User talk:Apt Repsonse

Nearly one in four humans alive in 2004 who are incarcerated in prisons are incarcerated in United States prisons. The United States has been identified throughout Asia, Africa, parts of Europe and in South America as the most egregious human rights violator operating in the world today. Because of the United States' economic and political structure, the individual citizens of the United States are deemed the perpetrators of these human rights violations, with culpability roughly correlated to economic status and ambition for social prestige.

Resisting government targets has proven an ineffectual means of confronting the psychological environment that fosters human rights violations, so resistance activists have turned to strategies that target the psychological source of human rights violations. These psychological forums include, especially, electronic communications forums because such forums are proportionally used by classes most likely to be involved in oppression of other humans. Wikipedia has been identified as a communication node frequented by Americans and other Western capitalists who enjoy casual repetition of both oppressive mythology and of punitive administrative styles. Specifically, resistance cells reviewing Wikipedia have identified quintessential examples of administrative climates whereby attacks against persons have been preferred over fair and consistent enforcement of codified laws or rules.

This discovery has led to development of tactics that identify and target individual members of Wikipedia who most often deploy the tactics that, when mirrored in legal settings, comprise the basis of methodological human rights violations. In plain language, administrators who ban Wikipedia contributors for trolling are now considered to be the equivalent of US police officers who use profiling techniques to target members of ethnic or economic minorities. Tactics for exposing and opposing these oppressive administrative approaches in this and other Wikis have been developed, tested and published. This is one of many notices intended to advise visitors to this site that they are being scrutinized, that oppressive administrators are being targeted, that resistance to oppression is accepted as an affective tactic in this environment, and that those who engage in resistance can enjoy the mutual support of loosely organized world-wide resistance who intend to mitigate circumstances that has a small portion of the worlds population incarcerating a far disproportionate portion of the worlds citizens. Resisting a growing trend toward concentration camps is far more important than accomplishing the putative goals of a recreational project such as Wikipedia. Apt Repsonse 18:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So the secret goal of the cabal for world domination and oppression of dissenters is now public? Great.. there goes our plan... ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:33, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Your satrical reply no doubt relieves some of the dissonance you might feel arising from reading this message. However, it is important to understand that we have not exposed a conspiracy, but rather more of a stampede. Your survival in the stampede, an intergenerational stampede which is born of aggression, testosterone, adrenaline and cultural tradition, depends on your ability to recongize the behavior of human cultures out of control, whether or not you choose to assist in turning the stampede into itself. If there is a conscious conspiracy, it is most likely found in acts of provocatuers who publishe bogus claims of conspiracies to misdirect public efforts to understand the sub-conscious efforts of human groups who embrace such concepts as manifest destiny and beliefs in the supremecy of their idiosyncratic cultures. World-liberation 19:59, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My satirical reply has nothing to do with any dissonance (of which I felt none) but with my amusement at your little polemic... which I think we all recognize for what it is. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:06, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance affects behavior whether a subject realizes a felt response or not. Your use of an absolute plural possessive voice demonstrates exclusionist dehumanization of unwanted persons, which Apt has addressed here. Your use of the phrase “we all recognize” is obviously fallacious because it conflicts with the statement you are rebutting, which advances different facts than those you claim “we all recognize.” What is more, use of the phrase “we all recognize” (or more specifically in scholarly reviews, the phrase "everybody knows") is well documented in reviews of the rhetoric of racism as being used in several languages among in-groups to describe the unwanted presence of out-groups. World-liberation 20:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You do realize that the phrase "we all recognize" was prefaced with "I think", right? And as for exclusionist dehumanization of unwanted persons, I am engaging in an exclusionist humorization of an unwanted person... to whit you. You do represent an unwanted "out-group" ... trolls. NB: Good for you for catching your error on "we all know" before I had a chance to comment on your error. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:33, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly, qualifiers such as "I think" and "just kidding" are also documented in several languages as rhetorical techniques used to advance group prejudice. Likewise, the use of disparaging euphemisms to describe some people whose actions are no different from the actions of others is widely documented in the same literature. The noun troll, if it has any real meaning, refers to a person who seeks out and participates in controversial dialogue. Several Wikipedians, including administrators, advertise on this site their affinity for controversial articles. Your edit history, as a matter of fact, reveals an interest in controversy. World-liberation 22:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You really do love affirming the consequent, don't you? Aside from that, you've now decided to erroneously define terms to your own benefit. Furthermore, my edit history reveals (surprise, surprise) a history of my edits, not necessarily any topics of which I do or do not find "interesting". Lastly, I will repeat here my note on your user page that I am concluding my portion of our "discussion" and that if you have any further issues I suggest you take them up via appropriate channels. I am also preemptively refusing Mediation. Have a nice day! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:35, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

The supression of this dialogue from this (Wikipedia:Village_Pump) page evidences the substance of complaints detailed in the now-censored notice. Apt Response

Thank you for your feedback. Martin 19:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome, Martin. Your effort to accept the information presented by others is a step in the right direction that may save you hours of personal frustration. World-liberation 19:59, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well that's very generous of you, but you should rethink your(s./pl.) plan to cause change by causing personal frustration. Frustration and anger will increase support for "hardline" responses. Compare the situation in Palestine, for example. Martin 23:20, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe you have underestimated your own agency. I stated that, by appreciating the views of another, you avoided causing frustration for yourself. Failing to recognize others' views as legitimate representations as their point of view can cause frustration because it isolates the person from others, requiring that they create in their own mind both sides of a discussion rather than parsing the actual statements of others who may represent another side. Conflict in Palestine is likely exacerbated by the refusal of some parties involved to recognize the views of the other side. Such a situation leaves each side posturing to describe the interests of another, rather than attempting to understand the other's interests. World-liberation 05:13, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, a fair point. Thank you for clarifying. Martin 23:18, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have noticed this effect but in another direction. I see revisionism in the political section. The manipulation of terms and sentences is very acute there. It is as if "they" are rewriting history to serve 'new' purposes. Is there a Talk:Ayn Rand because I see a lot of what she observed going on here. A secret force out to get people banned and the delibrate instigation of these people. I know I am one of the receivers of this.WHEELER 15:41, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)