Man, Star Trek IV is awesome, and Star Trek V is, while not awesome, still surprisingly watchable. Sure it's a silly plot, but half of TOS was just as silly, and if you're too serious to enjoy silly things then I am sure there is something far more serious than Star Trek for you to enjoy.
It's not as if this policy were in at the beginning, and all of us trivia lovers came in trying to force trivia sections into articles.
Actually, in the beginning trivia sections were rather rare--they only became prominent long after I joined, quite to the disdain of the "old school". You mention the Arthur C. Clarke article--the reason such things are tagged is because, as I said, it's usually best to expand the article's prose sections and work the more notable bits of the trivia section into that, rather than delete the section outright. You know, keeping, modifying, and building upon poorly-formatted contributions?
So, over nearly six months none of the people who have an actual interest in the Arthur C. Clarke article have been motivated to remove, merge, or rewrite the trivia section in a form acceptable to the policy police. That's a fact. It shows that the "consensus" is a myth.
Or that laziness and complacence is the order of the day. It's a lot easier to tag something as problematic than to fix it, and without a focused effort like a Featured Article push, that kind of work doesn't get done because it's hard.
And now you pull the civility card. Why don't we drop that pretense because we are way past that. Let's look at some of your previous quotes:...I think there's too much deletion. Then I must be a spammer or company shill. Despite the fact that I gave examples which represented neither, you make this insinuation anyway. How civil.Or maybe I'm a "nutcase", or I'm too sensitive and got my "feelings hurt", that I have "some made-up religious movement" or represent "astroturfers". Nice way to bring in straw men rather than address the examples I gave.
They aren't straw men--those are actual issues we had to deal with during the time I was heavily involved with the project. Those are the exact concerns that have given lots of people a very skeptical attitude towards pages they aren't too sure about. Why you chose to interpret it as a personal attack is your problem, because I didn't mean it as such. If it makes you feel better to assume bad faith on my part then to think rational people could ever disagree with you, however, go to hell.
Do you see NO DIFFERENCE between between having an article deleted and having it kept, modified and built upon? Really?
No, my point was this--contribute anything to Wikipedia and you don't own it anymore. Technically, neither do we--it belongs to the world now--but if we're perfectly free to stop hosting it, or to edit it beyond your comprehension, or to completely replace it with something better, and if you're offended by such things than maybe you're a bit too possessive about your work to contribute it to Wikipedia. Just like you shouldn't contribute code to open source projects if you don't want to see strangers refactor it, or if you don't want to see your patch rejected.
You keep dismissing the arguments of inclusionists as all about "hurting their precious delicate feelings."
Because that's what those arguments are. Wikipedia is a community unto itself, and if that community decides it doesn't want someone else's work, where's the harm? Do you get this worked up when you submit stories to Slashdot and the Firehose votes it down? Even if they're really good stories?
Respect is earned. One does not earn respect by pretending to teach something (using the internet for research) which one knows absolutely nothing about.
Blow it out your ass. Just because someone is in charge, in this case a teacher in charge of the classroom, doesn't mean that the school is fascist.
No. The school is "fascist" (for lack of a better term) because the authority in question is belligerently and militantly ignorant and incompetent to be in charge.
Your point appears to be that Wikipedia is richened by having a wider knowledge base than Britannica, and I agree. I was only bringing up that point to show that Wikipedia is inclusionary far beyond what any serious encyclopedia has been before. Going past that point to the point of becoming a silly encyclopedia jeopardizes that advantage as much as becoming as exclusionary as Britannica.
That's your opinion of what's "the best solution (in terms of both style and substance)". I like them. They are important and interesting to me and many were referenced. This thread in another Slashdot article tells me others cared about them too.
There is no shortage of trivia websites on the internet, nor is there anything stopping you from starting your own. Wikipedia is a community-run website that has a specific focus--and while that community is open to newcomers and outside contributors, it is what it is and the consensus of that community won't change without a long-term influx of people who think differently. And that's an issue of social dynamics beyond either my or your ability to change. I increasingly think now that my WikiTrivia project would have been the best solution, but on the other hand it doesn't make sense to me to criticize Wikipedia because it prefers to focus on non-trivial information. (I'm sure if I went to the Battlestar Galactica Wiki and contributed a bunch of content about some guy's immensely famous and popular BSG fanfiction, they'd do the same thing.)
