Professor at UC Berkeley banned from Wikipedia for anti-Trump editing course

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

inu-kun:

FalloutJack:
So, they axed him for trying to make Wikipedia be factual?

Just out of curiosity what is the definition of racist and sexist? Is racist only hating minorities or hating groups> Is sexist is to be prejudiced against women or be anti abortion?

Racist: Hating/oppressing others due to their race.

Sexism: Hating/oppressing others due to their sex.

inu-kun:

But then you have stupid people who do the "racism=prejudice+power" to justify their hatred, and I don't think sexism can be defined as hate for a gender, more like disrespect and under-evaluation.

The thing is, Prejudice + Power = More worrying racism. Yes, black people can be racist against white people, and yes women can be sexist against men. And when a black woman becomes President of the US on the platform of oppressing white men, I will oppose it. But currently a white man who is racist against non-whites (focused more on Mexicans and Arabs than blacks though) and sexist against women.

Okay, so couple things here.

First, the example Wikipedia article linked in the Breitbart article concerned the environmental impacts of pig farming: http://archive.is/2Nmbi That's objectively a real issue: large animal farming is responsible for nearly a quarter of the developed world's emissions and a substantial fraction of its total water consumption, and large livestock operations have long been known to be a potential health hazard for local communities. It's objectively incorrect to decry attention to this issue as mere SJW politicizing.

Second, it doesn't escape me that Brietbart doesn't actually address the course itself. I notice that the course description contains the following:

The class will explore the full breadth of environmental justice scholarship, activism, and policy-making. Over the semester we will work to understand social conditions and theories, quantitative data, and real-world politics and organizing.

Wow...that sounds almost like exactly what an environmental policy course should concern itself with.

And lastly:

Commenting on this trend, Wikipedia user "Jytdog" argued that academia does not have the right to take over articles for the purpose of education.

Someone on the internet said it, so you know it's true!

But that's just another example of the high-quality and totally non-partisan journalism that Breitbart is known for.

Saelune:

inu-kun:

FalloutJack:
So, they axed him for trying to make Wikipedia be factual?

Just out of curiosity what is the definition of racist and sexist? Is racist only hating minorities or hating groups> Is sexist is to be prejudiced against women or be anti abortion?

Racist: Hating/oppressing others due to their race.

Sexism: Hating/oppressing others due to their sex.

So by this definition not renting houses for black people is not racist, as it is not a hate act and does not oppress them as it can be justified statistically.

inu-kun:

But then you have stupid people who do the "racism=prejudice+power" to justify their hatred, and I don't think sexism can be defined as hate for a gender, more like disrespect and under-evaluation.

The thing is, Prejudice + Power = More worrying racism. Yes, black people can be racist against white people, and yes women can be sexist against men. And when a black woman becomes President of the US on the platform of oppressing white men, I will oppose it. But currently a white man who is racist against non-whites (focused more on Mexicans and Arabs than blacks though) and sexist against women.

So if someone tells you that racism against Muslims is more important than racism against LGBT so you should worry less about it because Trump targets them more you'll say he is correct?

inu-kun:

Saelune:

inu-kun:

Just out of curiosity what is the definition of racist and sexist? Is racist only hating minorities or hating groups> Is sexist is to be prejudiced against women or be anti abortion?

Racist: Hating/oppressing others due to their race.

Sexism: Hating/oppressing others due to their sex.

So by this definition not renting houses for black people is not racist, as it is not a hate act and does not oppress them as it can be justified statistically.

inu-kun:

But then you have stupid people who do the "racism=prejudice+power" to justify their hatred, and I don't think sexism can be defined as hate for a gender, more like disrespect and under-evaluation.

The thing is, Prejudice + Power = More worrying racism. Yes, black people can be racist against white people, and yes women can be sexist against men. And when a black woman becomes President of the US on the platform of oppressing white men, I will oppose it. But currently a white man who is racist against non-whites (focused more on Mexicans and Arabs than blacks though) and sexist against women.

So if someone tells you that racism against Muslims is more important than racism against LGBT so you should worry less about it because Trump targets them more you'll say he is correct?

