Race slur will haunt us

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel4
  • Start date Start date
Yurt said:
um.....wiki is open source for changing their webpage you tool...anyone can add or alter wiki....

did you graduate grammar school?
Click to expand...


Hmmmm.....you might want to look into a refund from that Law School.

Wiki is privately owned, by a non-profit foundation. Hence, its still private property. I don't know why you're hanging your hat on open source. That doesn't give someone the right to do or say whatever the fuck they want on Wiki.

You said the first amendment gave someone the right to do whatever they wanted on Wiki.

Sadly, you are Mistaken. Wiki Foundation owns the site, and is well within their right to ban IP addresses and posters who violate their rules, or fuck with their site.

The first amendment doesn't apply. The only thing the first amendment protects you against is the government infringing on your right to free speech. That's Constitutional Law 101. It has nothing to do with what happens on private property, or what a private entity does.


Really, do look into a refund on that school.
 
Yurt said:
wow, you keep track?

i never, ever said it doesn't exist, that is false. dnc is a troll and posted this solely to troll....it is not even board worthy....people mess up wiki pages all the time, he only mentions it because someone else had a rape slur thread and he had to troll the board and act like this is a big deal....its not

you have no idea who did this or why....next
Click to expand...


Who is the arbiter of what is "board worthy" and what is not? Do you make the same claim when seeing some of the banal, talk show inspired, bullshit so common here?

I know nobody here, so the "who" is unimportant. I read threads if the subject interests me, not by who started the thread or who replys to the posts within it. I pride myself on being bigoted against bigots so a thread on racism will intrigue me even if I don't participate. That said, I have noticed at the mere mention of racial bigotry, you are there to poo-poo it early on as though it doesn't exist or shouldn't be discussed such as in this thread. If the subject makes you uncomfortable, it might do you well to go elsewhere, there are many others to choose from, such as the unfair treatment of bush, or any other subject Fox suggests. If not, you may try looking inward to find the reason.
 
E=belme1201;522935]Who is the arbiter of what is "board worthy" and what is not? Do you make the same claim when seeing some of the banal, talk show inspired, bullshit so common here?
Click to expand...

i see...so apparently opinions are not allowed on this board :rolleyes:


I know nobody here, so the "who" is unimportant. I read threads if the subject interests me, not by who started the thread or who replys to the posts within it. I pride myself on being bigoted against bigots
Click to expand...

yeah, i find that raping rapists works well....:rolleyes:


so a thread on racism will intrigue me even if I don't participate. That said, I have noticed at the mere mention of racial bigotry, you are there to poo-poo it early on as though it doesn't exist or shouldn't be discussed such as in this thread. If the subject makes you uncomfortable, it might do you well to go elsewhere, there are many others to choose from, such as the unfair treatment of bush, or any other subject Fox suggests. If not, you may try looking inward to find the reason.
Click to expand...

its clear you have a huge problem with someone who has a counter opinion to yours....you also have a huge problem with someone pointing out counter points to the racism claims....if it made me uncomfortable, i wouldn't talk about it....

your banal attempt to throw in something about fox only shows your bias and inability to actually rationally debate a subject....
 
Yurt said:
i see...so apparently opinions are not allowed on this board :rolleyes: ....
Click to expand...

Naturally, Counsellor, we would not presume to question your judgment. Continue to act as the ultimate arbiter of the worthiness of other's posts.
 
=Cypress;522934]Hmmmm.....you might want to look into a refund from that Law School.

Wiki is privately owned, by a non-profit foundation. Hence, its still private property. I don't know why you're hanging your hat on open source. That doesn't give someone the right to do or say whatever the fuck they want on Wiki.
Click to expand...

wikipedia is an open source of information you idiot....why the hell do you think anyone can EDIT wikipedia....and then wikipedia can either allow the edit or not....dumbass


You said the first amendment gave someone the right to do whatever they wanted on Wiki.
Click to expand...

you're a liar, i never said that

Sadly, you are Mistaken. Wiki Foundation owns the site, and is well within their right to ban IP addresses and posters who violate their rules, or fuck with their site.
Click to expand...

i never said they couldn't....