It looks like you see no difference between having an article deleted and having it kept, modified and built upon. I do see the difference and have no problem with the latter. So either you're an idiot or you like to set up straw men.
It looks like you don't know how to have a civil disagreement with someone. Go to hell.
For the more ambiguous cases, I would use the number of google hits as a legitimate gauge of popularity, such as for a webcomic. I'd also look at the number of contributors as well as the length of the article and not dismiss references just because they are web based. I would also ask that the nominator go to the project page if there is one(maybe a related page), and ask someone there who has some expertise to see if the article should be included. In other words, go to Wikipedia's own experts on the topic to make or help make the decision on deletion.
Most of the measures you propose have either been tried and failed in the past (google hits? seriously?). The others seem to rest more on the idea of "not wanting to throw away someone's precious work to avoid hurting their precious delicate feelings" rather than the idea of "building a quality encyclopedia". That's not Wikipedia's focus.
It's a matter of degree, and in most states felons regain their suffrage after they have finished serving their sentence. I don't know if any country allows currently-imprisoned felons to vote.
Sure, but with the current system the diversity of available music is beyond anything we've seen in human history. By the way, KISS sucks, and while the truly good bands can put on a live show they shouldn't be required to.
I accuse Fuzheado of nothing--I was speaking in general terms. But now that you ask, I was never highly impressed with Fuzheado's credentials as an administrator. I knew of him but I was involved with Wikipedia nearly as long as he, and many administrators had more experience and have, in my opinion, more salient criticisms of Wikipedia to make. Kelly Martin, for instance.
This is not true. Many of the webcomics were written by fans of those comics and not the author. But it got deleted anyway under the pretense of non-notability and self-advertisement. Many tried to defend it but under the new system of deletion that's now been corrupted by the deletionists, but their votes are tossed aside under false pretenses such as sock puppet, new account, and other such garbage. The fact is, there are lots of articles that were written by a 3rd party with nothing to gain, were defended by other editors, and still got hit with the deletion club. And we haven't even talked about the mass removal of work in terms of trivia sections.
The webcomics thing was years ago--it couldn't have been after 2006 and I'm fairly sure it was in 2005. It's difficult to judge the notability of webcomics since just about anyone can start one and ask all their friends to write a Wikipedia article about it. It's also interesting that you don't mention the high schools deletion debates, which were of similar vintage but were resolved in favor of the inclusionists. As for the trivia sections, trivia is by definition "information of little importance or value"--and given that most trivia sections are indeed filled with trivial and unreferenced facts, the best solution (in terms of both style and substance) is to merge the less trivial bits into the prose of the article and delete the rest. I briefly considered addressing this issue by proposing a WikiTrivia sister project (similar to Wikiquote, which was used to offload the long lists of quotes that were attached to articles circa 2003). However, my political influence is too little for that to have accomplished anything. (This suggests a genuine problem with the project--I think there are definitely big problems with Wikipedia but deletionism isn't one of them.)
"Articles for deletion" discussions are not supposed to be votes anyway. Slim majorities in favor of deletion are by policy and tradition closed with the result of keeping the article due to "no consensus", and it's generally required now to provide a cogent argument to the discussion instead of just stating whether you believe the article should be kept or deleted. Furthermore, the process is intended to gauge consensus within the Wikipedia community. If we allowed one-use IP addresses and newly-created accounts to influence these things, they would cease to be a useful gauge of consensus. They would simply become an exercise in stuffing the ballot box.
I simply will no longer donate time or money to Wikipedia and discourage others from doing so by warning them of what happens to their contributions.
Please do, if it will stem the crapflood Wikipedia has to deal with already. If you look on Wikipedia's edit page, though, it already does so: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." People who take a possessive attitude towards their contributions to Wikipedia don't fit in well. That's the GNU philosophy for you, for good or for evil.
Slashdot has been a great forum to see who else might have had similar experiences and to tell others about the Wikipedia scam.
