistency, by making the intentionally self-contradictory remark: "I, LEWIS, HEREBY PROMISE TO NEVER COME BACK HERE. Expect when I feel like it." I think I held true on that one! :-) I just quietly closed my account and stopped visiting...until of course you brought that Mauve thing to my attention. Once I was there I couldn't help but notice my post, which by now should have slipped into the archives but was reprieved for some reason in some sort of "Encore Presentation". So basically what I'm saying is that it's all your fault, Stu! I'm just kidding.

2) Yes I write too much for this medium. I've admitted to it before. And I DO intend to work on it, especially in cases where I have any realistic chance of being taken seriously. Nevertheless, I have no illusions about the RefDesk, I realize no one will pay any attention anyway, so who really cares?

3) In any case, I was actually making reference to three rather succint paragraphs of mine. They were short and to the point. Yet Vranak dismissed them as illogical nonsense for the simple reason that I somehow came off as "hot under the collar". To me they made perfect logical sense, and were relatively toned down. BTW, is there indeed a word for that particular variation on an ad hominem attack? I.e. "Your argument can't possibly make any logical sense because you were clearly angry when you wrote it"?

I'd say it's just a generalization. That is, in general it's true that those who make emotional appeals do not include logical arguments with them. The generalization is in assuming that is always the case. StuRat 04:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

4) LOL :--)

Seriously though, Stu, I realize that everyone has their own unique style of expressing themselves. Sure, in this particular medium, speaking in "sound bites" is most effective. Yet it's a bit tough to get used to for me. I've done quite a bit of writing in my day, and I've been published quite a few times. But my forté happens to be the thousand or so word opinion piece. Squeezing all that into a 25-words-or-less-sound-bite is a tough switch! What I'm saying is that I of course appreciate your criticisms and will continue to work on adapting my "opinion-piece" style to the sound-bite format more appropriate here. On the other hand, if you're implying, at it seems, that my difficulty with adjusting to the extreme brevity required here amounts to some sort of general weakness in my writing skills, I have to say that I'm a bit put-off by that implication. My writing has always been regarded by so many as a rather unique talent of mine, one that I'm considerably proud of. That's why I can't help but feel a bit slighted when its quality is criticized, when it's suggested in even the friendliest of ways that I should "Please learn to be more succinct. Nobody wants to read a reply that long." Well, to the audiences I'm used to writing to, they indeed do want to read an article of that length!

Yet you still have a point. In order to better express myself here, I do indeed need to learn to be more succint. I just felt I should explain the rest just so that you know where I'm coming from. Lewis 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, you would be far more convincing if you could make short, logical arguments, without the emotional part. BTW, did you get Light Current's mauve message ? StuRat 04:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It really is about semantics. In Portuguese I take the word "princípio" (principle) to mean something so much but so much profound and deep that I eventually reached the conclusion that I had to redefine "person", i.e.:

PERSON (noun): the one that has the same principles that I do

(of course that this definition assumes a priori that I am a person)

I understand that when you used the word principle you meant something totally different, and when you used the word respect you also meant something quite different, something I myself would not use the word respect for, as I respect every person (according to the definition).

Now, there seems to be some sort of circular defining here or something like that, since I define principle as that which is my essence therefore essence of a person!

Anyone (any person) who does anything wrong would only be doing that because this person is ignorant. People act wrongly because they ignore their principles, i.e., they don't know themselves enough to know how wrong are wrong things (defined as things that do not agree with their principles) and how right are right things (defined as things that agree with their principles).

Therefore, everyone is good and evilness is just ignorance. a.z. 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there. I believe there are truly evil people. The one who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech is a nice current example. BTW, how was my Portuguese translation at the Ref Desk talk page ? StuRat 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all I need to say that what I said above is just a rational theory and I'm not too much emotionally involved with that... But that guy could've been sick or something, I don't know... Anyhow, no matter what rationalization you make, there is always something shocking in the world, and no rationalization solves it. Maybe evilness exists out there somewhere, but I have a problem accepting that the guy is at the same time both a person and evil. Because I am a person... I am another one of him and I carry with me the potential to do evil things one day... And I'd like to hope that this potential is not in myself, but rather exists because of something else out of me...

Your Portuguese translation was good! I would only translate "governo" into "administration" rather than "government". a.z. 04:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, that's a common mistake to make, I bet. StuRat 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I miss Lewis. It's been some time we don't talk... a.z. 04:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he's back at the Wikipedia Ref Desk talk page again, didn't you see him there ? StuRat 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm here Artur. It just seems that you two have turned my talk page into a chat room! Either of you ever heard of MSN messenger? I'm just teasing. Chat away here to your hearts' contents, I really don't mind at all. (Plus, this way I get to listen in to your fascinating chats!) Anytime you feel like chatting, this is pretty much my home base now, so I'll surely respond to any comments you direct my way.

As for the RefDesk, I'm probably pretty much done with this little episode. I'm not saying I won't ever go back whenever I just can't resist the urge. At the very least though, I don't see myself as being any sort of "regular" as I used to be.

And I did finally figure out the "Mauve" remark. Whatever you may think of him otherwise, I can't help but give the guy credit for that one, as I it to be rather clever! Lewis 13:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is there to be figured out? a.z. 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Go to the Wikipedia Ref Desk talk page, do a search on "mauve", and see if you can't find a hidden insult aimed at the majority of people you and Lewis are fighting with there. StuRat 05:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw it with my own eyes

Lewis, I saw it. All of that which you talk about. All the irrationality, all the lack of logic, all the absurdness! It was right there in front of me, right there on Wikipedia, on the talk page of the Reference Desk! I would be feeling really bad if I didn't know someone who had been through the same thing before. I understand you, Lewis! I am amazed and truly surprised, I never thought it would eventually be THAT jaw dropping, but it is. It is as you said: people are reverting my edits and giving no explanation whatsoever! They are saying my contributions have nothing to do with the reference desk! They are telling me that all of this is pointless and I should just give up! And they did all of this right after I made the most logical argument in my entire life, actually PROVING something that I was until that point only vaguely thinking about! THANK YOU LEWIS for having been through all of that before me and showing me it's possible not to become crazy afterwards!

Artur a.z. 00:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again it strikes!!! I am face to face with the absurd!!! Now rockpocket is actually WARNING me!! And is asking Jack to stop engaging in discussion with me! Words cannot possibly express how much it means to me to know that you'll read this and understand me!

But, Lewis, I don't know how I would be if it weren't for you right now... Maybe it is the fact that you don't respond to attacks as emotionally as I do, but I cannot imagine how you went through those things and remained well. You were right when you said I was right and they were wrong. I am right and there is another person in the world that I can tell I AM RIGHT to!! It's like we're the only ones sane and it's 1984! Those guys actually doublethink! a.z. 00:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No Artur, thank you! Of course I do recognize how you and Stu have been supporting me all this time, even if you couldn't exactly relate exactly to what I was talking about. I always got the impression that whenever I brought the subject up, though you and Stu would always be kind enough to sympathize and offer your support, at the same time at least some part of you would feel like rolling your eyes and thinking, "Oh Lewis! Yes we think you have some sort of point, we sort of agree with you and we definitely support you, but for goodness sake! Enough is enough! Leave it alone and move on!" Still, even with your support, it was still frustrating how even my best friends here, no matter how hard I tried, still didn't quite "get it", why you still didn't "get" exactly what I was talking about.

But now you do, which is finally such an incredible RELIEF! It feels like such an incredible weight has finally been lifted from my shoulders! So when I say "No Artur, thank you!" I'm not just saying that to be polite, you have no idea how much of a difference it makes to no longer be completely alone in my frustration!

Anyway, from the last I saw of the RefDesk talkpage, just as I predicted it seems to keep continuing to deteriorate. I left there just about a week ago, and didn't even go back to visit until yesterday, yet even in that one short week the situation has gone from absurd to...well I can't even think of the proper word for it! It used to be just a ridiculous circus, yet despite all the illogical arguments, the insanely arbitrary handling of breaches of guidelines, the maddening biases, etc., I was still able to make at least some sense of it, in that I was able to get some sort of idea as to who was supporting whom, and no matter how poorly they were at expressing it, at least some sort of faint idea as to the position they were arguing.

Yet in just one week, the place has gone from absurd to almost completely incoherent and unintelligible. In fact it's becoming too incoherent and unintelligible to even be irritating anymore. After all, for a remark to irritate you, at the very least you have to have some sort of grasp as to what's being said and why. Yet skimming through the talk page, I don't even know what's going on anymore. What the RefDesk has done to Jack is perhaps the saddest casuality of this whole thing. He used to be so wise, so kind, so generous with his time and so completely emotionally centred. I really had a great deal of respect for that man. Yet now, he seems to be so angry and incoherent. He's angry about something, yet for the life of me I can't put my finger on what it is. He seems to be arguing with someone, but yet again, I can't for the life of me figure out just who he's arguing with. And it's the same with so many others. I just skim through the page and with the odd exception, I really don't have a clue what they're going on about.

It's not that the RefDesk talkpage was ever well defined, but it's lack of definition has gotten to the point where it's become a sort of catch-all rebuttle to any argument to just claim that the subject being discussed should be taken somewhere else, as the RefDesk talkpage is not the proper place for the discussion. It's gotten to the point where it can be used to put an end to any discussion of any subject. Earlier on, back when I thought that I could actually be of help in improving the RefDesk some way, I'd suggest something like "perhaps the RefDesk would benefit if the guidelines regarding personal attacks were administered more fairly". To that I was told: "the RefDesk talkpage is not the appropriate place for discussion of Wikipedia guidelines". It's actually become so ridiculous, that I can even see the day coming soon when someone will use that tactic in the most idiotic way possible, that being: "this is the RefDesk talkpage, and as such it's completely inappropriate to engage here in discussions regarding the improvement of the RefDesk".

Just one last thing. I realize that I write a lot. You mentioned just recently that I must enjoy writing because I write so much. Well you're absolutely right. I really do enjoy writing. Though it's not my full time job, it's definitely one of my favourite hobbies, and I've actually been lucky enough to actually be paid for it on occasion! Anyway, Stu is correct in saying that in this type of forum, it's much more effective to express by making very concise, logical points, rather than writing in such long format. Of course he's right when it comes to wiki. And don't be mistaken, I'm not a huge reader myself. I don't have the patience to read several hundred page novels. My favourite for both reading and writing are the 500-1000 word opinion piece, like a newspaper editorial or an op-ed piece, (or what they'd refer to here as a "rant"!) Not too long, not to short, just perfect for me. I'd just like to be sure you don't mind my writing to you in this way. After all, I wouldn't want your talkpage page to be filled with my long winded rants!

