User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKism

RKism - any more on this issue, please add it below and not elsewhere.

---

EofT: You should probably read a recent post by RK to WikiEN-L. (But don't be too hasty ^_^ to respond; it depends on how people react.) -- Toby Bartels 06:08 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * here it is.
 * FWIW, my reaction was to yawn. Martin


 * I, too, yawned, but feel no need to explain my comment. It stands for itself.  RK has been active in attempting to erase mention of racism and colonialism in other contexts, notably Zionism, which various UN  resolutions establish as racist.  That is, they say "Zionism is racism", period.  Thus this is more neutral than claiming the opposite I think - burden of proof that it is not is with its advocates.  But, in any case, this is irrelevant, as it was his attempt in the knowledge article to remove all mention of morality as applied to science, or the idea that aboriginal language or culture might contain embedded knowledge lost under colonialism, that made me go read his talk pages and contributions.  It was and is my conclusion that his POV is too biased to contribute to some topics.  It would be good if there was a way to remove a certain IP's or account's power to edit an article for a time just for cooling-off.  But I did not edit knowledge myself to correct it, I just advised him to consider his own POV carefully if he chose to do so, and let him know how objectionable I personally found it, and how dangerous his view could be, if taken too literally and generally.  His response is to call authority in to censor someone?  That shows his hastiness, at best, and a lack of integrity, at worst.  Although, in his own view of knowledge, an appeal to authority to use technology to censor someone seems wholly consistent with his philosophy which is best described as scientism.  If he objects to that concept then he should edit "scientism", or change every article that links to it, and etc..  He claims that knowledge is all about his so-called Gettier problem and is defid only by philosophy.  I have several times asked him to consider writing knowledge (philosophy) or knowledge (science).  He does not do so.  Any actual objective review of the facts will simply cost him any support he has.  I see no reason to answer him on a mailing list, or anywhere else. EofT


 * Curiously, I'm aware of two accusations of anti-Semitism that were made on Wikipedia in recent days. One was RK's accusation directed at you. The other was one of the Smarandache fans, directed at Axel Boldt.


 * User:AxelBoldt may be guilty of mathematical fetishism or scientism or something, but very doubtful that he is a racist - reading some of his conflicts with others he seems to be guilty perhaps of arbitrarily applying standards of proof that should not apply, say demanding documentation for others' claims but refusing to provide same for his own. But this is not racism. EofT


 * I'm not sure what to make of that, but all power to your keyboard, anyway. There should be a club for people who have been called anti-Semitic by RK, or compared by him to Nazis. There could be cake. Martin


 * Martin, end your Jew-baiting. Entmoot of Trools has made it clear that he is an anti-Semite, both by his grossly bigoted comments on my user page, and by has slander of every Zionist as a racist. RK 23:22 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Let us end this. I said no such thing and I have no problem with Jews.  I do have a problem with American Jews "settling" on Arab land using the Bible as an excuse.  So does the United Nations.  They *do* say "Zionism is racism".  But to agree with the world's largest political body, the one that in fact authorized the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, is not to be a racist or anti-Semite.  Beyond that I agree with Palestinian Islamic Jihad that there can be no sanity to the term "anti-Semitism" since all peoples in the region are "Semites" and genetic evidence shows they are of common origin.  I resent that this implies approval of all of their policies, as you seem to imply with your absurd equations of accusation.  Disagree with me on what it is that I actually believe, not your twisted version of it.  Also I see knowledge as a recorded experience useful to share, not as a term defined in philosophy (only).  EofT


 * The fact you agree with him dippoints me; it reveals much about you that is not good or just. BTW, Let's be clear. Out of several thousand Wikipedia contributors, a tiny handful have been anti-Semitic. So as you ask, what does this prove about me?  Nothing at all.  It is rather curious the way that you guys go on and on about the Jews, slandering all of us as racists, making anti-Semitic Jew-bashing comments on User pages, rewriting definitions of anti-semitism to make it look like Jew-haters are not anti-Semites...yet then you cry "victim!" when it is pointed out that such behaviour is antisemitic.  Grow up. RK 23:22 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * We should probably not taunt poor mister RK, but, if we felt a need to correct him, we could simply point out that we accept the UN view that "Zionism is racism", therefore, complaining that someone is an anti-Zionist is to complain that they are an anti-racist, thus, is to be a racist oneself. I do not advocate such silliness, but, also, I do not believe those that oppose Mr. Sharon's use of US Apache helicopters in Gaza today, and the presence of largely American Jews in West Bank territory as "settlers", should be forced to defend their views against harassment.  If there is any "offence" it is RK's for attempting to waste my time responding to his nonsense.  Anti-Zionism is not racism, if Zionism is represented by Likud et al.  In general it is not, but tat perhaps is me being an optimist (voting patterns not damning an entire population).  It would be fair to make a list of Post-Zionist Wikipedians or something but this should be taken no more seriously than Anti-American Wikipedians.  We all know that good people stand against their states very often.  Let us not encourage them to identify with failed strategy or policy.  We may be anti-Likud, or anti-Republican, or anti-Blair, but let us not be anti-Israeli, or anti-American, or anti-Labour, until those systems of organizing so truly fail as to be obviously biohazardous.  That I think is no just yet. EofT