My experiences have been those of dealing with this crapflood day after day for years, trying desperately to make Wikipedia a serious academic work instead of simply another Encyclopedia Dramatica. Wikipedia does not exist to catalogue the fad of the day, and if people 5 years from now still know and care about Chris Crocker than he will have his article (and it will undoubtedly
No, it says a lot about how Wikipedia has evolved as a project and had to adapt to its growing success and popularity. You have absolutely no idea how much Wikipedia is used for advertising. When an article about a company or commercial product is written in an overly positive tone, or with lots of meaningless buzzword-laden prose, you have to assume it's marketing crap, and if an article is written by the company or individual it purports to be about, that alone is reason to delete it and, if necessary, allow someone else to start over. And the simple matter of fact is this--if something is really notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article, someone will eventually write that article and defend it, and it will be included. The Wikipedia system generates far more content than we need, and the ability to continually generate great content is exactly what allows them to have latitude deleting things.
The main issue here is that certain individuals (mostly those who aren't part of the Wikipedia community) get their feelings hurt when their "contributions" are deleted or edited at all, even (especially!) if they're nutcases trying to push some made-up religious movement or astroturfers trying to market their company. These people have no clue how Wikipedia has ever worked.
For all the whining about "asshole deletionists", there are still individual Wikipedia articles for each episode of South Park, The Simpsons, and Star Trek: The Next Generation--although there is no longer an article for the GNAA, and instead of having an individual article for each Pokemon we now have them merged together. By any standards of an encyclopedia, we are inclusionary to a fault. The fact remains that all contributions, including deleted ones, are GFDL--so why don't you and a few administrators (who are allowed to read deleted entries) set up your own wiki and host all of this inane crap that gets deleted? Wikipedia is trying to build an encyclopedia.
If you can find a workable alternative to capitalism, please let us know. The first person to do so will undoubtedly win a Nobel Prize in Economics. A few alternatives have been tried, but most of them turned out to be even less democratic--and the last two we've tried resulted in varying degrees of mass murder.
The Magna Carta, while it is still somewhat in effect, is not the same thing as the unwritten constitution that (for instance) requires the monarchy to completely obey the dictates of the elected Prime Minister. However, its role in the development of England's constitutional monarchy is significant.
I edited Wikipedia since 2004. Trust me, it's always been like that. In fact Wikipedia's been more inclusionary in recent years--for instance, any high school is considered notable.
No, it's not. I quoted the guy who invented the word describing what it meant. Your definition is meaningless.
No, his definition definitely has a meaning (meaningless statements are ones like "fhadsokfjdsal;fsa", or "colorless green ideas sleep furiously"). You should probably not lecture anyone else on the meanings of words. In any case, Mussolini also made the following definitional statements about fascism:
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State....The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value...Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought....
But if you want to oversimplify history, that's your choice. Speaking of quotes, here's a good one you probably need to read:
...the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'
The above quote was written by one Eric Arthur Blair, who became famous for writing about such things under an assumed name. You might better remember his assumed name--George Orwell.
Obviously electronic music is not economically viable in the New Order. And there's no point writing songs that are too sophisticated or difficult to reliably perform live. No, the only worthwhile music under the New Order is the type of music that makes for a great live show. Which means that in the future, only bands with great costumes and a taste for pyrotechnics will be successful and financially viable--actual musical talent is unnecessary.
I had no idea Chinese people would be offended by the insinuation that they wear sandals. As far as I can tell most people wear sandals. As for the term "Chinaman", it is a bit archaic but little different from "Englishman" or "Frenchman". Maybe people should focus on substantive issues instead of whether or not they're offended by people not using the most recently preferred version of what your ethnic group likes to be called, or by insinuating that people in a given country might be open to the idea of buying sandals.
Incidentally, we prefer to be called "White" or "European-American." "Euro-American", "Caucasian", "white" with a lowercase 'w', etc. are all offensive to us. So are "weiss", "blanco", "gringo", or the word for "white" in any non-English language. "Pink" is right out. Consider yourself warned.
Chrysler LLC is currently owned by a New York based private equity firm, Cerebus Capital Management. Its headquarters is in Michigan. How is it not a US automaker?
Provide your own planet and maybe I'll accept your argument. As it is, we have to share the same atmosphere and the same global climate, and if you're going to be a prick and ruin it for the rest of us, we're going to bring the hammer down.
In sports, often someone is both upset about their team losing and unwilling to accept that their team sucks at whatever game they play, so they blame the referees. Likewise, in politics, some people blame the Supreme Court because they are unwilling to accept that they are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't lie--I originally read "goatee" as "goatse".