But thanks again for lifting that incredible weight I've been bearing in my shoulders for so long. It's so incredibly relieving to finally know that at least one other human being completely understands me in this manner. I actually haven't taken a look yet at what you were precisely referring to at the RefDesk talkpage. I think I'll go check it out right now! Lewis 01:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just one more thing. Feel free to come back and "rant" ALL YOU WISH about the insanity of the RefDesk talkpage. First, it's good for you, and second, I don't mind it in the slightest, and as a matter of fact the more you "rant" about it, the more relaxed and confident I feel about the fact THAT I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!! :--) Lewis 01:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take my latest post on the RefDesk talkpage seriously. It may seem like I was criticizing you, but it was just a sarcastic joke. Lewis 02:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really good to know all of that Lewis!! Don't worry, you were Right all along... I knew already that they were being irrational, but I never thought it would be so scary, so shocking, so disturbing like it is! Clio the Muse did not take part in any of the discussions and yet she wrote now "lots of giggles!"... What the hell could she possibly mean by that? How the hell is THIS not disruptive? And everyone admires her instead of realizing that Clio has a problem and she needs help! She actually never adds anything of value to any discussion, she is obviously on Wikipedia looking for approval from other people and is really afraid to make people angry at her... When she sees that everyone is not taking someone seriously, she then starts attacking that person... she is like a high school girl trying to be popular... I remember one time when Friday suggested something, a pseudo-something, I don't know, and everyone was discussing and all she said was "Would this not just be-sigh!-another drone fest? Just imagine: another 'super majority.' Can you cope; can I cope? Oh, my God: words within words, dolls within dolls; world without end, amen!" She did not suggest anything to be done, she just... I don't even know what is the name of doing this...

IT IS ALL MADNESS LEWIS! THAT'S WHAT IT IS! a.z. 03:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was likely disturbed by the happenings when I shouted that it was all madness. a.z. 17:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for letting me rant all I wish! Oh my god, I feel so free...

Clio always uses as an argument the fact that the discussion is getting boring or tedious... And the thing is that this really used to affect me, as I did not realize how evil a thing it was to say something like that and how the fact that the discussion is boring is by no means a good reason to stop it. a.z. 03:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm really sorry for what happened to Jack... I don't know what it is... That's what scares me the most, Lewis. I wouldn't mind 1000 mad idiots if I were sure that one sane person would always be there, but I'm afraid something like that could one day happen to you as well!! a.z. 03:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

NEVER! I was able to hold my own so long alone, and despite how hard it was, the worst I ever considered was just quitting and never coming back. NEVER though had I ever had the slightest urge to give in to the insanity, and now that I have you who understands me, I most certainly never will!!! Lewis 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Hi Jack. After unsuccessfully shopping for an admin that might support his and Loomis' position, and reactivating an discussion archived 3 times for being inappropriate, I have warned A.Z. this his comments are becoming disruptive. In his own interests, I'm going to refrain from further comment on his off-topic debate. I'd urge you do do likewise and hopefully this can finally be put to bed." Rockpocket 01:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Look how he rationalises everything so much... "The discussion was 'inappropriate', so OK, what I'm doing is right... he reverted it 3 times so it's my job as an administrator to go and do something... also, no other administrator agrees with him. Good, the list is getting bigger. Hmmm... What else... oh, yes, it was all off-topic for sure. Right! Now let's tell Jack that and put it to bed! And let the talk page be the place to discuss the really important things, like the color and stuff."

And Jack answers that from now on he will behave well!

Did I already tell you about the doublethinking? Of course one of the best examples of these recent times was when Clio got a marriage proposal on the Reference Desk itself. No one did anything, a guy just REVERTED the question but only to see whether Clio would LET the question be there or not. She did and they spent their time talking about how delighted everyone is to meet her... Nothing wrong with that, except that "we would like the reference desk to be a reference desk"! a.z. 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that the way I phrased the posts above could have been more calm and constructive. a.z. 17:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit suspicious that she is using sockpuppets (herself under other names) to make the comments of praise for herself. Then again, if Lewis can fall for her act, maybe others can, too. StuRat 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! She joined sometime last October and I only fell for it for like two weeks! It's now six months later and FINALLY you've decided to join me! At this rate we'll all be dead before everyone else sees her for the fraud that she is. All things considered, I'm actually proud of myself that it only took a couple of weeks! (Well, of course there's Stu too. Though he definitely doesn't like her either, I don't think he's yet come to realize how absolutely MADDENING she is as you and I do. But he's very smart. It won't be long.) Lewis 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been blocked for another 31 hours (31 hours? What an odd, dare I say "arbitrary" number of hours to be blocked!) which is totally unfair! I specifically asked for my account to be deleted permanently but all they give me is 31 hours! But as Friday once said, Wikipedia is the wrong place to look if you're expecting fairness!

Seriously, of course what I was doing was "disruptive". That was the point! Maybe A.Z. doesn't know me long enough to know this, but back when the RefDesk was a "normal" place, I was never once "disruptive". I'm just not a "disruptive" person by nature. It's just that when things finally get so bad and "constructive" remarks no longer have any use, is "disruptive" behaviour actually called for as a last resort.

I suppose the main point that I'm driving at is that I hope neither of you look upon my "disruptive" behaviour as some sort of senseless emotional outburst. Quite the contrary. It was actually a rather cold and calculated last resort attempt at stirring up some shit that's in dire need of some good stirring. Lewis 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't fooled by Clio, not even for a moment. Don't you remember that I tangled with her right from the beginning ? StuRat 17:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

True. I guess you get the prize for being the first to see her for the fraud she is. It actually took me a couple of weeks. Still, a couple of weeks is next to nothing when you consider the fact that it's been over six months and aside from the three of us, no one else seems to display the slightest clue. When you think about it, it actually amounts to a rather sad commentary on the pathetic judgment and the utter gullibility of the wiki community as a whole. And these people are actually undertaking the task of putting together what is purported to be the "greatest repository of knowledge" to ever exist? That's not just sad, that's actually pretty scary when you think about it, and that pretty much explains why I'm so dead-set on doing something about it. Lewis 19:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I still can't quite understand how you expect to improve the Ref Desk by abandoning it. StuRat 04:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way. To me, Wikipedia, in a sense, is very similar to the UN, an organization for which we have similar views. Imagine if some of the most democratic countries in the world had finally decided they've had enough of all the UN bullshit. As it is, the GA is made up of about 3/4 dictatorships. Imagine if Canada, the US, Sweden, Denmark etc. decide to pull out. What would be left of the GA? A bunch of dictatorships voting on this or that, with no one really paying attention or taking it seriously. Only then could a TRULY democratic institution be formed. Lewis 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the Wikipedia Ref Desk collapsing anytime soon. It will just become progressively harsher, more boring, and eventually have only a handful of Q's a day, but this won't make it collapse. Nor do I want it to collapse, I want to fix it, and that requires working on it from the inside. StuRat 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Check This One Out!

Thanks to Artur, much of was used to anger and frustrate me now just makes me laugh. Check out this latest gem and my response to it:

Please do not delete the comments of others from talkpages. If you believe a personal attack has occurred, you can ask the individual to retract them or, if serious enough, you can replace them with <personal attack removed>. Thank you. Rockpocket 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, does this "directive" of yours apply to everyone or just people you disagree with? How about we make a deal. Copy this post, go to eric's talkpage, paste a copy there, and I'll gladly do as you suggest and never delete another's post. Should a policy apply equally to everyone, I'll observe it with enthusiasm. Otherwise, if it's applied unequally, I have no respect for it, and see no purpose in paying even the slightest bit of attention to it. Lewis 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like the conversation I often have with Friday where he accuses me of "starting an edit war" when I undo a unilateral deletion from the Ref Desk. He never says the same thing to the person who does the unilateral deletion (often EricR), who I consider to be the one starting the edit war. StuRat 04:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Daanschr and Clio the Muse

Daanschr and Clio the Muse are both European historians in their 20's. Take a look at that:

"Hezbollah is a political organization for Shiites in Lebanon that only atacked Israel last year to liberate prisoners." (Daanschr) [2]

"Above all, please remember that Nazism, before all else, was a political movement, not a collection of strict eugenicists." (Clio the Muse) [3]

I believe there was a difference, in that Hezbollah started by murdering people, then later developed a "political wing" and won elections. The Nazis did it in the reverse order, first starting as a political organization, then, after getting elected, they started murdering people. Also, I wouldn't call Daanschr a "historian", as he seems utterly ignorant about some very basic facts, like that blacks can vote in the US and Hezbollah has huge weapons stockpiles. StuRat 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But anyways both of them are trying to justify the actions of murderers by saying that the murderers are political organizations or political movements. a.z. 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Clio's phrase "before all else" gives this a double meaning (perhaps intentionally). It could either mean that in earlier years the Nazi party was a political organization, and it later became something much worse (which is true), or it could mean the Nazi party was mainly a political organization, and other aspects of the Nazi party, like it's genocidal tendencies, were incidental. This downplaying of the genocidal role of the Party could be called anti-Semitism. I see no defense for Daanschr's statements. StuRat 06:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. More antisemitism and Nazi Apologism from Clio. Oh well. I can't comment as I've been blocked. Lewis 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I see now that it is was an irresponsible thing to say and immature thing to assume that Clio is justifying the actions of murderers. It was also a bad approach at the problem to discuss this without even asking her first what she had to say about it. a.z. 17:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More of Clio the Muse

"Thanks, Lewis. I just thought it was a complete gas, and I did not want you to miss it." (Clio the Muse said that to a Jewish man) [4]

"My sympathies to you and your family." (Clio the Muse said that to another Jewish man) [5]

Well, now I'm confused. At first I thought these remarks by Clio were evidence that she was an antisemite. I thought she wanted to kill Jewish people inside a gas chamber and she would do magic to curse them. Now I don't know if all of this is just my imagination. I hope to hear Lewis's and StuRat's thoughts on this. And whether we should just go and ask her whether she is an antisemite or not. a.z. 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That was from back before Lewis figured her out, so I doubt if she would have insulted him (or all Jews) then. StuRat 01:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but, then again, she did write the following: "As for Loomis, I urge anyone puzzled by the above to read his gushing past comments on my talk page. Please also read the recent exchange on the Humanities RD concerning the Law of Tort and Queen Elizabeth II. I responded point by point to his intellectually ill-organised assault, some of the wording quite offensive in its general emphasis. I am now accused in the above of creating deliberate fictions, and all for pointing out that that it was important to understand aspects of the past in their own terms. I have to say that at first I took Loomis as an amusing eccentric".[6] I wouldn't say that "amusing eccentric" is a compliment. Maybe she didn't like him from the beginning, who knows. a.z. 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Or is "amusing eccentric" a true compliment after all? "Amusing" here could mean either someone you laugh at or someone who is entertaining and makes you laugh. a.z. 02:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It could mean either here, too, but knowing Clio, I would suspect that it's meant as an insult. StuRat 06:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., the term "amusing eccentric" is obviously an insult. It's like referring to someone as a "funny clown". If I were indeed a professional clown working at a circus, then I suppose being referred to as a "funny clown" would be a compliment. However, my contributions were not meant to be "amusing and eccentric", rather, they were meant to be "intelligent and thought-provoking". Referring to them as "amusing and eccentric" is obviously meant as an insult.

But go tell that the admins. I certainly can't as I've been blocked. Lewis 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I now realize that my original interpretation of those comments is silly. Thank you both for your help. a.z. 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have recently been blocked on Wikipedia. I started thinking about my old contributions, so I could find out whether there was any possible reason for me to be blocked. I couldn't think of any, but I did remember my edits about Clio, just after I started editing Wikipedia (not counting a few edits before then). I think I have analyzed them more critically.

