[WikiEN-l] The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?)

[jayjg]

On 8/2/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/2/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW, first there was a comparison to appeasing the Nazis, now we've got
> > > a comparison to rape. This is a bit over the top, IMO.
> >
> > Possibly.  But I don't understand what the big deal is about removing
> > tripe from the pages of Wikipedia.  We're here to edit an
> > encyclopedia, not pander to conspiracy theorists of those who take
> > their rubbish seriously.
>
>
> I don't consider "conspiracy theorists" to be good faith editors who have
> never heard of the abuse against SV asking questions about what seems to
> them to be an interesting tidbit of news which is probably false (but
> nevertheless interesting).
>
> Johnleemk

Another from ArmedBlowfish:
--------

Erm, conspiracy theorism has nothing to do with 'good faith' or 'bad
faith', it is simply a way of looking at things, which may very well
be insane, but that has nothing to do with intent.  Also see Humanism.

This doesn't have anything to do with good faith or bad faith either.
We aren't talking about blocking or banning people - we are talking
about protecting SlimVirgin from severely psychologically damaging
comments.

And no, that doesn't mean the comments were meant to be
psychologically damaging, but there is a huge difference between
intent and effect... and the effect is psychological damage.

They can ask by e-mail.

Armed Blowfish