Your qualifier of "not typically" is understood to mean: "yes, there are probably some." The point is that the ideologies arent so different to make them exclusive -- and in fact they are quite similar when you get down to it. Sure its infeasible to block all bigots, but the basis for the recent argument was claimed to have been in principle --not feasibility. Its easy to play "whack a mole" when one limits oneself to whacking just one color of mole.
Hence the apparent new [[Wikipedia:Preemptive blocking policy]] should have an equitable application clause. We dont usually label users of militarist-dehumanist terms (ie. "enemy", "insurgents," and "terrorists") as "trolls," and yet from an NPOV these terms are simply disguises for a deeper undercurrent of shallow bigotry. Equitable application of the "preemptive blocking principle" would require that any use of dehumanizing terms be treated as being based in ethnic bigotry.
IAC, "preemptively" blocking anyone smells more like a lack of trust in WP's normal dispute resolution or a plain compromise of our own basic ethics than something to cheer on.
SV
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
There is a problem with this. A conservative white Republican would not typically have the racist ideas this troll is said to support.
Fred
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com