Maybe it was because of a w:confirmation bias that I thought that those edits above by Clio could mean that she was a nazi apologist. Lewis had been really nice to me, and I consider him my friend. Maybe I didn't want to contradict him and make him feel bad. When I read that he thought that Clio was a Nazi apologist, and I read that she said that "Where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism" [7], I think that may have been enough to undermine my impartiality. Her edit was ambiguous, but I never asked her what she actually meant by that.

When I researched her contributions, I wasn't trying to find out whether she was a nazi apologist; I was trying to find out that she was a nazi apologist. Although at first I may have thought that the edits above meant those horrible things such as that she wanted Lewis not to have missed the gas chambers, and wished to curse the family of a mourning Jewish person, I did doubt. I said: "Well, now I'm confused. (...) I hope to hear Lewis's and StuRat's thoughts on this. And whether we should just go and ask her whether she is an antisemite or not." When StuRat replied, saying that that was before she had a fight with Lewis, I brought "evidence" that she disliked Lewis even when she seemed to like him. Namely that she said "I have to say that at first I took Loomis as an amusing eccentric". Again, I didn't ask her what did she mean by that.

Instead of speculating about Clio's thoughts on Nazism, Jewish people, etc, I think it would have been best to have asked on her talk page.

While I didn't accuse her of being a witch and a Nazi (I had said before that I thought she didn't know what she was talking about, and I said above that my interpretation of the comments was silly, agreeing with Lewis and StuRat), my comments weren't clear enough.

This is what I'm trying to do now. To make clear that Clio isn't a Nazi Apologist, and that she wasn't cursing people nor does she want to kill Jews. The fear (as I type) that Lewis may be disappointed at me by reading this may be evidence that my friendship with him may have made me not be fair with Clio. (I certainly don't think Lewis knew about this). My writing was obscure enough to allow for the interpretation that I did think she was a Nazi apologist. I hope I have fixed my mistakes, at least partially, and we can continue having a healthy discussion on this. I would appreciate further input from anyone, and also criticism of any comments that I made. a.z. 01:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Old Antisemitism, Nazi Apologism, Anti-Israel Bias, and the New Antisemitism

I think that A.Z. may be a bit confused about how I interpret Clio's remarks. Antisemitism is a very complex phenomenon, and comes in very many forms.

Defining an antisemite in its simplest form as "one who hates Jews, and is conscious of, and deliberately and blatantly displays that hatred" is a terrible oversimplification. That's what I would define as "Old Antisemitism". Though rampant before the Holocaust, outside the Muslim World and with the exception of neo-Nazi groups, this form of antisemitism is all but dead. It's no longer taught in schools, it's no longer considered socially acceptable, and no reasonably intellectual person in his or her right mind would actually hold such views and expect to be taken seriously. Defined that way, Clio is certainly not a traditional antisemite. I highly doubt that even in the deepest recesses of her mind does she actually hold such blatantly antisemitic beliefs.

By the way, the phrase "it's a gas", though rather outdated, is a completely inoffensive remark. All it means is "I found it particularly funny". With regard to the suggestion that in using the word "sympathy", Clio was referring to any sort of malevolent use of "Black Magic", I can't help but find that idea, to be honest, rather silly. I hope you're not hurt by that remark, A.Z. You know how much I value you're input, your intelligence your kind-heartedness and your friendship. I think we're good enough friends that we can tell one another when we find a remark to be rather silly, without having to worry that it be interpreted as an insult.

Despite having completely delegitimized and all but eliminated the "traditional antisemitism" of the past, the effect of the Holocaust actually signalled the birth of what is referred to as the New Antisemitism. Check out the article. It's actually quite good.

By far, the most distinct characteristic that separates the "New Antisemitism" from the Old is the fact that while the latter was demonstrated in the most overt, explicit, straightforward and blatant of manners possible, the former relies enormously on subtlety, subterfuge, and pseudo-intellectualism. Another major difference is the manner in which Jews are portrayed at the most superficial, surface level. For example, whereas the Old Antisemite would openly describe Jews as evil, greedy, deceitful and reprehensible animals, the New Antisemite would describe Jews in quite the opposite manner. To a New Antisemite, the Jews are a noble group of people who've been unfairly subjected to the worst of cruelties, especially the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, yet who, through their support of the Jewish State, and all its "racist", "Apartheidt" style policies, are failing to realize that they have transformed themselves into the very monsters that had tormented them for so long.

To the New Antisemite, the Holocaust, as horrific as it was, was not at all the result of utterly inexcusable sadism and evil, but rather the result of "a natural outburst of years of pent-up resentment by the German people". The rise of the Third Reich was not, as Burke would have put it, proof of his assertion that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", a completely natural reaction to the plight of the Germans: "Where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism". Racism was not at all the central driving force of Nazism. Rather, Nazism was "first and foremost a political movement". All that racist nonsense was apparently, at most, but a mere afterthought. (Strange, though, how an individual who claims to have read Mein Kampf, published in 1925 and describing in great detail Hitler's obsession with Arianism and the Jews, and his plans to dedicate Nazism towards the achievment of his racist ambitions. Nazism was indeed "first and foremost", an ideology centred upon racism. These repeated attempts, not to legitimize Nazism, as to do so would be far too blatantly antisemitic for the far more sensible New Antisemite, but rather to downplay its evil. Basically, this is what I refer to as "Nazi Apologism".)

