Discussion: Senate Staffer Tries To Remove Reference To 'Torture' From Wikipedia

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #231069

2

Busteddddddd…

1 Like
3

Teatroll Rosetta Stone says: “Torture isn’t torture anymore because we redefined it, so it’s biased to call it torture.”

Fucking conservatives truly do believe they can just rewrite reality when it disagrees with them.

25 Likes
4

When Teabaggers are not trying to define problems out of existence, they are trying to get rid of any reference to them.

Typical.

8 Likes
5

The entry for “Powerpoint Presentation” should also be referenced as torture. Microsoft removed it.

12 Likes
6

And these are the folks who will be running both houses of congress starting in January.

7 Likes
7

To paraphrase Nixon, ‘Well, when the US does it, it is not illegal.’

5 Likes
8

No, he went about it all wrong. First you have to delete the definition for the word DUMBSHIT!

9

HeadlineFix:

Senate Staffer’s Effort To Remove ‘Torture’ From Wikipedia just Microcosm of ®eality.

jw1

1 Like
10

It’s worked for them in the short term and by short term I’m talking decades. We are doomed to repeat our history, because few teach “the rest of the story.”

1 Like
11

Waterboarding

Enhanced baptism.

8 Likes
12

Even with no attribution, we know it was a Republican staffer.

8 Likes
13

If the replacement language is “awkward positions” we will know exactly who it is.

1 Like
14

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia - remember?

1 Like
15

Mashable pointed out that in both instances, the anonymous editor explained that the revision was intended to remove introduce bias from the article.

1 Like
16

This is obviously today’s task from the Conservative High Command. This morning on Fox the anchor teased a story on the “so-called torture” report. If it helps, imagine that a new chamber is being constructed in Purgatory, in which Republican Hill staffers and Fox News employees will all be held for millenia enduring these “so-called torture” tactics.

17

The Washington Post has a similar attitude to that Wikipedia user (Congressional staffer?):

===
“After the use of the term ‘torture’ became contentious,” (WaPo Editor Cameron) Barr said, “we decided that we wouldn’t use it in our voice to describe waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration. But we often cited others describing waterboarding as torture in stories that mentioned the technique.” That continues to be The Post’s policy; Tuesday’s story about the report’s release doesn’t refer to it as torture — except when citing President Obama.

So the Washington Post will not call something by its name if using that word is thought to be “contentious.” By that standard, the paper in the nation’s capital will never call it torture when the US government does it.

Note: I didn’t want the text above to be large or for there to be a photo from the FAIR article.

18

Harry Reid shall pen a stinging riposte so that person can be suitably chastised. The blighter!

19

I wish I could find a way to go into a harmless coma for the next two years and wake up when sanity is restored.

20

Well, thats just "double plus ungood’ now isn’t it?