Forum:Proposal to delete Black Lives Matter

<<< Back to The Administrator's League • <<< Back to Forum

Black Lives Matter seems to be a rant trivializing the crap blacks have to put up with in the United States. There was a comment about it being political, but I simply found it to be disgusting. Any good reason not to delete it? (kaizum me) 08:10, 17 Novelniver 2016 (UTC)

Can we vote on this? (Are we organized enough to do that here?)
If so I'd vote Delete. Yeah, it's apparently just a rant, and it's pretty disgusting. Snarglefoop (talk) 22:04, 17 Novelniver 2016 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary thing. I'd expect better from a grown man who founded this website, but apparently he's used it as a medium of expressing his logical and actual views on sociopolitical issues. Sure, politics is welcome here, but we don't want it to sound like it came straight out of 4chan's /pol/ board, because having content like that would totally defeat the purpose of this website.

Moreover, I think this needs to be checked so that it goes in accordance with the content and editing policies of Illogicopedia. If it does not, then into the incinerator it goes; if it does, we can still point out that it is inherently logical and that as Illogicopedians we are entitled to rework it to our illogical standards.

For now, I say Delete as well. 23:23, 17 Novelniver 2016 (UTC)

Update: Black Lives Matter violates the 1st, 4th, and 6th Illogicopedian commandments. 23:29, 17 Novelniver 2016 (UTC)

• Delete The article, as it stands now, is not nearly nonsensical enough. If we were to make it illogical, it's still a distasteful subject. Cg098 (talk) 00:03, 18 Novelniver 2016 (UTC)
• Delete The worst since Jacob Sartorius in Sweatshirt feat. Stingy, b0ss. :) --(AMB) (XAR) (BKYE) Sophia, The Resident Uncyclopedia Deity (talk) 06:47, 18 Novelniver 2016 (UTC)
• Delete it made me go "nope" just one too many times. PiddlerOfTrousers- - -I've ruined Illogicopedia 795 times! 19:35, 18 Novelniver 2016 (UTC)

I was seriously considering putting it up for QD. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 23:04, 18 Novelniver 2016 (UTC)

There's no rule against political articles

I proposed one and it got rejected. If we add a rule against political articles then I could go through the site deleting any left leaning or anti-religious articles. If we don't want a rule against political articles in order to protect left-leaning ones, then that means I get to write right-leaning ones, including the upcoming, "I Can't Believe It's Not a Baby" article about Planned Parenthood selling dead baby parts as a margarine spread.

If you don't like it then the thing to do would be to respond with your own political articles advocating the other side.

Black Lives Matter has been committing violence and has been heard chanting "We want dead cops now". GamerGate hasn't. My article just covers Black Lives Matter using the same structure as Wikipedia uses to cover GamerGate. --Nerd42 (talk) 18:32, 2 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Well, this seems like it is an obviously leaning political rant. This isn't illogical. An example of illogic political articles done well would be the Liberal bias in... series. Those have a humorous slant, but don't intend that as the opinion of the user or of the wiki. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 22:08, 2 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that if they have a left wing slant, like is obvious in the article you linked to from the first few sentences, then they're OK, but if they have a right wing slant, then they're not. --Nerd42 (talk) 02:14, 3 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how "Liberal bias" has a left wing slant. And for the record, I would support a rule against persuasion. Cg098 (talk) 03:58, 3 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have a left wing slant at all. In point of fact, it's a parody article with no real bias. This is a real article that advocates your opinion. It shouldn't go on Illogicopedia. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 06:04, 3 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

This whole conversation is pretty annoying -- the fact that it needs to happen at all indicates somebody has got a serious problem with identifying proper venues for their political rants. I'd heard N-F-2 had a major drum to beat (and maybe Trumpet to toot) and had no sense of humor but I hadn't seen it demonstrated until now. I think it's time I shut all my Illogicopedia windows and cleared air -- I don't need this. Snarglefoop (talk) 23:40, 3 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

"Identifying proper venues for their political rants." That is basically how I feel about all this. I realize that articles aren't written in vacuums; we all bring our own likes and dislikes, opinions and values. But to use Illogicopedia to try and make a statement about a serious issues has always seemed like a fool's errand to me. —Marzipan (talk) 10:47, 8 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

The fundamental idea of the "Liberal bias in..." series is to make fun of the idea that left-wing bias exists in various places in order to persuade the reader that it really doesn't. That's as partisan as it gets. --Nerd42 (talk) 06:38, 5 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it might be political, but it's from a centrist perspective. It's not a right-wing conspiracy or anything so. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 07:10, 5 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

I just explained how the fundamental idea of it is not just political, but left wing partisan. What you personally meant doesn't really matter much as far as content policies go. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:18, 5 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

By that standard, wouldn't Black Lives Matter also be left leaning since it satirizes a far right view? Cg098 (talk) 02:52, 8 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

OK, solve this... Users have opinions. Illogicopedia does not. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 05:14, 8 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Basically the point I was trying to make. Cg098 (talk) 01:37, 9 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Solution: delete the article, delete this forum, go back to not giving a shit. PiddlerOfTrousers- - -I've ruined Illogicopedia 795 times! 02:08, 9 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

You're hypocrites

If Black Lives Matter gets deleted for being political then that means I get to delete a crap ton of political articles making fun of right wing people and causes. --Nerd42 (talk) 16:57, 9 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

If they're logical, I would be fine with that. Cg098 (talk) 01:53, 10 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

The issue isn't that Black Lives Matter is political, the issue is that it's not illogical enough for this wiki. If you want, put it on Uncyc. They might treat it better there as 'satire'... or not. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 03:12, 10 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Oh, well, that's kind of different. I mean, I thought this was because it was political. What the hell, I didn't intend it to make that much sense. Why not edit it to have it make less sense, instead of delete? --Nerd42 (talk) 20:19, 12 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Yes certainly. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 08:37, 26 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

No need for name calling. (kaizum me) 13:54, 28 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Let democracy fuck things up solve our problem

Alright... how many people are for this article, and how many are against it? PiddlerOfTrousers- - -I've ruined Illogicopedia 795 times! 02:49, 12 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Against. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 02:50, 12 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

What 2+2=5 said: Black Lives Matter violates the 1st, 4th and 6th Illogian commandments. Just because N42 is an admin, doesn't mean he can violate the wiki rules by creating this monstrosity.

Against. Even if Black Lives Matter is questionable sometimes, it's just too easy to make the connection from antagonizing it to normalizing police brutality. PiddlerOfTrousers- - -I've ruined Illogicopedia 795 times! 02:52, 12 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Against - The fact that this article stirs up so much controversy disturbs me. This alone seems to make it deletable. Personally, this article offends me by satirizing something that, to me, has no funny side. All of my black friends (yes, I have many more than one) and most of my not black friends and relatives would find this article offensive. Furthermore, Nerd42s pushing to keep it is disturbing. I cannot objectively discern his motivation or reasoning, but my skeptical nature conjures someone with an agenda, or perhaps just has to win whatever. Please let it stay dead so we can go about our Illogicopedia business unencumbered by the ire stirred up by this article. (kaizum me) 13:53, 28 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

"Even if Black Lives Matter is questionable sometimes,"

Like when, exactly? Can you be more specific?

"it's just too easy to make the connection from antagonizing it to normalizing police brutality."

Yeah, I'm sure that's why those horrible racist bastards who criticize the movement are against it. Because rioting and looting totally don't represent the movement, especially when it's being done by people who have been bused in from out of town. Critics actually want there to be more police brutality, especially in cities like Baltimore which has a real problem with racist police since it has a black mayor, a majority black city council and a police department mostly composed of racial minority cops.

"The fact that this article stirs up so much controversy disturbs me. This alone seems to make it deletable. Personally, this article offends me by satirizing something that, to me, has no funny side."

That's because you're a partisan hack with no self-awareness at all.

"All of my black friends (yes, I have many more than one)"

Do they like being used as rhetorical shields?

"and most of my not black friends and relatives would find this article offensive."

That is rather the point of satire, isn't it. You sure seem to be OK with satire when it's aimed at groups you disagree with. --Nerd42 (talk) 22:00, 28 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Nerd42 bares his fangs. He's got deep emotional attachment to this issue, apparently. Snarky personal attacks are one of many signs of a disintegrating argument. Venomous bombast aside, there's no meat here. Not a whiff of civility, reason or knowledge of facts. Clearly it would be pointless to debate his barely coherent rhetoric. (kaizum me) 04:43, 29 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Nerdy, if you're for keeping the article, say for. Right now, no matter what your argument is, you're being outnumbered and this article is getting thrown out. PiddlerOfTrousers- - -I've ruined Illogicopedia 795 times! 00:57, 4 Jeremy 2017 (UTC)

I don't like either the Black Lives Matter article or this one, even though I have no opinion on Black Lives Matter and I disagree with fat acceptance. Neither article seems "illogical". On the other hand, if we consider one of the founders of this site to have violated its rules, perhaps there is something more to this situation than meets the eye. On the third hand, Black Lives Matter seems to have already been replaced. Unsaithpedwar (talk) 17:50, 5 Jeremy 2017 (UTC)

It's not that simple. If the real reason this is getting deleted is for partisan reasons, as I think it is, then Illogicopedia has become a one-sided propaganda site just like Wikipedia where they only allow positive coverage of BLM and only allow negative coverage of Gamergate. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:35, 11 Jeremy 2017 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, that's hilarious. You degenerated to calling me out for positions I do not hold. You accused me of being partisan, a word you seem to love, when that's the furthest thing from the truth. Consider saving your assaults on windmills for those who would argue against your politics. (kaizum me) 17:50, 11 Jeremy 2017 (UTC)

The real problem...

...is that you all have internalized the left/right dichotomy. In reality, there are actually six fundamental flavors.

Cg098 (talk) 02:02, 31 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! (kaizum me) 23:30, 31 Ditzimber 2016 (UTC)

That treats humans as subatomic particles - it's not the best way to go about things. We're much more important than that. Operator XY - (Conversal :: Editations - 7,284 and counting!) 22:09, 5 Jeremy 2017 (UTC)

My intention was to treat political alignments as properties of subatomic particles. Apologies if offense was taken. Cg098 (talk) 03:54, 6 Jeremy 2017 (UTC)