The final key characteristic of the New Antisemitism as compared to the Old, is that clever yet transparent little tactic of no longer attacking Jews directly as the Old Antisemite would, but attacking Jews indirectly by targetting their criticism on Israel rather than directly at Jews. After all, Israel is a State, not a people, and so whatever hateful remarks one may direct at Israel can't possibly be regarded as antisemitism, as they're dressed up as purely "political" criticisms of the policies of a State. Now of course, just like any other state, Israel isn't perfect. But the sheer volume of the criticism...the truth of the matter is just so painfully obvious.

The saddest part of all is that these New Antisemites likely don't even realize that they're antisemites at all. In many cases, I believe, these people are themselves the victims of this particularly sophisticated brand of antisemitism. Though Clio pretty much fits the bill as the model New Antisemite, I doubt she even realizes that she is one. I'd actually bet that if somehow, she actually came to realize that for all this time all she's been doing is intellectualy rationalizing hatred, she'd hereself be disgusted by it. She just doesn't come as a "bad" person to me. Yes, she's obnoxious as all hell, completely lacking in social skills, incapable of any form of humility whatsoever, incapable of ever admitting she's wrong, extremely lax when throwing around supposed "facts" (interesting...apparently the Nazis viewed the Celts not all too dissimilar as how they viewed the Anglo-Saxons. To me that's quite surprising as unlike the Anglo-Saxons, the Celts are by no means a "Germanic People". Any source to back that one up, or was that yet another mere conjecture dressed up as fact? The subject certainly isn't mentioned in any of the hyperlinked articles). Worst of all though, whether she realizes it or not, effectively, she's a New Antisemite. Lewis 03:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not hurt by the remark! :) a.z. 02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm rather skeptical of this "new anti-Semitism" term. From how you describe it, I suppose I qualify, too, since I am an anti-Zionist. There are, of course, even Jews who are anti-Zionists, so do you consider them to be "new anti-Semites", as well ? StuRat 03:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't see why you think you'd qualify though. We've had this discussion before. From what I understand, you refer to yourself as anti-Zionist because you believe that from a purely pragmatic perspective, the establishment of the State of Israel was a bad idea, however you accept its existence as a fait accompli, you recognize its right to exist, and you're fair and principled in your criticisms (i.e. Israel's right to self defense is justified, whereas the building of settlements on occuppied territory is not). Note that I didn't mention anti-Zionism. It's true, there are Jews who for religious reasons oppose Zionism, yet with a couple of exceptions, such as the Naturei Karta, I wouldn't say that they display a transparent anti-Israel bias. As for Jewish "New Antisemites", there are quite a few, just as there have been quite a few Jewish "Old Antisemites" throughout history, such the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada. (I just checked out the article and it makes only vague reference to his Jewish ancestry. From what I've always been led to believe, Torquemada was born Jewish himself.) In any case, if he doesn't qualify, a perfect example of an Old-style Jewish Antisemite would be Bobby Fischer. By contrast, Noam Chomsky, would seem to qualify as a Jewish neo-Antisemite. Within the wiki community itself, though I haven't quite figured her out yet, from what she's been going on about lately Deborahjay would seem to be a strong candidate. Though apparently a Jewish Israeli herself, she misses no opportunity to attack Israeli policy on every possible front, and downplay the magnitude of the Holocaust every chance she gets. She actually took issue with my characterization of the Nazis as having perpetrated "inhumanities of unprecedented proportions" by sloughing of the Holocaust as just another pogrom, the only difference being that it was much better organized. That one sure left me scratching my head! But your skepticism is well taken, what I'm describing is indeed a very complex sociological phenomenon, as the article describes, and many, though acknowledging its existence, object to characterizing it as any sort of antisemitism at all, bur rather a completely different animal. Well however it's characterized, it's wrong, it's intellectually deceptive, it's dangerous, and sorry Stu, but you certainly don't qualify.

Just to clarify, my main aim in posting the above "rant" (hey, it's my talkpage, I am allowed to rant here, am I not?) is to be on record, and to dispell any suggestions above that Clio hates me because I'm a Jew. Though some may have leapt at the opportunity to play the Jew card, for the sake of intellectual honesty, I completely reject that notion. You see, another facet of the New Antisemitism as opposed to the Old, is that whereas the latter involves the hatred of Jews simpliciter, the former is completely accepting of Jews, yet only to the extent that our mindset conforms with theirs. New Antisemites don't hate all Jews, they only hate those "uppity" Jews, (your's truly being the most "uppity" Jew ever to grace the RefDesk!) who refuse to conform meekly to their particular anti-American, anti-Globalization, anti-Israeli ideology. They absolutely adore what I suppose you can refer to as "Uncle Tom Jews", and speak glowing of their personal friendships with them. Ever heard the phrase that's so trite it's pretty much become cliché: "I'm not racist! I've got many Black friends!"? Well it applies just the same here. Clio doesn't hate me because I'm a Jew. She hates me because I'm an "uppity" Jew who dares assert that as a human being, her knowledge has its fair share of imperfections, and who dares to suggest that though she's not an antisemite simpliciter, many of her remarks are in fact offensive to Jews. In fact, she's likely disgusted by the notion of antisemitism simpliciter, and reacts so viciously to any of my attempts to shed light on the reality that many of her remarks are indeed offensive, because she finds it so difficult to believe that she's capable of such ugliness.

It's always been my belief that deep down, Clio is a good person. I've never strayed from that belief. I've never hated her for her remarks. Yes, I've been extremely irritated by them, and even consider some of them to be extremely dangerous when dressed up as "answers" to RefDesk questions, yet I've never hated her for making them. Lewis 11:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My acceptance of Israel is largely just for pragmatic reasons. Thus, it would have been best if Israel could have been moved somewhere else, say to one of those empty US states, like Wyoming. However, it's never going to happen, so the world needs to find a way to live with Israel where it is. I still object to calling somebody a racist who isn't opposed to the race in general, but only to colonial policies which some people of that race endorse (Zionism, in this case). If I was opposed to W:Liberia, would that make me a racist ? If I was opposed to the colonial status of W:Guam, would that make me anti-American ? StuRat 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really a shame, Stu, how despite the fact that we seem to understand each other's position on pretty much every other topic so well, we seem to have so much difficulty communicating when it comes to this one. I stated specifically that a truly principled objection to Zionism, such as how I see your's to be, is not antisemitism.

Rather, it's only when people cleverly make use of that otherwise principled anti-Zionist stance as a pretext to justify what are so clearly antisemitic acts, where I object. You don't do that. That's why you're clearly not an antisemite.

Your Liberia example is difficult to respond to as you provide no context, no reason why on Earth anyone would be opposed to an entire country. I'm certainly not opposed to any country I can think of. I'm opposed to many regimes, but I can't comprehend why someone would opposed to an entire country for reasons of principle. Your Guam example is somewhat easier to respond to. The problem is that Americans don't constitute a race. Anti-Americanism, even in its most radical forms still cannot be defined as "racism". But for the sake of argument let's say that it can.

If one then were to take the approach of critiquing American policy in an unbiased, piecemeal fashion, agreeing with American policies A, B and C, but opposing policies X, Y and Z, as matters of principle, with Z, for example, being America's colonial possession of Guam, this would not what I'd consider "Anti-Americanism".

However if one simply hated Americans, yet had little to no genuine interest in Guam, and that person latched onto the pro-Guam-independence bandwagon, even going so far as supporting a rather violent, pro-Guam-independence terrorist group that engaged in the killing of American civilians, all for no other reason than because it serves as an excellent pretext to pick on Americans, this, then, is what I'd call a clear case of Anti-Americanism, rather poorly disguised as "anti-colonialism".

Ok, that was perhaps the most awkwardly phrased post I've ever made! Honestly, if you understood it even in the slightest I'd be impressed! :) Lewis 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the history of W:Liberia ? (Their flag might be the first clue, it's an American flag with a single star, their capital, W:Monrovia, might be the second clue, named for US President W:James Monroe). It was founded by American slaves as a safe place for slaves to go, much as Israel was founded as a safe place for Jews to go. StuRat 07:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with all that. All I was asking for was some context, i.e., just why in particular the hypothetical person you were speaking of would be against the entire country. Is it viewed as "colonialism" or "imperialism" just as Israel is often referred to? If so, I not only object, but can't even see the logic in characterizing the founding of either country in such a way, be it Blacks returning to Africa to seek a safe haven or Jews returning to Israel. Of course the two have their differences. Whereas Israel was founded as and remains a democracy as well as a success, Liberia, by contrast is a rather unstable country, and, judging by the divide that has formed by the decendants of the original founders and the local Black population that never left Africa, it would seem to have essentially failed in its founding mission of being a save haven for Blacks. Nonetheless, I'm certainly not "against" Liberia in any sense of the word. Lewis 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably Liberia displaced whatever governments or tribal structures existed prior, just as Israel displaced the Palestinians. If someone was opposed to this, would that make them anti-African-American ? Should this opposition be called a new form of racism ? StuRat 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If they really couldn't care less about the indigenous Black-African populations the Black-African-American-Africans had displaced, but merely used them as pawns to fabricate a pretext for continuing to hate Black-African-American-Africans, then yes, that would indeed be a new form of racism. (Albeit a rather odd one, as I've never heard of any form of anti-Black racism aimed solely at African-Americans, and not at just any Black person). Lewis 19:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is racism within the black community, such as between dark-skinned and light-skinned blacks, between poor and rich blacks, between urban and rural blacks, and between US-born and recent immigrant blacks. But, is this really much different from the racism between Jewish Semites and Muslim Semites ? StuRat 04:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're changing the subject Stu! :-) The neo-antisemitism I'm referring consists of the traditional hatred directed by mainly White, Christian non-semites towards Jews specifically, and is not at all a reference to antisemitism within the Arab/Muslim world. In fact I don't really regard even the worst of Israel's Arab/Muslim enemies as being antisemites per se. Rather, I'd say their animosity towards Israel can be more properly described as a combination of religious anti-infidelism, nationalistic anti-non-Arabism, and ideological anti-westernism. The Jews are all three - Infidels, non-Arabs, and ideologically Western. Had, for example, rather than the Jews setting up the "State of Israel", a bunch of White, American, Evalengical Christians set up the "Christian State of Apocalyptia", Apocalyptia's Arab and Muslim neighbours would be no less hostile to it than they are to Israel, they'd surely refuse to recognize its right to exist, you'd hear almost daily news stories of Palestinian's blowing themselves up on buses in an attempt to kill as many innocent civilian Apocalytians as possible, Iran's Ahmadinejad would speak openly of his desire to wipe Apolcalyptia off the map, and all the rest.

Rather, neo-antisemites are those who hate Jews, yet are astute enough to realize that political correctness requires them to abandon their old, blunt, "dirty-Jew-Christ-Killer" approach in favour of a far more sophisticated, subtle and clever method of exercizing their hatred of Jews. We live in a far more sophisticated society than in the days of the widespread acceptance of the blood libel and the image of the Jew as a horned Satanic creature.

