[007]
EmmaWoodhouse18
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\'s critics (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \'\'rape\'\' and \'\'death\'\' as simply \
to:
I\\\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\\\'s critics (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it\\\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \\\'\\\'rape\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'death\\\'\\\' as simply \\\"people got mad,\\\" especially since the only people who would react angrily to death threats being called out for what they are would be blatant trolls. People with reasonable criticisms wouldn\\\'t get angry because they would know that it\\\'s not talking about them.
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}} version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
I realize this is the YMMV page, but it still seems like it\\\'s mainly people on one side who are being allowed to air their full, uncensored opinions while another is being asked to keep it down lest we make some people too angry.
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}} version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
I realize this is the YMMV page, but it still seems like it\\\'s mainly people on one side who are being allowed to air their full, uncensored opinions while another is being asked to keep it down lest we make some people too angry.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\'s critics (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \'\'rape\'\' and \'\'death\'\' as simply \
to:
I\\\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\\\'s critics (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it\\\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \\\'\\\'rape\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'death\\\'\\\' as simply \\\"people got mad,\\\" especially since the only people who would react angrily to death threats being called out for what they are would be blatant trolls. People with reasonable criticisms wouldn\\\'t get angry because they would know that it\\\'s not talking about them.
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}} version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
I realize this is YMMV, but it still seems like it\\\'s mainly people on one side who are being allowed to air their full, uncensored opinions while another is being asked to keep it down lest we make some people too angry.
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}} version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
I realize this is YMMV, but it still seems like it\\\'s mainly people on one side who are being allowed to air their full, uncensored opinions while another is being asked to keep it down lest we make some people too angry.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\'s critics (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \'\'rape\'\' and \'\'death\'\' as simply \
to:
I\\\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\\\'s critics (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it\\\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \\\'\\\'rape\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'death\\\'\\\' as simply \\\"people got mad,\\\" especially since the only people who would react angrily to death threats being called out for what they are would be blatant trolls. People with reasonable criticisms wouldn\\\'t get angry because they would know that it\\\'s not talking about them.
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}} version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
I realize this is YMMV, but it still seems like it\\\'s mainly people on one side who are being allowed to air their full, uncensored opinions while another is being asked to keep it down due to RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment.
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}} version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
I realize this is YMMV, but it still seems like it\\\'s mainly people on one side who are being allowed to air their full, uncensored opinions while another is being asked to keep it down due to RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\'s credits (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \'\'rape\'\' and \'\'death\'\' as simply \
to:
I\\\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\\\'s critics (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it\\\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \\\'\\\'rape\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'death\\\'\\\' as simply \\\"people got mad,\\\" especially since the only people who would react angrily to death threats being called out for what they are would be blatant trolls. People with reasonable criticisms wouldn\\\'t get angry because they would know that it\\\'s not talking about them.
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}} version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}} version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\'s credits (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \'\'rape\'\' and \'\'death\'\' as simply \
to:
I\\\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\\\'s credits (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it\\\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \\\'\\\'rape\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'death\\\'\\\' as simply \\\"people got mad,\\\" especially since the only people who would react angrily to death threats being called out for what they are would be blatant trolls. People with reasonable criticisms wouldn\\\'t get angry because they would know that it\\\'s not talking about them.
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}} version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}} version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment is being used on this page (before I edited it) is being used to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\'s credits. To me, it\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \'\'rape\'\' and \'\'death\'\' as simply \
to:
I\\\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\\\'s credits (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it\\\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \\\'\\\'rape\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'death\\\'\\\' as simply \\\"people got mad,\\\" especially since the only people who would react angrily to death threats being called out for what they are would be blatant trolls. People with reasonable criticisms wouldn\\\'t get angry because they would know that it\\\'s not talking about them.
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}] version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}] version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I really don\'t like how the use of RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment here seems to slant the page heavily in favor of Sarkeesian\'s critics. Half the shit under DidNotDoTheResearch didn\'t fit the trope, or was a {{Strawman}} version of her point designed to make it sound like it fit the trope when the real thing didn\'t, and nobody thought that might violate the rule. However, we\'re characterizing the fact that she was met with everything from people littering her Wikipedia bio with porn and racial slurs (to the point where Wikipedia eliminated its records of those revisions) to even \'\'death threats\'\' and \'\'rape threats\'\' to simply \
to:
I\\\'m really concerned how the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment is being used on this page (before I edited it) is being used to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian\\\'s credits. To me, it\\\'s very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of \\\'\\\'rape\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'death\\\'\\\' as simply \\\"people got mad,\\\" especially since the only people who would react angrily to death threats being called out for what they are would be blatant trolls. People with reasonable criticisms wouldn\\\'t get angry because they would know that it\\\'s not talking about them.
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}] version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from DidNotDoTheResearch / ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch because either they blatantly didn\\\'t fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a {{Strawman}] version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment goes both ways - why weren\\\'t these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who \\\'\\\'agree\\\'\\\' with Sarkeesian?
