³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982280760³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982287811³2id³21280³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³21³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982287811³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
----
I wrote:
:A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE?. Anarchists reply 
I was hoping someone would supply the reply.  I don't actually know that the objection is common, but it seems simple and obvious to me, and I infer that it must be common.  Therefore, I also infer that there are some ordinary ways of replying.  :-) -- LarrySanger
³3minor³30³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982294780³2id³21280³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³22³1username³2RichardKulisz³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982294780³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
----
I wrote:
:A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE?. Anarchists reply 
I was hoping someone would supply the reply.  I don't actually know that the objection is common, but it seems simple and obvious to me, and I infer that it must be common.  Therefore, I also infer that there are some ordinary ways of replying.  :-) -- LarrySanger

The State is what you get under private property, in the modern corporation. Cooperatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of cummunal control and they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations. The similarity between the power hierarchies of corporations and the layered division of labour in cooperatives is superficial. If you compare both organizations using the items on the Psychopathy Checklist as a guide then it's becomes clear that cooperatives act like normal humans, humane, warm, feeling, intelligent and rational while the corporation can only be described as a psychopathic entity that cold-bloodedly uses workers for its own ends and acts on one impulse after another. As an example, one of the items on the PCL-R is "criminal versatility". Corporations have it, Microsoft demonstrates it when it buys companies expert in areas MS knows nothing about. In contrast, cooperatives cannot do this because it would violate their charters.

Communal control ''is'' subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing. The Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving. There was a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members. Anarchists don't claim that people will be able to slack off after the revolution.
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982295478³2id³21284³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³23³1username³2RichardKulisz³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982295478³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
----
I wrote:
:A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE?. Anarchists reply 
I was hoping someone would supply the reply.  I don't actually know that the objection is common, but it seems simple and obvious to me, and I infer that it must be common.  Therefore, I also infer that there are some ordinary ways of replying.  :-) -- LarrySanger

The State is what you get under private property, in the modern corporation. Cooperatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of cummunal control and they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations. The similarity between the power hierarchies of corporations and the layered division of labour in cooperatives is superficial. If you compare both organizations using the items on the Psychopathy Checklist as a guide then it becomes clear that cooperatives act like normal humans, humane, warm, feeling and stable while the corporation can only be described as a psychopathic entity that cold-bloodedly uses workers for its own ends and acts on one impulse after another. As an example, one of the items on the PCL-R is "criminal versatility". Corporations have it, Microsoft demonstrates it when it buys companies expert in areas MS knows nothing about. In contrast, cooperatives cannot do this because it would violate their charters.

Communal control is subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing. The Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving. There was a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members. Anarchists don't claim that people will be able to slack off after the revolution. And even if Mondragon does fail, it's important to note that it took more than 3 decades for it to do so. Three decades in which the inhabitants of the region enjoyed one of the highest standards of living available.
³3minor³30³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982305157³2id³21284³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³24³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982305157³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
----
I wrote:
:A simple and common objection to anarchism is that any notion of communal control implies something akin to a StatE?. Anarchists reply 
I was hoping someone would supply the reply.  I don't actually know that the objection is common, but it seems simple and obvious to me, and I infer that it must be common.  Therefore, I also infer that there are some ordinary ways of replying.  :-) -- LarrySanger

The State is what you get under private property, in the modern corporation. Cooperatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies are the principal instances of cummunal control and they do not involve the kind of authoritarianism found in corporations. The similarity between the power hierarchies of corporations and the layered division of labour in cooperatives is superficial. If you compare both organizations using the items on the Psychopathy Checklist as a guide then it becomes clear that cooperatives act like normal humans, humane, warm, feeling and stable while the corporation can only be described as a psychopathic entity that cold-bloodedly uses workers for its own ends and acts on one impulse after another. As an example, one of the items on the PCL-R is "criminal versatility". Corporations have it, Microsoft demonstrates it when it buys companies expert in areas MS knows nothing about. In contrast, cooperatives cannot do this because it would violate their charters.

Communal control is subject to the ''danger'' of a state developing. The Mondragon system of cooperatives in Spain is slowly devolving. There was a crucial flaw in the charter of the Caja Laboral Popular; the capability and incentive to accumulate vast cash reserves to the point where it can (almost) act independently of its members. Anarchists don't claim that people will be able to slack off after the revolution. And even if Mondragon does fail, it's important to note that it took more than 3 decades for it to do so. Three decades in which the inhabitants of the region enjoyed one of the highest standards of living available.
----
Richard, I note that you wrote something on this page.  I didn't read what you wrote.  Please fill in the blank, or otherwise alter the article itself.  If you don't, I'm simply going to ignore you.  I'm not really interested in engaging you in political discussions, even though I fully admit that that might be interesting and educational. -- LarrySanger
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982308258³2id³21280³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³25³1username³2RichardKulisz³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982308258³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982352540³2id³21284³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³26³1username³2³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982352540³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz

I made some more edits, and totally omitted the stuff equating 
"criminal versatility" with corporate mergers.  That's just too propagandistic to stand.

I'm tempted to edit even more, because I feel that Richard has violated etiquette here.  I've gone to the mat trying to help remove what Richard perceived as bias from Tim's description of anarchy, and I'm repaid with propaganda?  I figure I'm too annoyed right now to make all the changes that this article now needs.

