Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Stereotype

1,118 bytes added, 12:57, 3 June 2016
rm unlock cat.
Citations are forthcoming. VMI is "Virginia Military Institute," as clicking the link shows. And the Jewish stereotype - it'd be both.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ah, you mean that link that was red when I asked the question?. I still think it should have the full name, though, but I can do that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 
Why is this uncited article still blocked? I'd be tempted to buy into the stereotype that the editors here prefer to avoid updating controvertial pages. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
== VMI ==
I also get that you do not want to further this conversation. I argue that your capacity as an educator mandates you to do otherwise. You have already convinced Reginod (see his "Dicta," a statement of the rules of Conservapedia) and TK that Supreme Court opinions, far from being settled law, are in fact "opinion," free to be disregarded as a moral force if one disagrees with their holdings. You have convinced them that the most respected legal institution in the land ''does not deserve their respect.'' If you are any sort of educator, you are '''required''' to correct this mistaken perception of the way the law, and indeed the country, actually work. ''As a lawyer'' you are similarly compelled. You may not disregard Supreme Court law as mere "opinion" where convenient. Even when you disagree with it and challenge it in court, it is still the law, and that the Court has held it still makes it legal FACT, not opinion.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:31, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 
== "20-year-old male radicals" ==
 
The term "radicals" seems to me like we are giving in and using the MSM's language, being ambiguous, and not making sense in the sentence it is used. It is not specified (though can be assumed) what kind of "radical" they might be, but perhaps more importantly, it doesn't really fit in the sentence. When talking about stereotypes being using in security, an 80-year-old nun can be recognized easily as such by physical observation, but being "radical" does not necessarily change your hair color or any other physical property--rather, it is a belief system. Either the nun should be referred to instead as a Catholic, or the term "radical" should be clarified, in my opinion. Would anyone object to the use of the dreaded "M-word"? Sure, there are other kinds of "radicals," but I am assuming that both the writer and other editors here where thinking Muslim terrorist.
Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, delete, edit, move, protect, rollback
14,890
edits