User talk:Deathbunny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Deathbunny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Melchoir 10:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules of Engagement

"What's your malfunction about this article? What are you afraid of? You can't handle the idea that something you don't like may have some value? What piece of factual information I posted do you have proof is false? If so, please send me links. Oh, and please send links with a neutral point of view."

No malfunction on this end. You need to calm down and start making sense. This is the second time you've tried insulting me behind an internet connection, an incredibly cowardly act.
I've been away from Wikipedia for a few days now and just yesterday intended to finish writing my response on the Talk page of the movie article. Unfortunately, I had to leave and save my incomplete response to Microsoft Notepad before posting it. I don't have time to spend more than a few hours a week editing Wikipedia. So if my response doesn't come fast enough to satisfy you, be aware that I have things to do and places to be (i.e. "a life"). I don't fear you, either in person nor behind a computer screen and I certainly don't fear any "Truth" which you claim to hold.
If you further fail to respond to me with respect and decency, I will report your abuse to an administrator.--Kitrus 22:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Insult you how? You asserted I was racist when I said nothing based on race or ethnic background except that there is a correlation between the behaviors in the film and real life in some instances. You accuse me of a behavior based on an irrational and unrealistic view of other people(s) and then deny an attempt to report fact-based information. That's pretty screwed up, I say.
I understand that you don't like the film and you see it as a racist piece of propaganda. If you look at it a particular way, you can easily interpret it that way. I got that. What doesn't change is the fact that the point of the movie may not have been as a vehicle for racism or that anyone in the group of people who put it together even intended it as racist.
I can see why you may not want to see anything of value in something you see as offensive, but it doesn't change the fact that there may be. I didn't alter anything that said that many people saw it as offensive. That's factual, I didn't fuck with it. I'm not judging the film or that interpretation as good or bad or right or wrong. I only added what else was there.
Perhaps the movie would have been less offensive if it had been made as a science fiction film with aliens as the members of the crowd outside an embassy or something. Instead, the writers chose a Middle Eastern people that weren't currently engaged in either conflict or potential conflict with the United States, probably to avoid any associations with real world operations. I don't know, I'm not the writer or producers.
I'm not a racist. A "species-ist", yes, and until human populations stop being able to interbreed, I don't have any problems based on biological constituency.
If you would prefer to discuss this with a neutral moderator and maybe cooperate to figure out what additional information can go into the article, I'm game. I only ask that you be a little more thoughtful before throwing around accusations. Deathbunny 03:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Insults "R" Us...

Transcripted from Talk:Rules of Engagement (film)


This article seems exclusively focussed on controversy about the film raised by a limited number of viewers and/or reviewers. The article, as it is, seems to be focused on the "offended" side. Deathbunny 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
In some cases, a spade needs to be called a spade. No one will disagree that many of the blaxploitation flicks in the 70s were racist, for example. Nor would they disagree that several films made by US studios in the 30s and 40s reeked of anti-Semitism, overt or otherwise. In light of this, "Rule of Engagement" is racist in its caricatures of Arabs, its implications, etc.. To my knowledge, the movie doesn't contain racist language, but that doesn't give it a free pass. --Kitrus 07:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not it was the director's intent to do so, the movie does serve as an allegory and exploration of the "gray area in military operations that tactical and operational decision-makers face when trying to determine a course of action that complies with regulations, the need to accomplish the mission, a desire to protect fellow military personnel, and the limited information due to the fog of war."
Whether or not it is racist is a different matter. As real world events have shown during blow-up about cartoons of Muhammed and the allegations that many "atrocity photos" taken in Palestine are posed or simulated, the behaviors shown in the movie and ascribed to Muslim peoples of the world are well within the realm of probability and likely similar to personal experiences reported anecdotally in the real world. It portrays Muslims in the film in a way that many people find offensive and definitely does not try to portray a neutral point of view towards Muslims in general, yet this is the way many Muslims actually act and react, if news reports, self-reports by Muslims, and academic research is to be believed.
This fiction's portrayal focuses primarily on the tactical situation that Colonel Childers (and Lieutenant Childers) was placed in and the legal consequences that resulted from the course of action he chose. That's what the movie is about and that's what I think the focus of the article about the movie should reflect in addition to the controversey.Deathbunny 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The faceless dark-skinned masses portrayed in the movie are specifically identified by their nationality, Yemeni, not by thier faith, which you seem to place so much emphasis on.
You have finally shown your true colors in this post. Whether or not you, Deathbunny, have convinced yourself of Muslim "badness" is beside the point. --Kitrus 04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Define "badness". Then tell me what and whose scale of moral goodness you are judging it against?
What is your issue? Why do you automatically assume all people follow the behavioral norms you ascribe the qualifier "good" to? What gives you the right to apply those terms to peoples of other culture?
I don't care about what color their skin is or isn't or what religion they are, only what the behavior is and whether it is realistic. And, last I checked, most Yemeni are Muslim and, though rare in Yemen, also participate in violent riots (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-21-yemen-riots_x.htm).
Deathbunny 06:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You know exactly what I mean. Almost everyone would agree that the way you describe Muslims as typically behaving is despicable.
P.S.:What was your USA Today link supposed to prove? That Yemenis, most of whom are Muslim (why do you keep coming back to this point?), tend to be violent, resolve issues violently, etc.? This is racist thinking, pure and simple. Did you fail to read the article? It states that the riot, which left 16 people dead, was "the country's worst civil strife in more than a decade." So much for those frequent "violent" riots... With 50% of Yemenis living at malnutrional levels under a regime responsible for widespread government corruption and theft, the recent cut to national gas subsidies by 50%(!) were another major slap to the face of Yemenis, with very serious economic consequences. Like so many other people living in 3rd world nations (from Latin America to Africa to Southeast Asia) whose governments accepted offers from the IMF, Yemenis took it to the streets. And, yes, like in so many of those other countries, people were killed in the ensuing protests. ----Kitrus 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't describing the behavior of the Yeminis in the film as despicable or non-despicable. I was stating that the behavior in the fictitious movie is within the realm of possibility for real behavior as seen in the USA Today link. I am not judging Yemeni behavior in the real world or in the movie. I understand that they do not have an easy life. According to the CIA World Factbook, the Median age for Yemenis is 16.6 years, the literacy rate is just above 50%, and the population below the poverty line is 45.2%. That makes for a massive amount of stress on them.
If you want to bring up "Almost everyone would agree that the way you describe Muslims as typically behaving is despicable." I'm going to argue that many Muslims would not find that behavior too despicable and I would thank you to not ignore their feelings on this subject with a blanket (ethnocentric) dismissal.
Your assertion that I was being racist is offensive and I think deserves some form of censure. Your ignorance and inability to consider things rationally while screaming the party line, about a piece of fiction no less, makes for an impression of an extremely shallow and weak-minded individual. Deathbunny 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
My belated reply:
It is unfortunate that you have resorted to name-calling and ad hominem attacks behind a computer screen. It has now been made clear that you have reached the point where you can no longer argue with a cool head. Calling me "ignorant" or "irrational" or "shallow" or "weak-minded" will get you nowhere but banned. Furthermore, as an individual who had a 1.97 GPA (!) in one of the most facile education systems on the planet and a community college graduate, you are in no position to question anyone's intelligence, termite extermination knowledge aside.[1] What you have shown instead, through your outbursts, are possible symptoms of a larger personal problem: a lack of self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy, psychological projection, name-your-defense mechanism, etc...
It's no wonder that you've failed to grasp my response to your USA Today link. Slabbing a few Googled statistics together doesn't prove anything.--Kitrus 00:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
My background is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether what I wrote is true or not. Your attitude and what you said, from behind your computer screen, fits what I said. Your accusations of racism and holier-than-thou attitude are irrational and your inability to consider the fact that others have a different take on something you find offensive bely a weakness of mind and an ignorance that I don't care to try and explain to you. Your implied threat that you would or could somehow intimidate me to the point I wouldn't state what I believe is true were we face to face is also indicative of someone who can't argue a point on merits and not resort to violence. I think you really need to take a step back and do some soul-searching before you start whining about someone else's ethics.Deathbunny 03:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"It is unfortunate that you have resorted to name-calling and ad hominem attacks behind a computer screen."
Now that I think about it, that is a terribly ironic statement by you.
Why?
One form of ad hominem attack is the disregarding of one person's idea(s) based on a slight towards them as a person. Such as: "Furthermore, as an individual who had a 1.97 GPA (!) in one of the most facile education systems on the planet and a community college graduate, you are in no position to question anyone's intelligence, termite extermination knowledge aside." and "What you have shown instead, through your outbursts, are possible symptoms of a larger personal problem: a lack of self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy, psychological projection, name-your-defense mechanism, etc..."
The closest any of what I wrote approaches a 'personal attack' is "Your assertion that I was being racist is offensive and I think deserves some form of censure. Your ignorance and inability to consider things rationally while screaming the party line, about a piece of fiction no less, makes for an impression of an extremely shallow and weak-minded individual." and was entirely based on your inability to argue the point of the discussion preferring instead to call names and try to pigeonhole what I said into what you might consider "racism". I restricted my observations, both here an in User talk:Deathbunny to what you have said and what you have done without any ascribing of any traits you may or may not have.
You expect "respect and decency", I expect the same and would appreciate if you restrict any further interactions with me to discussions on factual matters regarding specific articles based on their merit and degree of correctness. (This will be repasted into my User talk page for historical reference.) Deathbunny 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article links

Please stop changing wikilinks in firearms-related articles. They should link to what the correspondent articles are actually named, not what you think they should be named. The changes you are making may also result in misslinks if the article does not have a redirect to what you type. If you want to discuss articles names, please do so in their respective talk pages (like you did in the M16 rifle page), although naming conventions for firearm articles have already been discussed, and this is the general consensus reached ("M14 (rifle)", "M16 rifle", etc.). I am reverting your changes to the articles in my watchlist, so please do not change them back before discussing things. —Squalla 14:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in the process of finding and fixing "misslinks"... Anything that linked to M14 (rifle) (except user/talk pages and a couple archive pages.) were changed to M14 Rifle according to the Special:Whatlinkshere/M14 (rifle) page. I'll take what you said under advisement though. Deathbunny 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Or were you "off" a different page? Deathbunny 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that's what you were doing, so disregard my original comment. Still, you should have discussed those moves before doing so. I have replied to a discussion on the M60 machine gun page here. You may also want to clear things up with WP:MILHIST before you do any more moves. —Squalla 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/a/User_talk%7EDeathbunny_91bd.html"