 -- JimboWales
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982355229³2id³21025³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³27³1username³2RichardKulisz³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982355229³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz

I made some more edits, and totally omitted the stuff equating 
"criminal versatility" with corporate mergers.  That's just too propagandistic to stand.

I'm tempted to edit even more, because I feel that Richard has violated etiquette here.  I've gone to the mat trying to help remove what Richard perceived as bias from Tim's description of anarchy, and I'm repaid with propaganda?  I figure I'm too annoyed right now to make all the changes that this article now needs.

 -- JimboWales

This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view? Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter. Tell me if you change your mind but under the present circumstances I don't see the point to contributing.

Tim was spreading outright lies on a topic he knows very little or nothing about; the situations are not comparable. The same applies to TraditionalAnarchism where I introduced facts that become obvious to most people once they are pointed out and also to DemocracY where I pointed out the actions of the typical anti-democrat. (Yes, authoritarians have valid arguments with respect to racism and whatnot but since they never raise these issues, one cannot credit them with selfless motives.) Finally, Tim suppressed alternative points of view while I did not. Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists. -- RichardKulisz
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982358074³2id³21284³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³28³1username³2³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982358074³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz

I made some more edits, and totally omitted the stuff equating 
"criminal versatility" with corporate mergers.  That's just too propagandistic to stand.

I'm tempted to edit even more, because I feel that Richard has violated etiquette here.  I've gone to the mat trying to help remove what Richard perceived as bias from Tim's description of anarchy, and I'm repaid with propaganda?  I figure I'm too annoyed right now to make all the changes that this article now needs.

 -- JimboWales

This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia.

''It would be, if that were my definition; however it is not.  In this context, I mean obviously inflammatory statements designed to prejudice the reader without rational merit.''

Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view? 

''To present facts.  We can present facts _about_ bizarre points of view such as yours, but we must not present your bizarre point of view _as fact_.  I'm sure you can see the difference.''

Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter.

''My objection is '''precisely''' that what you wrote is inaccurate.  I am willing to go further than inaccurate and say it was nonsense.''

Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists. 

''Even if the views of anarchists are outright lies, that is no reason to suppress an encyclopedic discussion of those views.  It is a good reason to omit inflammatory falsehoods that fail to shed light on anything.''

''If you want to write 'Anarchists believe that corporate mergers are an instance of criminal flexibility', I will have no complaint about that.  But I will add a paragraph pointing out why many other people will disagree.''

''Please understand why I am upset.  I helped you make changes to things that you disagreed with, in an effort to achieve consensus.  I thought, and argued on your behalf, that you only wanted to present certain ideas fairly and in a neutral manner.  But I now believe that you only want to put forward your own political agenda.''
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982413191³2id³21025³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³29³1username³2RichardKulisz³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982413191³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz

I made some more edits, and totally omitted the stuff equating 
"criminal versatility" with corporate mergers.  That's just too propagandistic to stand.

I'm tempted to edit even more, because I feel that Richard has violated etiquette here.  I've gone to the mat trying to help remove what Richard perceived as bias from Tim's description of anarchy, and I'm repaid with propaganda?  I figure I'm too annoyed right now to make all the changes that this article now needs.

 -- JimboWales

This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia.

''It would be, if that were my definition; however it is not.  In this context, I mean obviously inflammatory statements designed to prejudice the reader without rational merit.''

Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view? 

''To present facts.  We can present facts _about_ bizarre points of view such as yours, but we must not present your bizarre point of view _as fact_.  I'm sure you can see the difference.''

Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter.

''My objection is '''precisely''' that what you wrote is inaccurate.  I am willing to go further than inaccurate and say it was nonsense.''

Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists. 

''Even if the views of anarchists are outright lies, that is no reason to suppress an encyclopedic discussion of those views.  It is a good reason to omit inflammatory falsehoods that fail to shed light on anything.''

''If you want to write 'Anarchists believe that corporate mergers are an instance of criminal flexibility', I will have no complaint about that.  But I will add a paragraph pointing out why many other people will disagree.''

''Please understand why I am upset.  I helped you make changes to things that you disagreed with, in an effort to achieve consensus.  I thought, and argued on your behalf, that you only wanted to present certain ideas fairly and in a neutral manner.  But I now believe that you only want to put forward your own political agenda.''

Believers of ideologies other than my own can present any views they like with as much bias as they wish. The only thing I care about is that they not provide gross verifiable inaccuracies and that the historical context shows the relationships between the various ideologies (the original entry on Anarchism failed on both counts). You confuse neutrality and blandness; neutrality is impossible because reality is not neutral. As for having a political agenda, everyone has their own political agenda or follows someone else's. I find that even the most twisted libertarian arguments are more insightful and informative than the bland pap of the dominant ideology. I am not apolitical ("impartial") and my respect for other ideologies takes the form of limiting myself to pointed comments instead of taking the risk of bawlderizing them (and if you can give an explanation and references to show that my conception of anarchocapitalism is wrong then I would appreciate it). I think this is eminently fair and I am upset at your insinuations to the contrary.