*sigh* Limiting sale based on ethnicity is very much oppression. "You CANT buy this house because you are black". And how is it not hate? What else could you deny a person a house because of ethnicity? If their money is good, their money is good.

I dont think we should neglect issues because they are less important, and Trump's Presidency is anti-gay as long as Pence (and well, Republicans) are involved, but being gay isnt keeping people (atleast en masse) out of this country.

Saelune:
*sigh* Limiting sale based on ethnicity is very much oppression. "You CANT buy this house because you are black". And how is it not hate? What else could you deny a person a house because of ethnicity? If their money is good, their money is good.

I dont think we should neglect issues because they are less important, and Trump's Presidency is anti-gay as long as Pence (and well, Republicans) are involved, but being gay isnt keeping people (atleast en masse) out of this country.

You could justify it by rational ideas, black people are convicted of more crimes therfore they are more likely to do illegal acts and vandalize the place and drive property values down in the nighbourhood. It's logical and does not derive from hate. "Money is good" does not mean ignoring everything else.

But when you say "More worrying" this strongly suggests that the matter is more important than others.

inu-kun:

Saelune:
*sigh* Limiting sale based on ethnicity is very much oppression. "You CANT buy this house because you are black". And how is it not hate? What else could you deny a person a house because of ethnicity? If their money is good, their money is good.

I dont think we should neglect issues because they are less important, and Trump's Presidency is anti-gay as long as Pence (and well, Republicans) are involved, but being gay isnt keeping people (atleast en masse) out of this country.

You could justify it by rational ideas, black people are convicted of more crimes therfore they are more likely to do illegal acts and vandalize the place and drive property values down in the nighbourhood. It's logical and does not derive from hate. "Money is good" does not mean ignoring everything else.

But when you say "More worrying" this strongly suggests that the matter is more important than others.

Those "rational ideas" as you call them...is racism. If you dont want to sell to a criminal, then dont sell to a criminal. There is a thing called background checks (even though perhaps they served their time and perhaps deserve the same respect anyways). Dont just presume someone is probably a criminal because of stereotyping.

More worrying because it is more damaging. Someone who hates black people but is just some old man alone in his house saying the N word privately, while he is still a racist, he is less scary than someone with power over people. Like a teacher, or police officer, or doctor, or politician, or President of one of the most diverse countries in the world!

Edit: Oh and if you are worried about criminals, background check everyone, not just black people. Criminals are a diverse bunch too.

renegade7:
Okay, so couple things here.

First, the example Wikipedia article linked in the Breitbart article concerned the environmental impacts of pig farming: http://archive.is/2Nmbi That's objectively a real issue: large animal farming is responsible for nearly a quarter of the developed world's emissions and a substantial fraction of its total water consumption, and large livestock operations have long been known to be a potential health hazard for local communities. It's objectively incorrect to decry attention to this issue as mere SJW politicizing.

No one is suggesting attention to the issue is the problem. The kind of attention being paid to the issue by the students editing for this course as encouraged by the professor is what matters. Wikipedia isn't just a place to document whatever people want to say about an issue. It has many failings, but in principle the idea is for an article on any given subject to be comprehensive in scope while giving each aspect of the issue the proportionate amount of attention warranted as determined by reliable secondary sources. What that means is every side considered noteworthy by independent sources of repute should be covered to the extent they are considered noteworthy. Everything is also supposed to be phrased as neutrally as possible. The article and most of what this course pushed would not qualify.

Someone on the internet said it, so you know it's true!

They're not saying it is true, but Jytdog was the one who started the discussion on banning Gelobter. His comments on the matter are certainly worth noting.

inu-kun:
Snip

I'm not responsible for stupid people who don't know the meaning of words, nor hair-splitters who think they can pull fast ones. They are wrong.

Jux:
Don't really see the issue, Trump is all of those things.

If I had to guess without actually reading, WP:BLP or WP:RELIABLE. For the less wiki oriented, those are the Wikipedia rules regarding Biographies of living persons and Reliable Sources (which is defined in such a way that one of the common ways to spin narratives on Wikipedia is to control what sources are "reliable" for the topic at hand).

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here