Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct: Difference between revisions

:{{ping | Jaredscribe}} While I agree with the spirit of this, I think that all of these things are predicated upon critique. "Civility" is often used somewhat euphemistically to mean agreeableness, itself favorable to assent. If anything, the UCoC needs a statement that protects critique and critical contributions. It also has far too many redundancies. Generally it contains too much redundant or meaningless PR language. Christopher Hitchens put the point rather well when he wrote "'' In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" Of course he wasn't talking about Wikimedia, but the point is no less relevant here. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 08:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

::Yes - Civil, logical, scholarly critique should be protected, even when it is in dissent to whatever opinion is prevailing. Have you considered writing an [[w:WP:Essay]] with you opinions? Do you have a user page somewhere with a manifesto? A proposed rewrite of the [[w:WP:Civility]] policy? I concur that there is a need for this, and my proposal was a start. You may contribute to my [[m:User:Jaredscribe/UCoC#Commentary%20and%20Analysis]], if you wish. [[User:Jaredscribe|Jaredscribe]] ([[User talk:Jaredscribe|talk]]) 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 

: I should say though that I'd be quite surprised if they obliged my request in the near term. It's not as though the people who make these decisions are oblivious to these points. On the contrary. Hitchens also had something to say about this, (or rather Chomsky did, but I don't have Chomsky's original quote) "''Noam Chomsky, a most distinguished intellectual and moral dissident, once wrote that the old motto about “speaking truth to power” is overrated. Power, as he points out, quite probably knows the truth already, and is mainly interested in suppressing or limiting or distorting it. We would therefore do better to try to instruct the powerless. ''" It's irritating how often I have to cite Hitchens. It makes me look like a fanatic (which I'm not), but I suppose I should be glad to have at least one 'authority' to cite. Anyway, the points should still be made, and one should not presume they're lost upon the decision makers. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 08:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)