Sure, but I assume there will have to be a regular Wikipedia page (or at least section) about the discussion of Wikipedia’s naming of the main article.
Wikipedia is now in the interesting position of having to write an encyclopaedia article about the discussions about their original page, in which I suspect they cannot cite themselves as a source.
You can do the right thing for the wrong reasons and this is a classic case. He’s an ethno-nationalist. Ask him how he feels about Kurdish minorities or the genocide of Armenians.
I’m pretty sure he does, yeah. He needs a bloody conflict to go on to remain in power (and possibly out of prison). Scared people are easier to rule, and terrorism is scary.
Our volunteer ambassadors will [list of tasks performed]
And
Ambassadors need to [list of properties]
Along with
Bonus points if [list of properties]
Are what makes this read like a job ad for a job they’re not paying for. If they’d have posted a much shorter version with less demands, selection criteria, etc, not worded as a job ad, I’d have been a lot more charitable in my interpretation. In this case, I find it difficult to read it as anything else than “work for us, a profit-driven company, for free”.
I don’t think it’s a massive problem, but it for sure is bad communication. Ironically.
I generally don’t like this. Company fandom is bad, companies encouraging fandom is worse. Someone mentioned “but OnePlus does this!” as a counter argument and I think that’s telling something because I think they’re slimy as hell. And I had a OnePlus One and liked it.
There’s been a lot of cases where the opposition is a bunch of US plants or worse so a charitable interpretation is they’re worried about that. A less charitable one is the one everyone has already posted: they’re tankies, ie left-wing authoritarians and like the authoritarian government.
For the record I’m holding off on having an opinion until I’ve read an analysis of the situation I trust, and I haven’t found one or had the time to look seriously. My opinion doesn’t really matter in this case anyway so I don’t think I’m in a hurry to find a correct position.
Exposure doesn’t always help. Most people become less bigoted from exposure but a few double down on their bigotry and get worse. I guess it depends on where your bigotry comes from.
For example, I’m trans myself and don’t exactly pass. Despite this I’ve faced very little direct bigotry from people. The ones I’ve read as transphobic have all been very well-educated, including a woman with a Master’s degree in humanities who sounded a lot like mid-downfall JK Rowling. She’d clearly been exposed to trans people and the discourse in general, to her detriment.
Most reasonable people intuitively get respecting people’s wishes to live their own lives. It requires a certain amount of bad personality traits and/or indoctrination for them to believe the lives of others are a threat to them and want to intervene so I think there’s diminishing returns from educating people beyond basic explanations and a few quick etiquette rules of thumb.
the post also attracted a steady stream of comments from climate denying-accounts subscribed to X’s premium service, many of which were abusive and misrepresented established climate science
I agree, and I teach. A huge part of learning is having the time to experiment and process what you’ve learnt. However, doing that in a way that can be controlled, examined, etc, is very difficult so many institutions opt for tons of homework etc.
Sure, but I assume there will have to be a regular Wikipedia page (or at least section) about the discussion of Wikipedia’s naming of the main article.