Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 08:21:08PM +0800, John Lee wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Well, that's precisely what I am *not* seeing. I'm seeing a substantial minority, nearly 40%, who are in favor of inlining. This tells me that there is not a consensus that it's such an offensive image.>
40% of *editors*. Not readers. Big difference. People like us who have so much time to spend on an online "open source" encyclopedia probably have far more liberal mind sets than average folk.
To pretend to speak in the name of those who don't care to speak for themselves is very easy to do, but the words thus spoken carry no added weight. They are merely the words of the speaker himself, dressed in the Potemkin-village clothes of the "Silent Majority". Indeed, such words are weakened by the false banner under which they travel. By pretending to a voice that is not your own, you give up yours.
When you speak for "the readers", nobody can hear the readers. One can hear only you, putting on the voice of "the readers" as a phony accent, like a bad American actor pretending to Cockney.
It's things like this that tick me off, because in this case, that argument flies against common sense: Most middle-class Asians and Americans would be offended or at least shocked/distracted by a vivid photograph of a man blowjobbing himself. Most middle-class Europeans and Australians wouldn't. At first it seems like we're at an impasse, but consider: While those who don't mind would be slightly inconvenienced, those who do mind would be very heavily inconvenienced by having to disable the image in their browser's settings. The latter group would also be more annoyed than the former. It's a clear case to me, but I can see why extreme liberals from Europe and Australia find this debate so puzzling.
Only in one country. The rest of the world was left scratching its heads and wondering what all the fuss was about. US news programs even carried th images with the breast pixellated out, while non-US news programs showed the incident uncensored. Please do not assume that the standards of one country are universal.>
That may be true, but our readership is generally American. I'm not denying a substantial portion of our patronage would not be offended, but a substantial amount *would* be offended. If we were to link instead of inline an image, I doubt the "non-offended" would complain, and if they did, it would be hardly as much as the furore from the other side were we to carry the image inline.
What, precisely, is so terrible about being offended once in a while? In truth, being offended regularly is quite educational, and betters a person. Those who go for too long without the experience of being offended become fossilized in their opinions of Mankind, and develop the false belief that all others are like unto themselves. When, later, this belief is suddenly shown false, such persons are caught entirely unprepared, and retreat to childish outbursts and violence.
I propose that offending people is a Virtue and not a Vice, if one does so in a manner which is simultaneously informative & educational. It is of no use to offend gratuitously; that is, to rehash tiresome offenses which no longer teach the offended person anything. But to be offended and to receive knowledge at the same moment, is to receive knowledge twice over.
This is precisely the attitude I've been talking about: Editors imposing their personal beliefs on readers. We don't tell people "Nazis were evil" or "Saddam was evil" because that would be imposing our personal beliefs (for those editors that believe the statements). Likewise, we should not tell people "Being offended is good! Really! Otherwise you'll never learn anything!" Disagreeing with the "customer" on an issue like this would mean big trouble in the business world. Just because we're trying something different does not mean "Hahahaha, I'll shove some pictures of Goatse in your face because you wanted to view the shock site article!"
This is not part of my argument. IE is available to 95%+ of the web-using population and it will download images or not at the user's option.
I spent four or five years of my life using IE and I've never run across the option to block images on an individual basis. I did find the ability to disable all images, but I should not need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You have the power in your hands to prevent the terrible offense to yourself, which offense you so vehemently decry. Yet you choose willingly not to use that power, insisting that it is Someone Else's Job.
Either the offense is not really so bad, or else you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Try telling this to all the readers who are distracted or annoyed by that image. Your attitude of "Come on, you wanna' fight? Bring it on! BEING OFFENDED IS GOOD FOR YOU!" is that sort of bitchy thing which would never be accepted if our incomes depended on this encyclopedia. Fortunately they don't, so we can afford to be liberal, but when we get to the point of having to debate with the readers, you know something is wrong.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])