I had trouble parsing your post but did we watch the same DS9? Clearly the best of all Star Trek series.
Man, Star Trek IV is awesome, and Star Trek V is, while not awesome, still surprisingly watchable. Sure it's a silly plot, but half of TOS was just as silly, and if you're too serious to enjoy silly things then I am sure there is something far more serious than Star Trek for you to enjoy.
What if you want to actually be a decent parent and raise your kids yourself?
Actually, in the beginning trivia sections were rather rare--they only became prominent long after I joined, quite to the disdain of the "old school". You mention the Arthur C. Clarke article--the reason such things are tagged is because, as I said, it's usually best to expand the article's prose sections and work the more notable bits of the trivia section into that, rather than delete the section outright. You know, keeping, modifying, and building upon poorly-formatted contributions?
So, over nearly six months none of the people who have an actual interest in the Arthur C. Clarke article have been motivated to remove, merge, or rewrite the trivia section in a form acceptable to the policy police. That's a fact. It shows that the "consensus" is a myth.Or that laziness and complacence is the order of the day. It's a lot easier to tag something as problematic than to fix it, and without a focused effort like a Featured Article push, that kind of work doesn't get done because it's hard.
And now you pull the civility card. Why don't we drop that pretense because we are way past that. Let's look at some of your previous quotes:They aren't straw men--those are actual issues we had to deal with during the time I was heavily involved with the project. Those are the exact concerns that have given lots of people a very skeptical attitude towards pages they aren't too sure about. Why you chose to interpret it as a personal attack is your problem, because I didn't mean it as such. If it makes you feel better to assume bad faith on my part then to think rational people could ever disagree with you, however, go to hell.
Do you see NO DIFFERENCE between between having an article deleted and having it kept, modified and built upon? Really?No, my point was this--contribute anything to Wikipedia and you don't own it anymore. Technically, neither do we--it belongs to the world now--but if we're perfectly free to stop hosting it, or to edit it beyond your comprehension, or to completely replace it with something better, and if you're offended by such things than maybe you're a bit too possessive about your work to contribute it to Wikipedia. Just like you shouldn't contribute code to open source projects if you don't want to see strangers refactor it, or if you don't want to see your patch rejected.
You keep dismissing the arguments of inclusionists as all about "hurting their precious delicate feelings."Because that's what those arguments are. Wikipedia is a community unto itself, and if that community decides it doesn't want someone else's work, where's the harm? Do you get this worked up when you submit stories to Slashdot and the Firehose votes it down? Even if they're really good stories?
Sounds like bitter envy to me--truly the basis of all socialism.
Never before have I read a more stunning apology for ignorance among teachers of the subject they are supposed to teach. Bravo.
Respect is earned. One does not earn respect by pretending to teach something (using the internet for research) which one knows absolutely nothing about.
No. The school is "fascist" (for lack of a better term) because the authority in question is belligerently and militantly ignorant and incompetent to be in charge.
Your point appears to be that Wikipedia is richened by having a wider knowledge base than Britannica, and I agree. I was only bringing up that point to show that Wikipedia is inclusionary far beyond what any serious encyclopedia has been before. Going past that point to the point of becoming a silly encyclopedia jeopardizes that advantage as much as becoming as exclusionary as Britannica.
There is no shortage of trivia websites on the internet, nor is there anything stopping you from starting your own. Wikipedia is a community-run website that has a specific focus--and while that community is open to newcomers and outside contributors, it is what it is and the consensus of that community won't change without a long-term influx of people who think differently. And that's an issue of social dynamics beyond either my or your ability to change. I increasingly think now that my WikiTrivia project would have been the best solution, but on the other hand it doesn't make sense to me to criticize Wikipedia because it prefers to focus on non-trivial information. (I'm sure if I went to the Battlestar Galactica Wiki and contributed a bunch of content about some guy's immensely famous and popular BSG fanfiction, they'd do the same thing.)
It looks like you see no difference between having an article deleted and having it kept, modified and built upon. I do see the difference and have no problem with the latter. So either you're an idiot or you like to set up straw men.It looks like you don't know how to have a civil disagreement with someone. Go to hell.