 * *ignores RK*
 * I don't agree with you on the "Zionism is racism" thing, though I can see that point of view. So less of the "we" :) Martin


 * I am not advocating the "Zionism is racism" view. I only point out that this is stated in many UN forums, and, if the UN is any representative of the neutral point of view, then, it is "neutral" to say "Zionism is racism" whether or not one cites any specific UN document as source.  Is it fair to bald-facedly apply this definition of neutrality, and for that matter the definition of Zionism and of racism, that might be implied?  I say not, but, likewise, I cannot accept RK's one-sided assertion that "Zionism is not racism and it is fair to censor even those who SUGGEST that it is" as neutral either.  The idea of colonialism is actually central to the question in any case, there are both colonial and non-colonial conceptions of Zionism (see Noam Chomsky's writing on this).  So, I would rather say "colonialism is racism", which is a statement that I think is perfectly neutral.  I continue to think knowledge is not defined by philosophy but arises from one's interaction with environment, without "philosophy", and can be shared without "authority".  Although I believe RK's prejudices are indeed those of the colonial stripe, I do accept RK's view that it is "anti-Jewish" to assume all Jews are Zionists, all Americans practice scientism,  or that all Zionists are of the Likud/colonial stripe expressed by Mr. Sharon.  I will do my best to avoid even the impression of expressing such views in future.  Although, if I did hold such views, that would not be grounds to censor, as we cannot resolve difficult conflicts without all points of view present. EofT

Good day, can u provide me a link to information confirming that the UN has declared Zionism to be racism? Such information would be of great use in improving the Zionism and anti-Zionism articles. It would also give you another chance to talk more with your good friend, RK. Pizza Puzzle


 * "UN Zionism racism" search on Google returns plethora of hits. The original resolution might be the place to start, but that was just picked at random.  This was repeated as policy at many UN events and conferences and was part of consensus document of all of them until the George W. Bush administration specifically began boycotting such conferences unless they agreed in advance not to put that issue up for debate.  The resolution has never been rescinded, and likely will not be while the UN-created state of Israel is in violation of UN resolutions and has nuclear arms.  EofT


 * As for RK, he is a very small turd, and I consider him to have been flushed. EofT


 * Incorrect information (and possibly disingenuous posturing) above, unless "rescinded" and "revoked" are really more different than I think. As found in the same article you quote above, UN Resolution  46/86 revoked the zionist/racist comparison in 1991, by a vote  of 111 to 25 (with 13 abstentions), in an effort led by Bush Sr.  many years before young "W" stated his opposition.  The U.N. stands currently officially opposed to the "zionism=racism" doctrine, so it's hardly "Neutral" to state it as fact and use the U.N. for support. Not that I'm defending RK, who annoys me and is in general petty-minded and heavily biased. ::User:Steverapaport


 * This is all in Zionism is racism debate now. I suggest it go there.

Having reluctantly waded through the mud above, I am now ready to render my opinion: this is a "mutual fray", and therefore you both should get a time-out. However, since this is not kindergarten and you are not children, that's not going to happen. Our only real sanction here is banning, and this is just too petty for that.

So, just stop it, both of you. Please.

There's no excuse for calling someone a "turd" -- not even having been branded "anti-Semitic". So, knock it off, EofT.


 * You are right of course. I apologize for that.  Regarding the implication that I am a pig and this is mud, and that I enjoy it, which I spun the other way just now on RK's talk page, that too is unnecessary, and I apologize to you.  There a serious issues in the above, but those are being handled properly in the Talk: pages of various articles.  EofT

There's also no excuse for branding other Wikipedians "anti-Semitic", RK. If you think other users oppose you (or your cherished values, etc.), the furthest you can legitimately go is to say that you seem to be against me or apparently you are opposed to X. So, knock it off, RK.

'''I am the great and terrible OZ, and I have spoken. Uncle Ed 19:47, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)'''


 * This is appreciated. EofT

Hi EofT. I just deleted some content from here that was an exact copy of part of Community case RK - I think you'll understand why? Martin 23:06, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)