Most (probably all) anarchists believe that corporations are unfair, unjust, immoral and criminal. In pointing out that corporations are psychopathic I did no more than present facts to justify this viewpoint. If other people disagree, it is only because of ignorance or irreducible ideological differences.

Corporations are psychopathic. If you take the items of the PCL-R then it is easy to see that corporations have ''all'' of the traits listed (except for a couple that are completely inapplicable). Further, the defining characteristic of psychopathy (the lack of any human empathy, of any emotional connection to human beings) is easy to observe in corporations. A common objection is that non-human entities like corporations cannot be judged by human standards. This is bogus (equivalent to the claim by Christian apologists that their god is just without being accountable to human justice) and is easily countered with the observation that cooperatives lack most (or all) of the traits that make corporations psychopathic. Another common objection is that psychopathy does not matter. At best, this is an irreducible difference in people's value judgements. At worse, these people should consult actual psychologists for their opinion on this subject.

Now, if you're going to be honest about why people don't see corporations as psychopathic then you'll have to explain that most people just refuse to think about the matter. But considering the fact that most people still hold the impression of corporations as big faceless behemoths despite the massive amounts of public relations work done by corporations to counter this impression, I wouldn't be too sure of even that much. Perhaps my opinion isn't controversial. Perhaps it's merely ''very clearly expressed'' and convincing enough that it makes people who defend corporations squirm in helpless desperation. -- RichardKulisz
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982422160³2id³21284³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³210³1username³2JimboWales³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982422160³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz

I made some more edits, and totally omitted the stuff equating 
"criminal versatility" with corporate mergers.  That's just too propagandistic to stand.

I'm tempted to edit even more, because I feel that Richard has violated etiquette here.  I've gone to the mat trying to help remove what Richard perceived as bias from Tim's description of anarchy, and I'm repaid with propaganda?  I figure I'm too annoyed right now to make all the changes that this article now needs.

 -- JimboWales

This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia.

''It would be, if that were my definition; however it is not.  In this context, I mean obviously inflammatory statements designed to prejudice the reader without rational merit.''

Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view? 

''To present facts.  We can present facts _about_ bizarre points of view such as yours, but we must not present your bizarre point of view _as fact_.  I'm sure you can see the difference.''

Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter.

''My objection is '''precisely''' that what you wrote is inaccurate.  I am willing to go further than inaccurate and say it was nonsense.''

Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists. 

''Even if the views of anarchists are outright lies, that is no reason to suppress an encyclopedic discussion of those views.  It is a good reason to omit inflammatory falsehoods that fail to shed light on anything.''

''If you want to write 'Anarchists believe that corporate mergers are an instance of criminal flexibility', I will have no complaint about that.  But I will add a paragraph pointing out why many other people will disagree.''

''Please understand why I am upset.  I helped you make changes to things that you disagreed with, in an effort to achieve consensus.  I thought, and argued on your behalf, that you only wanted to present certain ideas fairly and in a neutral manner.  But I now believe that you only want to put forward your own political agenda.''

----
Believers of ideologies other than my own can present any views they like with as much bias as they wish. 

''No, not really.  I don't care what the ideology, it should
not be presented.  Note the difference between stating facts about an ideology, and stating that the ideology is fact.  This goes for '''all''' ideologies.''

The only thing I care about is that they not provide gross verifiable inaccuracies and that the historical context shows the relationships between the various ideologies (the original entry on Anarchism failed on both counts).

''And that entry was changed, right?''

You confuse neutrality and blandness; neutrality is impossible because reality is not neutral.

''I disagree.''

As for having a political agenda, everyone has their own political agenda or follows someone else's. I find that even the most twisted libertarian arguments are more insightful and informative than the bland pap of the dominant ideology. I am not apolitical ("impartial") and my respect for other ideologies takes the form of limiting myself to pointed comments instead of taking the risk of bawlderizing them (and if you can give an explanation and references to show that my conception of anarchocapitalism is wrong then I would appreciate it). I think this is eminently fair and I am upset at your insinuations to the contrary.

Most (probably all) anarchists believe that corporations are unfair, unjust, immoral and criminal. In pointing out that corporations are psychopathic I did no more than present facts to justify this viewpoint. If other people disagree, it is only because of ignorance or irreducible ideological differences.

Corporations are psychopathic. If you take the items of the PCL-R then it is easy to see that corporations have ''all'' of the traits listed (except for a couple that are completely inapplicable). Further, the defining characteristic of psychopathy (the lack of any human empathy, of any emotional connection to human beings) is easy to observe in corporations. A common objection is that non-human entities like corporations cannot be judged by human standards. This is bogus (equivalent to the claim by Christian apologists that their god is just without being accountable to human justice) and is easily countered with the observation that cooperatives lack most (or all) of the traits that make corporations psychopathic. Another common objection is that psychopathy does not matter. At best, this is an irreducible difference in people's value judgements. At worse, these people should consult actual psychologists for their opinion on this subject.

Now, if you're going to be honest about why people don't see corporations as psychopathic then you'll have to explain that most people just refuse to think about the matter. But considering the fact that most people still hold the impression of corporations as big faceless behemoths despite the massive amounts of public relations work done by corporations to counter this impression, I wouldn't be too sure of even that much. Perhaps my opinion isn't controversial. Perhaps it's merely ''very clearly expressed'' and convincing enough that it makes people who defend corporations squirm in helpless desperation. -- RichardKulisz

'''Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate.  I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims.  I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.'''
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982422371³2id³21222³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³211³1username³2JimboWales³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982422371³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz

I made some more edits, and totally omitted the stuff equating 
"criminal versatility" with corporate mergers.  That's just too propagandistic to stand.