For the more ambiguous cases, I would use the number of google hits as a legitimate gauge of popularity, such as for a webcomic. I'd also look at the number of contributors as well as the length of the article and not dismiss references just because they are web based. I would also ask that the nominator go to the project page if there is one(maybe a related page), and ask someone there who has some expertise to see if the article should be included. In other words, go to Wikipedia's own experts on the topic to make or help make the decision on deletion.Most of the measures you propose have either been tried and failed in the past (google hits? seriously?). The others seem to rest more on the idea of "not wanting to throw away someone's precious work to avoid hurting their precious delicate feelings" rather than the idea of "building a quality encyclopedia". That's not Wikipedia's focus.
It's a matter of degree, and in most states felons regain their suffrage after they have finished serving their sentence. I don't know if any country allows currently-imprisoned felons to vote.
Sure, but with the current system the diversity of available music is beyond anything we've seen in human history. By the way, KISS sucks, and while the truly good bands can put on a live show they shouldn't be required to.
I accuse Fuzheado of nothing--I was speaking in general terms. But now that you ask, I was never highly impressed with Fuzheado's credentials as an administrator. I knew of him but I was involved with Wikipedia nearly as long as he, and many administrators had more experience and have, in my opinion, more salient criticisms of Wikipedia to make. Kelly Martin, for instance.
This is not true. Many of the webcomics were written by fans of those comics and not the author. But it got deleted anyway under the pretense of non-notability and self-advertisement. Many tried to defend it but under the new system of deletion that's now been corrupted by the deletionists, but their votes are tossed aside under false pretenses such as sock puppet, new account, and other such garbage. The fact is, there are lots of articles that were written by a 3rd party with nothing to gain, were defended by other editors, and still got hit with the deletion club. And we haven't even talked about the mass removal of work in terms of trivia sections.
The webcomics thing was years ago--it couldn't have been after 2006 and I'm fairly sure it was in 2005. It's difficult to judge the notability of webcomics since just about anyone can start one and ask all their friends to write a Wikipedia article about it. It's also interesting that you don't mention the high schools deletion debates, which were of similar vintage but were resolved in favor of the inclusionists. As for the trivia sections, trivia is by definition "information of little importance or value"--and given that most trivia sections are indeed filled with trivial and unreferenced facts, the best solution (in terms of both style and substance) is to merge the less trivial bits into the prose of the article and delete the rest. I briefly considered addressing this issue by proposing a WikiTrivia sister project (similar to Wikiquote, which was used to offload the long lists of quotes that were attached to articles circa 2003). However, my political influence is too little for that to have accomplished anything. (This suggests a genuine problem with the project--I think there are definitely big problems with Wikipedia but deletionism isn't one of them.)
"Articles for deletion" discussions are not supposed to be votes anyway. Slim majorities in favor of deletion are by policy and tradition closed with the result of keeping the article due to "no consensus", and it's generally required now to provide a cogent argument to the discussion instead of just stating whether you believe the article should be kept or deleted. Furthermore, the process is intended to gauge consensus within the Wikipedia community. If we allowed one-use IP addresses and newly-created accounts to influence these things, they would cease to be a useful gauge of consensus. They would simply become an exercise in stuffing the ballot box.
I simply will no longer donate time or money to Wikipedia and discourage others from doing so by warning them of what happens to their contributions.
Please do, if it will stem the crapflood Wikipedia has to deal with already. If you look on Wikipedia's edit page, though, it already does so: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." People who take a possessive attitude towards their contributions to Wikipedia don't fit in well. That's the GNU philosophy for you, for good or for evil.
Slashdot has been a great forum to see who else might have had similar experiences and to tell others about the Wikipedia scam.
My experiences have been those of dealing with this crapflood day after day for years, trying desperately to make Wikipedia a serious academic work instead of simply another Encyclopedia Dramatica. Wikipedia does not exist to catalogue the fad of the day, and if people 5 years from now still know and care about Chris Crocker than he will have his article (and it will undoubtedly
No, it says a lot about how Wikipedia has evolved as a project and had to adapt to its growing success and popularity. You have absolutely no idea how much Wikipedia is used for advertising. When an article about a company or commercial product is written in an overly positive tone, or with lots of meaningless buzzword-laden prose, you have to assume it's marketing crap, and if an article is written by the company or individual it purports to be about, that alone is reason to delete it and, if necessary, allow someone else to start over. And the simple matter of fact is this--if something is really notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article, someone will eventually write that article and defend it, and it will be included. The Wikipedia system generates far more content than we need, and the ability to continually generate great content is exactly what allows them to have latitude deleting things.
