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

[Steve Summit]

Jayjg wrote:
> On 8/2/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>> Which I (perhaps inappropriately) pointed out.  But if you're not
>> involved, then why have you posted 34 messages to this thread?
>
> I don't understand the question. If I post to the thread, then I
> suddenly become "involved".

Yes -- and if you post 34 times, you're obviously pretty
interested and invested in the issues.  If (as you seem to be
trying to suggest) you weren't involved, would you have been so
motivated?

> Does that mean everyone who posted to this thread is now "involved",

Well, I certainly am.

> and should leave Wikipedia?

That was Andrew who suggested that, that wasn't me.

>> The drama that's present in this thread is indeed symptomatic of
>> the problem this thread purports to be about.
>
> Which is why, of course, I suggested that we stop talking about it.
> If the drama is actually all in this thread, then people shouldn't
> have started it, and shouldn't be continuing it.

"Symptomatic of" does not mean "all in".

(But yes, we shouldn't continue this thread.  Except that many of
us -- myself absolutely included -- are incapable of dropping it.)

>> Your involvement is not due to
>> having removed (rather sneakily, I might add) one user's question
>> from SlimVirgin's talk page recently, but rather, your consistent
>> advocacy of the practice of doing so.  (Among other things.)
>
> Huh? I've consistently "advocated" the "practice" of removing stuff
> from SV's talk page?

You can be spectacularly stubborn and tendentious, can't you?

What you've consistently advocated is that links to or mention of
anything that can be construed as an "attack site" can and should
be removed wherever they may appear in Wikipedia (even if only in
talk or project space), in the name of, as Fred Bauder famously
put it, "respecting our users and doing what we can to protect
them from harassment".

I'm sure you'll say that this wasn't an accurate description of
what you've advocated, either.  But, whatever that description
should be, I note that you have (a) advocated strenuously for the
"attack sites" clause at WP:NPA, and (b) yourself removed one
recent question from Slim's talk page, by which I assume that
removal of such comments for that sort of reason is something
you agree with.  Those are the sorts of things you seem to be
condoning and advocating for, and they're what those of us who
are arguing with you believe can be carried quite too far.

> And you think I should leave Wikipedia because you disagree
> with opinions that you apparently have invented for me?

I don't think you should leave Wikipedia.  It was Andrew who
suggested that, not me.  (Why did you think I did?)

> I simply am not understanding any of this, as it doesn't appear to
> accord with any reality I am familiar with.

That may be because you appear to be very good at confining your
thoughts to those things you believe and are believed by the
people you agree with, while making little or no attempt to
understand where anybody else might be coming from.