The first amendment doesn't apply. The only thing the first amendment protects you against is the government infringing on your right to free speech. That's Constitutional Law 101. It has nothing to do with what happens on private property, or what a private entity does.


Really, do look into a refund on that school.
Click to expand...

you really need to go back and read the thread....the 1st amendment came up because USC said this type of speech, racist speech, is not protected....it wasn't solely about saying it on wikipedia....you really look stupid on this one cypress....
 
Last edited:
We wouldn't dream of interfering with your right to racist speech, Counsellor. Pray, forgive us.
 
Yurt said:
"i see...so apparently opinions are not allowed on this board" :rolleyes:"

It is you who judged the thread to be "unworthy" not me'


"yeah, i find that raping rapists works well"....:rolleyes:

Only a twisted mind would understand how that applies to my reply or even to this thread.


"its clear you have a huge problem with someone who has a counter opinion to yours....you also have a huge problem with someone pointing out counter points to the racism claims....if it made me uncomfortable, i wouldn't talk about it...."

I have no problem with counter opinions, your "opinion" was only that the thread was "board unworthy" and of course the "who", I presume because you had nothing of importance to say to counter the original post and would rather not discuss the subject, it being so uncomfortable for you.

"your banal attempt to throw in something about fox only shows your bias and inability to actually rationally debate a subject...."
Click to expand...

I made that statement to get the exact response I thought I would get because I felt you would not attempt to counter the last portion of my post regarding the reasons you are so quick to rise so frequently to deny any perceived racism from any source. I was correct, you didn't.
I apologize for being so disdainful of bush and now your friends at Fox, it must upset your sense of fairness deeply.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Hmmmm.....you might want to look into a refund from that Law School.

Wiki is privately owned, by a non-profit foundation. Hence, its still private property. I don't know why you're hanging your hat on open source. That doesn't give someone the right to do or say whatever the fuck they want on Wiki.

You said the first amendment gave someone the right to do whatever they wanted on Wiki.

Sadly, you are Mistaken. Wiki Foundation owns the site, and is well within their right to ban IP addresses and posters who violate their rules, or fuck with their site.

The first amendment doesn't apply. The only thing the first amendment protects you against is the government infringing on your right to free speech. That's Constitutional Law 101. It has nothing to do with what happens on private property, or what a private entity does.


Really, do look into a refund on that school.
Click to expand...

First, what the individual did was vile and if it is discovered who did this, they should have their face posted on wiki and labeled for the racist they are.

That said, you are incorrect. The individual did not break any law, regardless of how vile his words were. He did not vandalize wiki. As yurt stated, anyone is free to alter/edit wiki.

However, as you stated, this does not mean their words are free from consequences. Wiki has every right to ban the user and remove the content from their website.
 
uscitizen said:
Repeating a rascist slur is protected? is that even speech? I guess racist righties have a very limited vocabulary.
Click to expand...

Hate speech has never been illegal in the US.

Wikipedia did a good job with this, correcting the vandalism after only a minute. They are probably going to lock down the article to anonymous and new user edits (kind of surprised they already haven't). Through a bizarre stroke of luck Google seems to have indexed the page at precisely that moment, though.
 
Mr. Counsellor Yurtski's attempts to mimic rational thought processes cause hilarity rather than hysteria, don't they?
 
Superfreak said:
First, what the individual did was vile and if it is discovered who did this, they should have their face posted on wiki and labeled for the racist they are.

That said, you are incorrect. The individual did not break any law, regardless of how vile his words were. He did not vandalize wiki. As yurt stated, anyone is free to alter/edit wiki.

However, as you stated, this does not mean their words are free from consequences. Wiki has every right to ban the user and remove the content from their website.
Click to expand...


I don't believe I said the individual broke the law.

I was responding to yurt's assertion, which I understood to mean that anyone can write anything they want to wiki and are protected by free speech. Which is incorrect. Wiki is privately owned by a non-profit foundation, and the foundation is well within their rights to set rules and punishments (banning, etc) for anyone who violates their rules about what can be posted.

In short, you have no free speech protections on Wiki, or on any other private property. The first amendment only protects one from the government setting standards on what is allowed to be written or said. The first amendment doesn't constrain what a private entity can do within the context of their own property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top