User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2017/September
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:The Four Deuces. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Fascism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Fascism, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
intentional deception
I'm responding here because the TP discussion has been closed and I wanted to still say a few things.
I agree with what you said: the first known promulgator of the CS was being intentionally deceptive. I don't think there's any doubt about that. And I have no real doubts that a significant minority of those pushing this CS do so dishonestly.
The problem is that a lie told by one person stops being just a lie when thousands of people believe it, and do more to spread it than the originator ever could. It becomes a conspiracy theory which was based on a lie. If this were a smaller phenomenon, with only the most extreme of far-right sources pushing it, I would likely assume it to be true that those pushing it do not believe it for the most part. But this became so widespread that I cannot jive the notion that most push it dishonestly with what I know about people. I just can't accept that so many people on the political right in this country would be so dishonest as to accuse people of such horrible things simply because they disagree with their politics. The fact that the sources treat it as a CS and refer to it as "debunked" is the real kicker, but in the context of my personal beliefs; that's just icing on the cake. Feel free to respond here if you wish to continue this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)