Talk:E. Alex Jung

From WikiCU
Revision as of 02:30, 27 April 2007 by Stephen.wang (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a clear breach of neutrality, and reflects a biased opinion. To see that the page was created by such a significant contributor (reaganaut) poses serious questions about the nature of this wiki and the people who purport to be creating it. What is more, the information posted on Alex Jung is hurtful and seems like a personal attack grounded in animosity. --Sbr2113 11:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Neutrality has never been a WikiCU goal. If it were, we'd never be able to have restaurant reviews, for example. As for my edits... He does hate whites, if you care to read his Spec columns. And his columns are shitty. Oh, and he is a radical. Reaganaut 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

In my own personal view, I would disagree with your statements that he "hates whites," and "writes shitty columns". My concern, however, is not so much with the validity of your statements, but rather, the motivation for writing those words. If, as you say, Jungs comments seem to you to express a hatred of white people, i would suggest that perhaps you should examine yourself, and consider what it is that makes you so quick to defend whiteness and white people. Jung is pointing to the nature of a society that still practices numerous forms of racism and racialized thinking. Critiqing that mode of thought, which so often privileges whiteness, is something that perhaps we should all do a little bit more often. --Sbr2113 12:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, great, I don't care. I have no need to "examine" myself. By the way, I wasn't defending "whiteness" or "white people". Reaganaut 12:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Whoa --- that got pretty flaming pretty fast. Look I have never read a Jung column, and don't know the guy, and don't care about him. But I do like wikicu. So maybe we should try to avoid things that could get wikicu in hot water (for example, the kind wikipedia is facing thanks to biography pages considered defaming) by including things which might appear to require us to speculate (e.g., to his mindset). Honestly let's try to think long term here about what a good tool wikicu could be and limit legal exposure. (cf [1] or [2]) Random 13:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Fair point. I just don't like being moralized to. Reaganaut 13:33, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
There's an easy solution to this. Just write "I think his columns are shitty" and sign it with four tildes. Problem solved. Feinstein 13:59, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Please Include no further information unless the subject approves the creation of this page − The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wahrheit (talk).  02:15, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

  • In the future, if you disagree with the article, please do not delete the entire article. Please try to do your best to amend the article if you disagree with it and add your own perspective, but please for the love of god don't delete the article. wang 02:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
  • additionally, given the quotes and the context of the articles, I don't think any part of the "views on race" section are that big of a stretch, a personal attack, etc. People need to be willing to stand beside their views expressed in oral and written literature. If you write things like that, people obviously will and can be critical of those views. Jung has nothing to be embarrassed about, I think his views are legitimate and have a serious place in the realm of discussion. The thing about him satirizing about dancing with chopsticks in his hair, it's a good insight into how he views his environment. His words and articles stand on their own and are available for everyone to read on teh internets; so is a well articulated response by Dov Friedman. wang 02:27, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox