I asked for examples, but I don’t think it’s fair to classify Autism Speaks as a hate group. They aren’t called Autistic People Suck. You can’t deal with things in isolation. You’re talking about disproportionate representation of opinion being demoed by Wikiepedia, you list the treatment of autism as an example. You then list an example which doesn’t properly illustrate your point in my opinion. I am trying to understand your point of view, but all you see is me attacking you. This pattern fits how you say you’ve been treated on Wikipedia by the admins but, short of edits to trolley terrorists and the US Senate, I don’t edit Wikipedia and I also don’t agree with your assertions that their treatment of your own example Autism Speaks is unfair.
Obviously I can’t speak to your treatment by admins there but I am aware that it’s a bit of a boy’s club which I addressed in my commentary. I’m not arguing that rules should be applied differently, but are you really comparing the treatment of religion to the treatment of transsexualism? You realise the dogma of religion has coloured human existence for the last thousand years plus, right? You realise that transsexualism is a comparatively newly accepted thing and that that it stands to reason that a group that has historical grip on power will work to maintain that grip, right? I’m not saying it’s right, but there are a lot of fucking idiots out there that believe in fucking nonsense crap (religion) and, generally, those people happen to hold the balance of power right now.
I am judging the site by the actions of assholish* admins*
So is it all admins or just the trolley ones who rule against you? I find it impossibly hard to believe that all of them do the things you claim. Anyway I don’t want to make you more upset about the subject than you already are so it’s unlikely I’ll be back to reply, but all I have to say is that if you’re going to say that something is one way, it’s a pretty good idea to have evidence to make your case. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean your claim is invalid (as I’ve made clear) but it won’t do you any favours in convincing others of it.
Sorry bud, pseudo-sceince is woo, dressing itself in fancy clothing to pretend it’s science.
If the claims these asshats were making stacked up then we’d just call it science. I refuse to let the name of science be sullied by the quackery of homeopathy, energy whatever or Traditional Chinese Malpractice.
You seem very sure of what I’m saying. I’m not sure of what you’re saying, or what you’re so sure that I’m saying.
But if admins don’t speak for Wikipedia, why are they admins? If admins bark orders, if they don’t explain anything, if they bark insults, if they side with bullies and join the bullying, if they shut down any attempt to ask what the problem is and ask what a working solution would be, if they make it clear you’ll never know what they want and always be punished for not doing what they want, if they repeatedly bait you and trigger you… Since they speak for Wikipedia, they make clear that you’re not welcome, and they make clear that Wikipedia has become a place of hate and bullying.
Wait a moment. I thought a lunatic charlatan would, as a lunatic, believe Big Pharma has corrupted the medical establishment and, as a charlatan, would try to get on the gravy train by joining the medical establishment.
OTOH, maybe I’ve provided an explanation for Dr. Oz.
No placebo “cures” anything. It may make the subjective experience of the disease less bad, but it isn’t doing shit in reality. Especially in the case of a stress-induced illness, which would require much more of an intervention to be properly treated.
It really pisses me off when somebody like Sheldrake claims to be censored by an organization.
Millions of people, billions, actually, live their lives under governments that could even kill them for saying the wrong things, for spreading information that they dislike or fell should not be available to the people. And these jerks get to moan, cry and throw tantrums because they cannot say that TED or Wikipedia approves their ideas, and they call this censorship, while at the same time making it very public on the Internet and supported by their fanboys?
They should be very, very, very ashamed and embarrassed for using the word censorship in that way, while a lot of people are oppressed and actually suffer because of real censorship. Even if turns out that they are right, they still should be ashamed.
