|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Reaction formation
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I'm glad I read this page -- I didn't realize only conservatives and Republicans could do this kinda thing!!! Lurker 10:51, 7 November 2007 (EST)
You know some counter examples? - put 'em in. Susanpurr 11:22, 7 November 2007 (EST)
@MarioSuperstar77 why reword that bullet point to remove the link to Saudi Arabia? We all know that’s who the it’s referring to, and I can’t say I see how it’s any less “unnecessarily objectionable” (not that it was in the first place). I know you think I’m the guy who reverts all your edits and this isn’t helping, but as far as I can tell all the edit did was remove a useful link. Christopher (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- What does adding Saudi Arabia add to the article? At the end of the day, it is still religious extremists committing those heinous acts and blaming an entire country for it will certainly rub people the wrong way. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Using a country’s name to refer to their government is standard English, no one honestly thinks that sentence means Hillary Clinton is taking money from all 34 million Saudi citizens. I don’t think that BoN who removed it would’ve been satisfied with your edit, and even if they were so what? Currently there’s no clear indication of who these religious extremists are, however obvious it may be. We shouldn’t introduce unnecessary ambiguity to avoid offending people who think saying Saudi Arabia treats women badly is islamophobic. Christopher (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- It is not just the Saudi Arabian government that is problematic, many more countries in the South have similar issues and are more often than not involved in a war, so singling them out was definitely objectionable in my book. I was speaking of the religious extremists who actually go their way to be as horrid as humanly possible because it is still a common problem alongside Daesh and Al-Qaeda who often receive funds thanks to Capitalism (By selling petrol). If you want less ambiguïty I can change religious extremists by Jihadists, so we're cool all right. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- The Saudi Arabian government wasn’t singled out because it was the only one that’s “problematic”, it was singled out because it, not Daesh or Al-Qaeda, was the group that donated millions to the Clinton foundation. Christopher (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't see the hyperlink linked back directly to Hillary Clinton. Shouldn't that specific instance be noted under "Notable people who have exhibited reaction formation" rather than being under "Examples of reaction formation"? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- You’re right, it should be, that clears that up then. It’s very easy to miss, shouldn’t have been written like that. Christopher (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't see the hyperlink linked back directly to Hillary Clinton. Shouldn't that specific instance be noted under "Notable people who have exhibited reaction formation" rather than being under "Examples of reaction formation"? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- The Saudi Arabian government wasn’t singled out because it was the only one that’s “problematic”, it was singled out because it, not Daesh or Al-Qaeda, was the group that donated millions to the Clinton foundation. Christopher (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- It is not just the Saudi Arabian government that is problematic, many more countries in the South have similar issues and are more often than not involved in a war, so singling them out was definitely objectionable in my book. I was speaking of the religious extremists who actually go their way to be as horrid as humanly possible because it is still a common problem alongside Daesh and Al-Qaeda who often receive funds thanks to Capitalism (By selling petrol). If you want less ambiguïty I can change religious extremists by Jihadists, so we're cool all right. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Using a country’s name to refer to their government is standard English, no one honestly thinks that sentence means Hillary Clinton is taking money from all 34 million Saudi citizens. I don’t think that BoN who removed it would’ve been satisfied with your edit, and even if they were so what? Currently there’s no clear indication of who these religious extremists are, however obvious it may be. We shouldn’t introduce unnecessary ambiguity to avoid offending people who think saying Saudi Arabia treats women badly is islamophobic. Christopher (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)