But the patterns are so similar they're actually remarkable. Racism is out of style, and human rights, and the criticism of states that allegedly violate it is now all the rage. That's an easy one to fix! Just replace the word "Jew" with the word "Israeli", and the term "the Jews" with "Israel" and problem solved! Claiming that the Jew ritually sacrifices Christian children to use their blood in religious ceremonies is just too silly to be believeable, so today the Israeli gets his sadistic thrills out of tormenting the poor innocent Palestinians, killing a few, even children, at whim. The Jew is no longer a horned Satanic monster, due to modern science that antisemitic image is terribly outdated and in dire need of modernization. Today the Israeli is a racist Nazi monster, a far more realistic allegation to convey and get taken seriously by others. The Jews no longer killed Christ, you can't say that, that's racism! Of course they didn't. Rather the Zionists stole land from the indigenous Palestinians. You can't say the Jews stole the land, because it was their's to start with, until they were evicted some 2000 years ago. Of course the the Jews didn't steal the land, it was the Zionists who stole it. Sure, the land may have belonged to the Jews 2000 years ago, but it certainly didn't belong to the Zionists, as 2000 years ago there was no such thing as a Zionist!

Did Hitler invade Poland to rid it of its Jews? Of course not. He invaded it to give Germany the lebensraum it was in such dire need of and deserved. Any extermination that took place was merely incidental, and a terrible, terrible, mistake. I'm sure if Hitler were alive today, that particular mistake would weigh so terribly on the poor guy's conscience. And besides, he was only human, and everyone makes mistakes, right? Well, almost everyone. The Israelis don't make mistakes, they torment the Palestinians because they get a kick out of it.

Same old bullshit, only nicely repackaged to meet the sensibilities of the 21st century.

Here's some food for thought: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, involves a total of about 5 million Arabs and 5 million Jews, making a total of roughly 10 million indivuals living in Israel and the territories. I can't find any hard numbers on this, but it would appear that since the early 80's, the conflict has resulted in well under 10,000 deaths. Yet the conflict makes headlines on virtually a daily basis.

On the other hand, there happens to be this other ongoing conflict in a nation of some 20 million where, over the same period nearly 70,000 have been killed. Can you name the nation I'm speaking of? You probably can, both because I've mentioned it before and besides, you tend to be rather up-to-date with regards to these types of things. Either way, why does this particular conflict virtually never make the news, whereas the media and the public seem pretty much obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is it at all possible that the idea of a Jew killing another human being is considered just so absolutely despicable, that it only serves proof of the fact that the Jew is indeed a monster? Lewis 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many nations with ongoing low profile wars, like W:Burma. Of course, there are also high profile wars, like Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan, and Darfur. The entire horn of Africa region seems to be in a near continuous state of war, as well. StuRat 04:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are you?

Hi. You haven't been editing here for some time. I mean, only one or another edit. Are you OK?

A number of things happened and I would like your opinion on them. Hope you get back soon. a.z. 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK, I've just been a bit busy lately. I'd love to discuss what's on your mind, as well as tell you (and Stu) a few interesting things going on with me. I'm at work now though, I'll try to get back to you guys this evening. Lewis 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I hope to hear from you soon. (Can't you quit your job to devote yourself full time here ?) :-) StuRat 03:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the movie "W:Borat"

Lewis, I was wondering what you think of the anti-Semitism in that movie ? In it he says things like "they can't be Jews, they don't have any horns !". I think that this is obvious satire, and thus making fun of anti-Semitism, much as W:Archie Bunker was used to make fun of things by having a bigot such as him advocate them. What do you think ? StuRat 14:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you already read his comments here? a.z. 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't see that before, thanks for pointing it out. I read that to say that Lewis is a fan of Borat. StuRat 04:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiversity

Lewis, I would like to request that you use Wikiversity for positive learning activities in accordance with our articulated mission [8] and in accordance with our civility policy[9]. I also have experienced frustration similar to what you describe at Wikipedia with obnoxious or partisan behavior (some of which was mine) but I think it is highly counterproductive for Wikiversity to be importing personal feuds from elsewhere around the web. I hope you choose to stick around and participate here at Wikiversity in ways the community finds productive and that you find useful and entertaining but please delete the personal feuding with specific Wikipedia participants off of your Wikiversity pages. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Mirwin 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Usurpation

Hello, Lewis. A request has been made at Wikiversity:Changing username to usurp, or "take over", your username because you have not used it to edit, and another user would like to use it to edit. w:Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations says that any unused username may be usurped if the user is given 14 days notice to object and does not do so.

If you have an email set in your preferences, you should be getting an email from a bureaucrat explaining how to consent or object to this process.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to utilize the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one).

If you do nothing: the request will be filled after 14 days, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed: please log in and make an edit. You may make an edit here saying "No", you may make an edit to blank this page, or any other edit you like; making any edit at all prevents your username from being usurped, because users with edits cannot have their usernames usurped.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time. --Little Lewis 22:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Little Lewis 22:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I want to usurp your username on en.wikipedia.org, but since this seems to be your main account I thought I'd notify you here as well. --Little Lewis 22:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm a friend of Lewis. 14 days ? How absurd. I can go on vacation and come back to find my username has been usurped ? Where does it list that time limit ? I'd like to comment on it there. StuRat 17:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's only possible to usurp a username if it hasn't been used to make "significant" edits. I don't think I'd be able to usurp User:Lewis here on wikiversity, but on en.wikipedia.org the username has never been used. I'm not even sure it's the same person, but I just wanted to cover all bases, and put that notice on every single wiki project where the username "Lewis" is registered. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion.. you can feel free to safely go on vacation without fear of losing your username. :) --Little Lewis 20:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please also see my reply at User_talk:StuRat#Usurpation. --mikeu ^talk 21:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)