|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13750
|
|
|
I've been watching and sometimes even contributing to what ought to be a sensible discussion at Wikipedia.
In a nutshell, and unsurprisingly, and wholly supportably, Wikipedia does not want to be in any way associated with anyone who advocates paedophilia. That's fine and I support that completely. But the weirdness is their (the editors, folk like you and me, who create bureaucracy there) inability to understand what they are discussing and their inability to let their personal distaste and disgust over paedophilia be separated from writing a valid policy against it.
Because this organ is edited by all sorts of individuals ranging from the bewilderingly bigoted to the wholly liberal they manage to discuss the wrong things almost all the time. How lucky they don;t run the world, but what a shame some of them have the right to vote! And how scary that some own guns and others can drive cars!
Quite sensibly they will block indefinitely the edits of anyone who advocates paedophilia. But they also go too far. They will also block anyone who is identified as or who self identifies as a paedophile, whether that person has any intention of acting on that or not. And they appear to define paedophilia by the popular definition of sex under the age of majority, not sex with a child.
The half amusing thing is that there is no reasoning with a bigot. Of course, it's very easy, wise even, to argue that paedophilia is all shades of disgusting and disgraceful. It's fine to have personal disgust. But is it fine to block someone who says "Gosh, yes, I'm attracted to under age kids, but I will never, not ever, act on that attraction"?
And what if you edit an article that handles paedophilia, or, more properly, pederasty? If oyu edit it there do you then get accused of advocating it?
Now, before you raise your hands in horror and say that I am off my chump and I should be supporting all efforts to block paedophiles there because you and I consider it an immoral and improper practice, I'd like you to think hard.
If Wikipedia had been around in 1960, would it have said the same about homosexuals?
If Wikipedia had been around in 1930, would it have said the same about black people?
And yes, there is a difference between homosexuals, black people and paedophiles. But not as great as you might at first believe.
By the way, Wikipedia does not block thieves, embezzlers, murderers, fraudsters, burglars, rapists, even when they are convicted. It does block those who advocate such behaviours. It may not be used for unlawful purposes. So why does it create a policy to block a paedophile who refuses to act on their attractions and who does not advocate paedophilia?
[Updated on: Sat, 03 July 2010 12:10]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Irrational prejudices... What can one do?
But I would trust the wisdom of a crowd of bigots more than the judgement of just one bigot. Usually. Mob mentality is a risk, but an autocratic bigot.. I think that's worse.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh! Saben, surely it depends on the nature of the bigotry.
What about a crowd of priests? What about the Bishops in the house of lords?
What about the conservative party when they were voting on clause 28?
Remember I got thrown out of our local aids charity (I was on the board) because I pointed out that their confidentiality policy prevented me from telling Chris what colour George's eyes were - even when they were sitting opposite each other.
In these days, when it's PC to play lip-service to 'democracy' bigoted majorities are pretty bad. I guess you know what Mill had to say about the tyranny of the majority.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