The main issue here is that certain individuals (mostly those who aren't part of the Wikipedia community) get their feelings hurt when their "contributions" are deleted or edited at all, even (especially!) if they're nutcases trying to push some made-up religious movement or astroturfers trying to market their company. These people have no clue how Wikipedia has ever worked.
For all the whining about "asshole deletionists", there are still individual Wikipedia articles for each episode of South Park, The Simpsons, and Star Trek: The Next Generation--although there is no longer an article for the GNAA, and instead of having an individual article for each Pokemon we now have them merged together. By any standards of an encyclopedia, we are inclusionary to a fault. The fact remains that all contributions, including deleted ones, are GFDL--so why don't you and a few administrators (who are allowed to read deleted entries) set up your own wiki and host all of this inane crap that gets deleted? Wikipedia is trying to build an encyclopedia.
If you can find a workable alternative to capitalism, please let us know. The first person to do so will undoubtedly win a Nobel Prize in Economics. A few alternatives have been tried, but most of them turned out to be even less democratic--and the last two we've tried resulted in varying degrees of mass murder.
The Magna Carta, while it is still somewhat in effect, is not the same thing as the unwritten constitution that (for instance) requires the monarchy to completely obey the dictates of the elected Prime Minister. However, its role in the development of England's constitutional monarchy is significant.
An encyclopedia is not a library. That's a poor analogy from the outset. If you want a vanity page for your pet topic, get a Geocities like everyone else. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, and by the standards of an encyclopedia, it is absurdly inclusionary. Please show me the Britannica article on any South Park episode, some instrumental by Dream Theater, an Allentown, PA newspaper , or All your base are belong to us. Or xkcd.
I edited Wikipedia since 2004. Trust me, it's always been like that. In fact Wikipedia's been more inclusionary in recent years--for instance, any high school is considered notable.
No, his definition definitely has a meaning (meaningless statements are ones like "fhadsokfjdsal;fsa", or "colorless green ideas sleep furiously"). You should probably not lecture anyone else on the meanings of words. In any case, Mussolini also made the following definitional statements about fascism:
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State....The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value...Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought....But if you want to oversimplify history, that's your choice. Speaking of quotes, here's a good one you probably need to read:
...the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'The above quote was written by one Eric Arthur Blair, who became famous for writing about such things under an assumed name. You might better remember his assumed name--George Orwell.
Obviously electronic music is not economically viable in the New Order. And there's no point writing songs that are too sophisticated or difficult to reliably perform live. No, the only worthwhile music under the New Order is the type of music that makes for a great live show. Which means that in the future, only bands with great costumes and a taste for pyrotechnics will be successful and financially viable--actual musical talent is unnecessary.
I had no idea Chinese people would be offended by the insinuation that they wear sandals. As far as I can tell most people wear sandals. As for the term "Chinaman", it is a bit archaic but little different from "Englishman" or "Frenchman". Maybe people should focus on substantive issues instead of whether or not they're offended by people not using the most recently preferred version of what your ethnic group likes to be called, or by insinuating that people in a given country might be open to the idea of buying sandals.
Incidentally, we prefer to be called "White" or "European-American." "Euro-American", "Caucasian", "white" with a lowercase 'w', etc. are all offensive to us. So are "weiss", "blanco", "gringo", or the word for "white" in any non-English language. "Pink" is right out. Consider yourself warned.
Chrysler LLC is currently owned by a New York based private equity firm, Cerebus Capital Management. Its headquarters is in Michigan. How is it not a US automaker?
Provide your own planet and maybe I'll accept your argument. As it is, we have to share the same atmosphere and the same global climate, and if you're going to be a prick and ruin it for the rest of us, we're going to bring the hammer down.
In sports, often someone is both upset about their team losing and unwilling to accept that their team sucks at whatever game they play, so they blame the referees. Likewise, in politics, some people blame the Supreme Court because they are unwilling to accept that they are wrong.