I'm tempted to edit even more, because I feel that Richard has violated etiquette here.  I've gone to the mat trying to help remove what Richard perceived as bias from Tim's description of anarchy, and I'm repaid with propaganda?  I figure I'm too annoyed right now to make all the changes that this article now needs.

 -- JimboWales

This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia.

''It would be, if that were my definition; however it is not.  In this context, I mean obviously inflammatory statements designed to prejudice the reader without rational merit.''

Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view? 

''To present facts.  We can present facts _about_ bizarre points of view such as yours, but we must not present your bizarre point of view _as fact_.  I'm sure you can see the difference.''

Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter.

''My objection is '''precisely''' that what you wrote is inaccurate.  I am willing to go further than inaccurate and say it was nonsense.''

Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists. 

''Even if the views of anarchists are outright lies, that is no reason to suppress an encyclopedic discussion of those views.  It is a good reason to omit inflammatory falsehoods that fail to shed light on anything.''

''If you want to write 'Anarchists believe that corporate mergers are an instance of criminal flexibility', I will have no complaint about that.  But I will add a paragraph pointing out why many other people will disagree.''

''Please understand why I am upset.  I helped you make changes to things that you disagreed with, in an effort to achieve consensus.  I thought, and argued on your behalf, that you only wanted to present certain ideas fairly and in a neutral manner.  But I now believe that you only want to put forward your own political agenda.''

----
Believers of ideologies other than my own can present any views they like with as much bias as they wish. 

''No, not really.  I don't care what the ideology, it should
not be presented.  Note the difference between stating facts about an ideology, and stating that the ideology is fact.  This goes for '''all''' ideologies.''

The only thing I care about is that they not provide gross verifiable inaccuracies and that the historical context shows the relationships between the various ideologies (the original entry on Anarchism failed on both counts).

''And that entry was changed, right?''

You confuse neutrality and blandness; neutrality is impossible because reality is not neutral.

''I disagree.''

As for having a political agenda, everyone has their own political agenda or follows someone else's. I find that even the most twisted libertarian arguments are more insightful and informative than the bland pap of the dominant ideology. I am not apolitical ("impartial") and my respect for other ideologies takes the form of limiting myself to pointed comments instead of taking the risk of bawlderizing them (and if you can give an explanation and references to show that my conception of anarchocapitalism is wrong then I would appreciate it). I think this is eminently fair and I am upset at your insinuations to the contrary.

Most (probably all) anarchists believe that corporations are unfair, unjust, immoral and criminal. In pointing out that corporations are psychopathic I did no more than present facts to justify this viewpoint. If other people disagree, it is only because of ignorance or irreducible ideological differences.

Corporations are psychopathic. If you take the items of the PCL-R then it is easy to see that corporations have ''all'' of the traits listed (except for a couple that are completely inapplicable). Further, the defining characteristic of psychopathy (the lack of any human empathy, of any emotional connection to human beings) is easy to observe in corporations. A common objection is that non-human entities like corporations cannot be judged by human standards. This is bogus (equivalent to the claim by Christian apologists that their god is just without being accountable to human justice) and is easily countered with the observation that cooperatives lack most (or all) of the traits that make corporations psychopathic. Another common objection is that psychopathy does not matter. At best, this is an irreducible difference in people's value judgements. At worse, these people should consult actual psychologists for their opinion on this subject.

Now, if you're going to be honest about why people don't see corporations as psychopathic then you'll have to explain that most people just refuse to think about the matter. But considering the fact that most people still hold the impression of corporations as big faceless behemoths despite the massive amounts of public relations work done by corporations to counter this impression, I wouldn't be too sure of even that much. Perhaps my opinion isn't controversial. Perhaps it's merely ''very clearly expressed'' and convincing enough that it makes people who defend corporations squirm in helpless desperation. -- RichardKulisz

''Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate.  I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims.  I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.''

''I think you might achieve some personal growth if you came to understand and respect that the vast majority of serious political scientists and economists, those who '''have''' thought seriously about these issues, disagree with you.  That need not mean that you are wrong, of course, but it does mean that you should drop the pretense that your opponents are either ignorant or irreducibly ideologically unconvincable.''

''But none of that has to do with the wikipedia.  There is no need for us to settle debates about the truth of anarchy.  What there needs to be, though, is some understanding from you that an encyclopedia is not the appropriate forum for you to promote your ideology.''
³3minor³30³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982457122³2id³21222³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³212³1username³2RichardKulisz³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982457122³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz

----

''Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate.  I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims.  I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.''

''I think you might achieve some personal growth if you came to understand and respect that the vast majority of serious political scientists and economists, those who '''have''' thought seriously about these issues, disagree with you.  That need not mean that you are wrong, of course, but it does mean that you should drop the pretense that your opponents are either ignorant or irreducibly ideologically unconvincable.''

''But none of that has to do with the wikipedia.  There is no need for us to settle debates about the truth of anarchy.  What there needs to be, though, is some understanding from you that an encyclopedia is not the appropriate forum for you to promote your ideology.''

You can't define the difference between description and honest advocacy because there isn't one. Your "neutrality" is just a cover for pushing the mainstream ideology, which surprise surprise gets the special status of not being treated as an ideology. 

As for economists and political scientists, they are bought wholesale by rich capitalists. I don't give any credit to people dumb enough to claim that war is a good thing, as free market economists do. And there's a serious problem when some of the best political science in North America is done by a linguist. I'm hardly going to respect academics that have forfeited their duties to an outsider in favour of selling themselves to the highest bidder. I have no idea what kind of "personal growth" you're talking about but given what you say is required to achive it, I know I want no part of it.

The only argument you can make which I would accept as valid is that facts about corporations belong in an entry on corporations and not on anarchism. You have conspicuously failed to make that argument. I can just imagine how horrified you would be if I described in explicit detail exactly how psychopathic corporations are on ModernCorporation. Further, if you were neutral you would limit yourself to editing in "Anarchists believe" and not threaten to insert something equivalent to "but they are completely wrong since nobody believes them blah blah blah". I do not for a single second believe your pretense at "neutrality".

You also wrote:

''No, not really.  I don't care what the ideology, it should
not be presented.  Note the difference between stating facts about an ideology, and stating that the ideology is fact.  This goes for '''all''' ideologies.''

So you don't care what's written so long as there are sufficiently long disclaimers and any insight is couched in super-bland language? But that just promotes the view that all political philosophies are "unreasonable" and causes people to become apolitical. And that's the problem right there. Apoliticizing people is not being "neutral", it's promoting the dominant ideology. I've tried to write in a bland "neutral" style before and I only got disgusted at how ''dishonest'' it was. "Don't look at the man behind the curtain people! Nothing to see! Move along!" People can observe the different non-standard ideologies like animals in a zoo but oh horrors if they start believing any of them! Like I already said, the most twisted and biased libertarian tripe is infinitely more insightful and informative than the bland apolitical tripe you seem to want to promote.
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982460591³2id³21284³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³213³1username³2RichardKulisz³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982460591³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz

----

''Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate.  I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims.  I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.''

''I think you might achieve some personal growth if you came to understand and respect that the vast majority of serious political scientists and economists, those who '''have''' thought seriously about these issues, disagree with you.  That need not mean that you are wrong, of course, but it does mean that you should drop the pretense that your opponents are either ignorant or irreducibly ideologically unconvincable.''

''But none of that has to do with the wikipedia.  There is no need for us to settle debates about the truth of anarchy.  What there needs to be, though, is some understanding from you that an encyclopedia is not the appropriate forum for you to promote your ideology.''

You can't define the difference between description and honest advocacy because there isn't one. Your "neutrality" is just a cover for pushing the mainstream ideology, which surprise surprise gets the special status of not being treated as an ideology. 

As for economists and political scientists, they are bought wholesale by rich capitalists. I don't give any credit to people dumb enough to claim that war is a good thing, as free market economists do. And there's a serious problem when some of the best political science in North America is done by a linguist. I'm hardly going to respect academics that have forfeited their duties to an outsider in favour of selling themselves to the highest bidder. I have no idea what kind of "personal growth" you're talking about but given what you say is required to achive it, I know I want no part of it.

"[I]f there is a body of theory, well tested and verified, that applies to the conduct of foreign affairs or the resolution of domestic or international conflict, its existence has been kept a well-guarded secret, despite much pseudo-scientific posturing." -- NoamChomsky, the linguist in question

The only argument you can make which I would accept as valid is that facts about corporations belong in an entry on corporations and not on anarchism. You have conspicuously failed to make that argument. I can just imagine how horrified you would be if I described in explicit detail exactly how psychopathic corporations are on ModernCorporation. Further, if you were neutral you would limit yourself to editing in "Anarchists believe" and not threaten to insert something equivalent to "but they are completely wrong since nobody believes them blah blah blah". I do not for a single second believe your pretense at "neutrality".

You also wrote:

''No, not really.  I don't care what the ideology, it should
not be presented.  Note the difference between stating facts about an ideology, and stating that the ideology is fact.  This goes for '''all''' ideologies.''

So you don't care what's written so long as there are sufficiently long disclaimers and any insight is couched in super-bland language? But that just promotes the view that all political philosophies are "unreasonable" and causes people to become apolitical. And that's the problem right there. Apoliticizing people is not being "neutral", it's promoting the dominant ideology. I've tried to write in a bland "neutral" style before and I only got disgusted at how ''dishonest'' it was. "Don't look at the man behind the curtain people! Nothing to see! Move along!" People can observe the different non-standard ideologies like animals in a zoo but oh horrors if they start believing any of them! Like I already said, the most twisted and biased libertarian tripe is infinitely more insightful and informative than the bland apolitical tripe you seem to want to promote.
³3minor³30³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982460864³2id³21284³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³214³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982460864³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz

----

''Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate.  I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims.  I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.''

''I think you might achieve some personal growth if you came to understand and respect that the vast majority of serious political scientists and economists, those who '''have''' thought seriously about these issues, disagree with you.  That need not mean that you are wrong, of course, but it does mean that you should drop the pretense that your opponents are either ignorant or irreducibly ideologically unconvincable.''

''But none of that has to do with the wikipedia.  There is no need for us to settle debates about the truth of anarchy.  What there needs to be, though, is some understanding from you that an encyclopedia is not the appropriate forum for you to promote your ideology.''

You can't define the difference between description and honest advocacy because there isn't one. Your "neutrality" is just a cover for pushing the mainstream ideology, which surprise surprise gets the special status of not being treated as an ideology. 

As for economists and political scientists, they are bought wholesale by rich capitalists. I don't give any credit to people dumb enough to claim that war is a good thing, as free market economists do. And there's a serious problem when some of the best political science in North America is done by a linguist. I'm hardly going to respect academics that have forfeited their duties to an outsider in favour of selling themselves to the highest bidder. I have no idea what kind of "personal growth" you're talking about but given what you say is required to achive it, I know I want no part of it.

"[I]f there is a body of theory, well tested and verified, that applies to the conduct of foreign affairs or the resolution of domestic or international conflict, its existence has been kept a well-guarded secret, despite much pseudo-scientific posturing." -- NoamChomsky, the linguist in question

The only argument you can make which I would accept as valid is that facts about corporations belong in an entry on corporations and not on anarchism. You have conspicuously failed to make that argument. I can just imagine how horrified you would be if I described in explicit detail exactly how psychopathic corporations are on ModernCorporation. Further, if you were neutral you would limit yourself to editing in "Anarchists believe" and not threaten to insert something equivalent to "but they are completely wrong since nobody believes them blah blah blah". I do not for a single second believe your pretense at "neutrality".

You also wrote:

''No, not really.  I don't care what the ideology, it should
not be presented.  Note the difference between stating facts about an ideology, and stating that the ideology is fact.  This goes for '''all''' ideologies.''

So you don't care what's written so long as there are sufficiently long disclaimers and any insight is couched in super-bland language? But that just promotes the view that all political philosophies are "unreasonable" and causes people to become apolitical. And that's the problem right there. Apoliticizing people is not being "neutral", it's promoting the dominant ideology. I've tried to write in a bland "neutral" style before and I only got disgusted at how ''dishonest'' it was. "Don't look at the man behind the curtain people! Nothing to see! Move along!" People can observe the different non-standard ideologies like animals in a zoo but oh horrors if they start believing any of them! Like I already said, the most twisted and biased libertarian tripe is infinitely more insightful and informative than the bland apolitical tripe you seem to want to promote.
----
Probably against my better judgment, I'm going to reply to you, Richard.  I think you simply fail to understand some things.  You might not be capable of understanding them yet, but I'll give it a shot.  I'll try to explain these things ''once,'' and then let you go on believing whatever it is you want to believe.

:You can't define the difference between description and honest advocacy because there isn't one. Your "neutrality" is just a cover for pushing the mainstream ideology, which surprise surprise gets the special status of not being treated as an ideology. 

This claim is completely unjustified, and frankly, it's just silly.  ''Why'' is it that a description of what people believe, without explicitly advocating any particular belief, is "a cover for pushing the mainstream ideology"?  I'm not ''aware'' of covering for anything, and I hope I'm a smart and honest enough person to be able to see if I am.  Many people--many philosophers, for example--are very capable of writing encyclopedia articles (see, e.g., my favorite encyclopedia, ''The Companion to Epistemology'') that fairly present various views without advocating any one of them.  But some of these philosophers hold ''extreme'' views of one sort or another.  Certainly they don't ''mean'' to be plugging for "the mainstream ideology" (or whatever the mainstream view on the question at hand is).  And none of their audience would be so silly as to assume that they were advocates for "the mainstream ideology," either.  If you think so, you simply don't understand the dialectical dynamic that's going on.

When you're writing for mature adults who can think for themselves, it simply ''insults their intelligence'' to assume that presenting views neutrally, or unbiasedly, will cause them to think that you are plugging for "the mainstream ideology."  Even more it insults their intelligence to presume to be writing an ''informational'' article which openly attempts to influence their views, as though the text from which they would most be likely to form their views would be an obviously biased encyclopedia article.  That's not what most people use encyclopedias for.

:As for economists and political scientists, they are bought wholesale by rich capitalists.

I don't even know what that ''means.''  Do you mean that they are all paid by corporations for advocating capitalism?  If so, that's silly.  First of all, they don't all advocate capitalism, and second, of course, they aren't all paid by corporations.  Many of them work for universities or as independent consultants, writers, and thinktank operatives.  More importantly, you insult them by assuming that they do not--whether due to inability, greed, coercion, or whatever other reason--use their own brains in deciding what to write.

:I have no idea what kind of "personal growth" you're talking about but given what you say is required to achive it, I know I want no part of it.

No, Jimmy meant it quite literally, and I understand exactly what he means.  You have to start treating your opponents as living, breathing human beings with brilliant brains of their own, not as automata.  One of the implications of this is that these people deserve your ''respect'' as living, breathing human beings with brains, sometimes brilliant, of their own.  They may not deserve your agreement, you don't have to like them, and you can even think that they're corrupt or evil for advocating the wrong thing.  But don't treat them like mindless, idiotic automata.

:So you don't care what's written so long as there are sufficiently long disclaimers and any insight is couched in super-bland language? But that just promotes the view that all political philosophies are "unreasonable" and causes people to become apolitical.

This is another fairly straightforward ''non sequitur.''  By assuming that people will form their political opinions based on what ''you'' have written in an ''encyclopedia article'' for ''Wikipedia,'' you fail to respect the fact that they have brains of their own and can make up their own minds, thank you very much.  They will, most of them, be able to spot your propaganda as such immediately--part of being educated involves being able to spot it, after all.  If they're at all educated, and they happen not to agree with you, they'll simply be nauseated.  Your cause will not be advanced.

Disclaimers, hedging, and so forth does not necessarily make writing ''bland.''  Propagandizing certainly does not necessarily make writing ''interesting'' (quite the opposite, for me).

Obviously, anyway, writing from a neutral point of view certainly does not have a tendency to make people "apolitical."  Why would it?  That's an empirical question; where's your data?  I'm very skeptical.  And quite the contrary, I would say that transparently propagandistic ways of presenting political views has a way of turning people off to thinking about politics.  If, as in many people's college careers, they are exposed to nothing but partisan screed when it comes to politics, those who want to rely as much as possible on ''their own native reason'' to decide what to think are necessarily turned off.

--LarrySanger
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982470209³2id³21001³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³215³1username³2RichardKulisz³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982470209³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Traditional anarchism is a poor choice of words since anarchists usually find themselves working against tradition. One might be forced to say that "traditional anarchism eschews tradition, including its own" .... Unreformed anarchism would be better since anarchists reject the notion of political reform. It would also be funny though I find I cannot explain the humour in it. Probably just the meta-syntactic thing. -- RichardKulisz

----

''Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate.  I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims.  I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.''

''I think you might achieve some personal growth if you came to understand and respect that the vast majority of serious political scientists and economists, those who '''have''' thought seriously about these issues, disagree with you.  That need not mean that you are wrong, of course, but it does mean that you should drop the pretense that your opponents are either ignorant or irreducibly ideologically unconvincable.''

''But none of that has to do with the wikipedia.  There is no need for us to settle debates about the truth of anarchy.  What there needs to be, though, is some understanding from you that an encyclopedia is not the appropriate forum for you to promote your ideology.''

You can't define the difference between description and honest advocacy because there isn't one. Your "neutrality" is just a cover for pushing the mainstream ideology, which surprise surprise gets the special status of not being treated as an ideology. 

As for economists and political scientists, they are bought wholesale by rich capitalists. I don't give any credit to people dumb enough to claim that war is a good thing, as free market economists do. And there's a serious problem when some of the best political science in North America is done by a linguist. I'm hardly going to respect academics that have forfeited their duties to an outsider in favour of selling themselves to the highest bidder. I have no idea what kind of "personal growth" you're talking about but given what you say is required to achive it, I know I want no part of it.

"[I]f there is a body of theory, well tested and verified, that applies to the conduct of foreign affairs or the resolution of domestic or international conflict, its existence has been kept a well-guarded secret, despite much pseudo-scientific posturing." -- NoamChomsky, the linguist in question

The only argument you can make which I would accept as valid is that facts about corporations belong in an entry on corporations and not on anarchism. You have conspicuously failed to make that argument. I can just imagine how horrified you would be if I described in explicit detail exactly how psychopathic corporations are on ModernCorporation. Further, if you were neutral you would limit yourself to editing in "Anarchists believe" and not threaten to insert something equivalent to "but they are completely wrong since nobody believes them blah blah blah". I do not for a single second believe your pretense at "neutrality".

You also wrote:

''No, not really.  I don't care what the ideology, it should
not be presented.  Note the difference between stating facts about an ideology, and stating that the ideology is fact.  This goes for '''all''' ideologies.''

So you don't care what's written so long as there are sufficiently long disclaimers and any insight is couched in super-bland language? But that just promotes the view that all political philosophies are "unreasonable" and causes people to become apolitical. And that's the problem right there. Apoliticizing people is not being "neutral", it's promoting the dominant ideology. I've tried to write in a bland "neutral" style before and I only got disgusted at how ''dishonest'' it was. "Don't look at the man behind the curtain people! Nothing to see! Move along!" People can observe the different non-standard ideologies like animals in a zoo but oh horrors if they start believing any of them! Like I already said, the most twisted and biased libertarian tripe is infinitely more insightful and informative than the bland apolitical tripe you seem to want to promote.
----
Probably against my better judgment, I'm going to reply to you, Richard.  I think you simply fail to understand some things.  You might not be capable of understanding them yet, but I'll give it a shot.  I'll try to explain these things ''once,'' and then let you go on believing whatever it is you want to believe.

:You can't define the difference between description and honest advocacy because there isn't one. Your "neutrality" is just a cover for pushing the mainstream ideology, which surprise surprise gets the special status of not being treated as an ideology. 

This claim is completely unjustified, and frankly, it's just silly.  ''Why'' is it that a description of what people believe, without explicitly advocating any particular belief, is "a cover for pushing the mainstream ideology"?  I'm not ''aware'' of covering for anything, and I hope I'm a smart and honest enough person to be able to see if I am.  Many people--many philosophers, for example--are very capable of writing encyclopedia articles (see, e.g., my favorite encyclopedia, ''The Companion to Epistemology'') that fairly present various views without advocating any one of them.  But some of these philosophers hold ''extreme'' views of one sort or another.  Certainly they don't ''mean'' to be plugging for "the mainstream ideology" (or whatever the mainstream view on the question at hand is).  And none of their audience would be so silly as to assume that they were advocates for "the mainstream ideology," either.  If you think so, you simply don't understand the dialectical dynamic that's going on.

When you're writing for mature adults who can think for themselves, it simply ''insults their intelligence'' to assume that presenting views neutrally, or unbiasedly, will cause them to think that you are plugging for "the mainstream ideology."  Even more it insults their intelligence to presume to be writing an ''informational'' article which openly attempts to influence their views, as though the text from which they would most be likely to form their views would be an obviously biased encyclopedia article.  That's not what most people use encyclopedias for.

:As for economists and political scientists, they are bought wholesale by rich capitalists.

I don't even know what that ''means.''  Do you mean that they are all paid by corporations for advocating capitalism?  If so, that's silly.  First of all, they don't all advocate capitalism, and second, of course, they aren't all paid by corporations.  Many of them work for universities or as independent consultants, writers, and thinktank operatives.  More importantly, you insult them by assuming that they do not--whether due to inability, greed, coercion, or whatever other reason--use their own brains in deciding what to write.

:I have no idea what kind of "personal growth" you're talking about but given what you say is required to achive it, I know I want no part of it.

No, Jimmy meant it quite literally, and I understand exactly what he means.  You have to start treating your opponents as living, breathing human beings with brilliant brains of their own, not as automata.  One of the implications of this is that these people deserve your ''respect'' as living, breathing human beings with brains, sometimes brilliant, of their own.  They may not deserve your agreement, you don't have to like them, and you can even think that they're corrupt or evil for advocating the wrong thing.  But don't treat them like mindless, idiotic automata.

:So you don't care what's written so long as there are sufficiently long disclaimers and any insight is couched in super-bland language? But that just promotes the view that all political philosophies are "unreasonable" and causes people to become apolitical.

This is another fairly straightforward ''non sequitur.''  By assuming that people will form their political opinions based on what ''you'' have written in an ''encyclopedia article'' for ''Wikipedia,'' you fail to respect the fact that they have brains of their own and can make up their own minds, thank you very much.  They will, most of them, be able to spot your propaganda as such immediately--part of being educated involves being able to spot it, after all.  If they're at all educated, and they happen not to agree with you, they'll simply be nauseated.  Your cause will not be advanced.

Disclaimers, hedging, and so forth does not necessarily make writing ''bland.''  Propagandizing certainly does not necessarily make writing ''interesting'' (quite the opposite, for me).

Obviously, anyway, writing from a neutral point of view certainly does not have a tendency to make people "apolitical."  Why would it?  That's an empirical question; where's your data?  I'm very skeptical.  And quite the contrary, I would say that transparently propagandistic ways of presenting political views has a way of turning people off to thinking about politics.  If, as in many people's college careers, they are exposed to nothing but partisan screed when it comes to politics, those who want to rely as much as possible on ''their own native reason'' to decide what to think are necessarily turned off.

--LarrySanger

I find it amusing how you can accuse me of insulting the intelligence of educated and "brilliant" people while you simultaneously insult the intelligence of uneducated (and presumably "dull") people. You assume that if someone believes my plain words then it is because they are stupid, uneducated and propagandized. Your target audience is the middle-class and academics while mine is "lower", the ''real'' people with ''real'' concerns. Economists who talk incessantly about irrelevant social constructs like the stock market, instead of real concerns like famines and poverty, bore me to tears. And I propose that the political and emotional disengagement of academics (only academics buy the myth of the radical academic) makes them into something less than real human beings. If "partisan screeds" turn college students off then it is merely because they feel threatened by real emotional engagement (which entails real commitment) instead of the abstract airy fairy ''game'' called 'politics' that is so common in academia and which costs academics nothing.

My position is backed up by ample facts and most students of propaganda (including the likes of Jacques Ellul and Noam Chomsky). Far from education being about detecting propaganda, it is nothing but a system of indoctrination. Further, the highly intelligent and educated are inherently easier to propagandize than the rest of the population, even before you factor in the massive (professional) arrogance you have displayed.

I have no wish to disengage myself emotionally or politically. When I read about gross exploitation and injustice, it awakens a core of anger and hatred in me every single time. It isn't because I'm stupider or less intelligent than you are but simply because I haven't grown the apathy you seem to possess (or at least are accustomed to from your peers). This is something I like about myself and I will hardly "grow" to change it. Nor do I have any wish to engage in the dishonesty of emulating the walking dead. And hence I have no wish to use emotionally void language (which is the only meaning of "neutral" I can discern). The idea of arguing in an insanely calm manner about the "flaws" of democracy (to give one example) strikes a note of horror in me.

Now, if you tell me that encyclopedias are inherently academic and middle-class artifacts then I am prepared to accept your judgement on the matter. You would be confirming my suspicions. In that case, I would limit my participation appropriately. -- RichardKulisz
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982280760³2keepts³2982485134³2id³21284³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³216