3 ms·

Here's a rewritten first sentence, without endorsement for or against: English Wikipedia has become a party organ for the ideology of universities' liberal art

Here's a rewritten first sentence, without endorsement for or against: English Wikipedia has become a party organ for the ideology of universities' liberal arts departments. It filters for a particular viewpoint: deconstructive, post modernist, existentialist, nihilist, anti-western, socialist. English Wikipedia no longer cares about objective truth, and is more interested in assigning inflammatory labels to opinions outside of its ideology, and purging views that come from the wrong sources, namely dead white males. Some notes: The clarification about language vs. kingdom is unnecessary. Specifying that philosophy et al are now "ruined" is deliberately argumentative. "personal truth and lived experience" is duplicative of "post modernist". "battering down the gates" is also deliberately argumentative. I do not remember Shut Down Tech day, and so it adds nothing. The footnote on "party organ" doesn't help explain what a party organ is, but instead seems focused on aligning you with the views of The Nation against the CCP. Your entire first post reads like you're trying to pick a fight, and not trying to explain or convince anyone.

fsckboy 3y ago
That's pretty good good overall. But it's acceptable to pick a fight here over functional vs imperative programming, undefined behavior vs ...I don't even know what the opposite more intelligent camp is called because the undefined behavior crowd, who I resent, have done such a thorough job of making it sound like a bad thing when it was included for very good practical reasons (e.g. pointers on different architectures were implemented different ways; you had to code for your architecture; you were unlikely to port your code; when you did port it, you ported it; C was actually sort of genius about it). So I've just expressed ideas, and disdain, which is what I wished to say. People complain about the ugliness of politic, but free politics arises mostly out of democracy, before democracy average people could only express politics during bloody revolutions. So I don't see anything wrong with fighting (with words) about things we care about. The people who keep talking about undefined behavior have an agenda. So did the people who ruined the liberal arts. They were open about wishing to expel the people and ideas that they expelled. I'm not against expulsion, I wish to expel them. But at the same time I bring up the explicit ideological reasons. If you urge conciliation and compromise, great, join me, and put the Western canon back into the curriculum, we don't need to remove post-modern writing, just look at it askance, as any good skeptic should. If you don't want to do that, I don't want to cooperate with you. If writing things in a nice way hides what you want, I want no part of it. "language not kingdom" was a nit, but as another nit, when I read the orig, my brain had me thinking I was going to be reading about England, so that's what was on my mind. en.wikipedia would have been more understandable to me, and till this moment right now, I never considered that different *.wikis would have different enough sensibilities that Wikimedia's PR machine would make that language distinction in a PR puff piece they planted. I guess they might be saying, "we've kicked retrograde ideas out of en.wikipedia, now we're turning our attention to the others." Because, having experience with PR, I believe that the original article under consideration here is a PR piece, attempting to push back against the articles and ideas I'm expressing and that i linked to, that en.wikipedia is already ideologically captured by people who in private and sometimes in public talk exactly the way I'm talking, just in the other direction. I do salute you for writing a nice response, it's possible missed somethings you said, but this is what came to my mind as I replied. add on: postmodernism vs personal truth and lived experience. Postmoderism started as an art movement, where art has an academic tradition of exploring ideas and moving on, not persuading the middle classes to live that way; being associated with anything middle class is anathema to art. Personal truth and lived experience are much easier, and much more worthy, to ridicule.

fsckboy 3y ago

That's pretty good good overall. But it's acceptable to pick a fight here over functional vs imperative programming, undefined behavior vs ...I don't even know what the opposite more intelligent camp is called because the undefined behavior crowd, who I resent, have done such a thorough job of making it sound like a bad thing when it was included for very good practical reasons (e.g. pointers on different architectures were implemented different ways; you had to code for your architecture; you were unlikely to port your code; when you did port it, you ported it; C was actually sort of genius about it). So I've just expressed ideas, and disdain, which is what I wished to say. People complain about the ugliness of politic, but free politics arises mostly out of democracy, before democracy average people could only express politics during bloody revolutions. So I don't see anything wrong with fighting (with words) about things we care about. The people who keep talking about undefined behavior have an agenda. So did the people who ruined the liberal arts. They were open about wishing to expel the people and ideas that they expelled. I'm not against expulsion, I wish to expel them. But at the same time I bring up the explicit ideological reasons. If you urge conciliation and compromise, great, join me, and put the Western canon back into the curriculum, we don't need to remove post-modern writing, just look at it askance, as any good skeptic should. If you don't want to do that, I don't want to cooperate with you. If writing things in a nice way hides what you want, I want no part of it. "language not kingdom" was a nit, but as another nit, when I read the orig, my brain had me thinking I was going to be reading about England, so that's what was on my mind. en.wikipedia would have been more understandable to me, and till this moment right now, I never considered that different *.wikis would have different enough sensibilities that Wikimedia's PR machine would make that language distinction in a PR puff piece they planted. I guess they might be saying, "we've kicked retrograde ideas out of en.wikipedia, now we're turning our attention to the others." Because, having experience with PR, I believe that the original article under consideration here is a PR piece, attempting to push back against the articles and ideas I'm expressing and that i linked to, that en.wikipedia is already ideologically captured by people who in private and sometimes in public talk exactly the way I'm talking, just in the other direction. I do salute you for writing a nice response, it's possible missed somethings you said, but this is what came to my mind as I replied. add on: postmodernism vs personal truth and lived experience. Postmoderism started as an art movement, where art has an academic tradition of exploring ideas and moving on, not persuading the middle classes to live that way; being associated with anything middle class is anathema to art. Personal truth and lived experience are much easier, and much more worthy, to ridicule.