User:Liberal~enwiki/deny freedom of speech

Who wants to ban me because my username says I'm a liberal? Vote here.

Yes:
 * I think you want to destroy net neutrality and fairness on Wikipedia. You are crushing the values of humans on Earth. Racist. Avistor (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No:
 * Vancouverguy 16:22, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Angela, your username is just a word, not a POV statement or an offensive term.
 * Try "Only liberals are right!" if you'd like a name change. But you'd probably just get flamed.:) JamesDay 21:57, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Who wants to ban User:Liberal because s/he is operating two usernames?

Yes:
 * This is an egregious abuse of Wikipedia. -- Cyan
 * I am shocked, just shocked, at this behavior. And appalled. -- Puce
 * This is outrageous. -- Fuchsia
 * This individual could vote twice at VfD, and we'd never even know it! I must agree with the other people who have voted for banning. -- Magenta
 * What do you mean, "ban"? You are expected to report yourself at the nearest disintegration chamber ASAP.&mdash;Eloquence

No:
 * Does Wikipedia have a policy against multiple usernames? I haven't heard one yet, but if there is one, then I will support banning him for using multiple usernames. LDan
 * Not sure what "ban" means in this context. If it means that the user account is deactivated but the person using it is free to edit under the other user name, then I would support that only if this person actually did something wrong (such as vote twice). I don't like the name (even though I am liberal myself), but I can live with it since it does not make a affirmative statement ("Liberals are always right" would cross the line, for example). --mav 23:34, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Since this vote started as an elaborate joke, it probably doesn't matter what "ban" means. -- Chartreuse 03:01, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Abstain:
 * I think it's a bad idea to have more than one name for a multiude of reasons, but I've done it myself in the past so to call for a ban would be to suggest banning myself too. Angela 19:36, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
 * I am just curious what cause this great need to see if people would deny your freedom of speech. Smith03 23:45, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Who thinks this is a childish way to make a point?

I do So do I. This user should stop acting like a prat and start doing something useful.
 * Camembert
 * mav
 * FearÉIREANN
 * mav Big time. Get a life and stop being a troll (in ref to the newest user name "Non-Liberals are stupid")
 * Angela 23:53, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
 * Hephaestos 23:57, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User:LittleDan has confirmed on the w-list that he is/was Liberal etc. I think knowing LittleDan that we can presume it wasn't trolling, merely an action aimed at highlighting what he saw as a problem, a case of good motivation, wrong way of doing it. So we should all have one big wiki-hug, a wiki-bonding session and forget it all. FearÉIREANN 00:40, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The problem is often not the name itself. It's often the experiences of the people who find the name offensive.

JiL and similar phrases are often associated with those who are inappropriately evangelical, or beliefs and practices which cause hardship, pain or death for others. The problem isn't those who say those things with good conscience and full respect for others. JiL may be one of those good people.

When it comes to Christian references, there are many examples of religious oppression practiced by Christians. A few examples:


 * the Crusades.
 * the Spanish Inquisition (forced conversion under torture or under penalty of death if you didn't convert).
 * witch burnings, perhaps most notable in the US for the Salem case.
 * attempts to force religious education or practice on those who don't have the religion being taught. Things like Supreme Court justices proclaiming that the teachings of their deity are more important than the law.
 * general religious persecution of all sorts, of the type which caused the Pilgrim Fathers to leave England and come to the US.

Whether it's fair or not, the long background of bad conduct by those who would and did make strong statements like "Jesus is Lord!" or similar causes some people to find that offensive as a name. Not because of the name itself or the person but because of what it suggests about anyone who would choose the name or the memories of bad experiences it causes those reading it to remember. It’s the bad experiences of those who read the name which is responsible for the offense, not the intent or actions of the person with that user name.

"Liberal" can't compare with that history of prejudice and inappropriate behavior, so it might get you flamed but wouldn't be so offensive.

We know that a name doesn't have to be associated with bad conduct. We also know that those who choose offensive names tend to be those who will engage in bad conduct. It's not a 100% certain rule, just common enough that anyone choosing one will be viewed with considerable doubt. You can't prove that this isn't so by choosing an offensive name and behaving well because it's already known that it's not a 100% rule. To prove it you would need to look at the record of those who really chose offensive names and find that they didn't behave badly more than the average user name.

Suggesting that non-liberals are stupid is rude and not something people tend to do when trying to work with others. That wasn’t your intent, of course – your intent was good – but that’s how others who don’t know you would see it. ---