Breitbart Banned as Reliable Source

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Breitbart Banned as Reliable Source

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:45 pm

Pudeo wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:32 am
Those comments about threats or jokes of violence being ok because you have to fight antisemites "by any means necessary" (which itself is a phrase used by activists who commit to violence) or per "ignore all rules" are pretty crazy. It just shows these people are willing to defend literally everything as long as they agree with the motives.

Besides, 99 % of all threats of violence are not going to happen (and legal threats are usually not credible either), so that's not an argument. If someone's going to shoot up a school for instance, he's not going to warn them beforehand, yet threats against schools are always taken seriously. The point is the ridiculous situation of having to adhere to civil WP:BRD with someone who's just giving out sarcastic replies, semi-trolling and openly calling for violence.

I don't normally comment politics directly, but what these kind of people usually refer to is Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance which purports that "we don't have to tolerate intolerance". However, if you actually read the chapter where the term comes (from the book Open Society and Its Enemies), Popper is very careful about it, saying that the society just needs to maintain the right to not tolerate intolerance for the worst case scenario. And obviously it's not easy to determine what is 'intolerant', ought we not to tolerate Islam because the Quran is intolerant? But for these kind of self-righteous people every day is the final struggle against fascism where all means are necessary. Noam Chomsky says that the Left shouldn't initiate violence, because the Right will respond and they're better at that game. Besides, violence against communists could also be justified because their ideology has resulted in mass killings so they're "bad people" too. And again, who would be a legitimate target and who not? The angry mob would decide who's fascist or communist enough? These people are insufferable zealots.
Well, even over on Wikipediocracy they are actively comparing Trump to Hitler as if that is not at all hyperbolic. A lot of the hostility and sense of life or death struggle people have been sucked into regarding Trump is bleeding into all other political issues. Chapman's essay feeds into that hysterical attitude and being effectively legitimized has enabled this attitude. I mentioned BullRangifer's essay being updated in a previous post and he made a slight addition regarding his insinuations about Trump secretly killing reporters should he get re-elected. The result is now it reads as such:
Will we soon read of journalists at his rallies being attacked, killed, or "disappearing"? The leaders whom Trump admires and envies do this type of thing, and there are no indications that Trump, when given the opportunity, will act otherwise. If he's re-elected, is it just a matter of time before this happens? Remember what happened to Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Shortly after he criticized Trump on November 10, 2016, he was barred from writing in Saudi Arabia. We know how he was later killed.
That last sentence, in cominbation with the preceding one, seems intended to imply a causal relationship. We have an editor using his userspace essay on politics to essentially imply a journalist ended up dead because he criticized the President of the United States and that, if the President gets a second term, even more journalists will end up dead because of him perhaps even at his direction. Is it really a surprise that this would encourage the violent rhetoric employed by Peter and defended by other established editors? With Chapman's essay and his flouting of community concerns they had at least some chance of sending the message that editors need to tone down their political rhetoric. Rather than do that, the community and ArbCom itself basically declared open season on wrongthinkers.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Breitbart Banned as Reliable Source

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:58 am

Here is a curious change Guy made to his userspace essay. The claim is that the Proud Boys organization, some members of which were arrested after they got into a fist-fight with a group of violent antifa members who provoked them, have referred to themselves as "Trumpkrieger or Trumpenkrieger" and I can't find the slightest bit of evidence of this being the case. Far as I can tell, only their critics attack them with that line because, of course, it is about likening them to Nazis. One could argue this is a BLP issue given there are specific individuals referenced who are currently facing criminal charges for what arguably started as self-defense against a gang of violent thugs. It could also be argued as a BLP issue since the movement is so strongly associated with its founder Gavin McInnes. At the very least, it is rather entertaining how Chapman wrote an essay all about how Trump supporters use unreliable sources and spread fake news then goes on to make what appears to be a bogus claim himself in the same essay.

Proabivouac
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Breitbart Banned as Reliable Source

Post by Proabivouac » Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:19 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:58 am
The claim is that the Proud Boys organization, some members of which were arrested after they got into a fist-fight with a group of violent antifa members who provoked them, have referred to themselves as "Trumpkrieger or Trumpenkrieger" and I can't find the slightest bit of evidence of this being the case.
Two of a grand total of five google hits for "Trumpkrieger" are the filename of a photograph at kiwifarm.net related to John Flynt/Brianna Wu, an MTF programmer who was somehow involved in gamergate:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22trumpkrieger%22
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2015/0 ... st-martyr/
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... Brianna+Wu

Most likely Ms. Chapman is a reader or participant at kiwifarm and this is where she picked up this meme.

Maybe the stupidest line in this "essay" – a charitable term for a bullet-pointed list of dogmata – is the following:
Suzy Chapstick wrote: if you disagree with same-sex marriage, my advice to you is simply not to marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved.
Thinking…oh, I've got it…if you disagree with Donald Trump, my advice to you is simply not to vote for him. Problem solved.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Breitbart Banned as Reliable Source

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:08 am

The talk page for Chapman's essay has increasingly become a place for angry anti-Trump tirades. Here is one thread where they are just repeatedly wailing on him with absurd exaggerative claims about Trump. Some highlights from BullRangifer:
[The GOP] has abandoned any semblance of a legitimate party representing the people, and is now a personality cult supporting and protecting a corrupt autocrat.
Trump has never read the Constitution, does not understand it, and doesn't care. He demands complete and total loyalty to himself. That's the deal with the Devil McConnell made, and the GOP, with few exceptions, has stayed in that wagon, even though it's being pulled by a seeming madman.
Now its goal is absolute power and shut out all competition FOREVER, with power turned over to Trump alone, even if he becomes an absolute dictator.
Here are some of Chapman's comments:
What Trump cares about is Trump's money and Trump's image and pretty much nothing else. He can't even fake empathy.
He is as dishonest as Nixon, as racist as Jackson and Buchanan, as belligerent and insecure as Andrew Johnson, as creepy as Clinton, as corrupt as Harding.
Instead they are packing the Supreme Court with people who are likely to overturn precedent and allow him to defy subpoenas over his self-dealing and sexual harassment.
He is, however, the worst America has elected in living memory, and the way he is being protected from the consequences of his obvious malice, corruption and incompetence will have profound implications for a long time to come.
One wonders how any of this discussion is of any use on an encyclopedia.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests