[003]
KingZeal
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
And really, if we're going to argue over whether or not the page is
to:
And really, if we\'re going to argue over whether or not the page is \"advocating\" instead of \"explaining\", then we should argue if the entire page needs rewriting. My understanding was that this was a page about feminism because in current political climate, it\'s one of the most misunderstood topics.
I can see where you\'re coming from with \"has a point\" leaning too much toward advocacy, but I\'m also worried about general anti-feminist and MRA-style false equivalence being snuck into the article. The mods here have said, on numerous occasions, that they consider that line of argument to be hate speech, which is why I\'m really concerned here.
EDIT: Oh. I see most of those edits were already made, with Nubian keeping the \"has a point\" wording. Like I said, I think we can get rid of that, too, but I\'m fine with most of the current writing.
I can see where you\'re coming from with \"has a point\" leaning too much toward advocacy, but I\'m also worried about general anti-feminist and MRA-style false equivalence being snuck into the article. The mods here have said, on numerous occasions, that they consider that line of argument to be hate speech, which is why I\'m really concerned here.
EDIT: Oh. I see most of those edits were already made, with Nubian keeping the \"has a point\" wording. Like I said, I think we can get rid of that, too, but I\'m fine with most of the current writing.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
And really, if we're going to argue over whether or not the page is
to:
And really, if we\'re going to argue over whether or not the page is \"advocating\" instead of \"explaining\", then we should argue if the entire page needs rewriting. My understanding was that this was a page about feminism because in current political climate, it\'s one of the most misunderstood topics.
I can see where you\'re coming from with \"has a point\" leaning too much toward advocacy, but I\'m also worried about general anti-feminist and MRA-style false equivalence being snuck into the article. The mods here have said, on numerous occasions, that they consider that line of argument to be hate speech, which is why I\'m really concerned here.
I can see where you\'re coming from with \"has a point\" leaning too much toward advocacy, but I\'m also worried about general anti-feminist and MRA-style false equivalence being snuck into the article. The mods here have said, on numerous occasions, that they consider that line of argument to be hate speech, which is why I\'m really concerned here.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
We can get rid of that pothole then, too.
to:
Then we get rid of that pothole.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
And really, if we're going to argue over whether or not the page is
to:
And really, if we\'re going to argue over whether or not the page is \"advocating\" instead of \"explaining\", then we should argue if the entire page needs rewriting. My understanding was that this was a page about feminism as explained by feminists and allies, because in current political climate, it\'s one of the most misunderstood topics.
I can see where you\'re coming from with \"has a point\" leaning too much toward advocacy, but I\'m also worried about general anti-feminist and MRA-style false equivalence being snuck into the article. The mods here have said, on numerous occasions, that they consider that line of argument to be hate speech, which is why I\'m really concerned here.
I can see where you\'re coming from with \"has a point\" leaning too much toward advocacy, but I\'m also worried about general anti-feminist and MRA-style false equivalence being snuck into the article. The mods here have said, on numerous occasions, that they consider that line of argument to be hate speech, which is why I\'m really concerned here.
