| Comments |
- I dunno...it's racist for sure, but I think with a little work it could be racist AND funny, and at the end of the day, isn't that what christmas is all about? So maybe no deletion...yet. --Anyone 17:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)|
- You know, I'm just plain tired of this...Let me take the time right here to say: I'm sorry if I offended any one with this article, but frankly, you need to lighten up and learn to take a joke. I wasn't trying to be racist, just to write a funny article. If you think it sucks or could at least be funnier, by all means, go right ahead and fix it up, do whatever you want (as long as the joke still remains). And since when did Uncyclopedia get so PC? We're about the humo(u)r, not this "sensitivity" and "civility" bullshit. It's a joke, that's all--everyone knows that that stereotype doesn't represent the majority of Arabs, and if you want offensive and insulting, read some of the articles about Christianity at Uncyc. This article deserves to stay, especially considering there are waaaay more offensive and way less funnier articles out there. --Señor DiZtheGreat
 CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 19:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- DiZ, it doesn't matter if you were TRYING to be racist, it is racist. Minstrel shows are also jokes about black people, but do you see any articles based on that? You're right, there are some articles which do make some racist jokes, but the fact is, you created an article based on a racial slur and used patently racist terms to describe Arabs. Don't drag out the old "PC," "sensitivity," and "civility" arguments, there's nothing there. You're right in the sense that good humor should have barbs to it, but there comes a point where you can leave good taste behind, where it turns from humor to plain old racism. To be fair, this is in the eye of the beholder, so that is why I put this on VFD, in order to see what the community thinks of it. --
 jsonitsac talk to me crimes against humanity20:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- If the community doesn't like the article, I can't fight it. But let me just say, this is Uncyclopedia, and humor comes in many forms, including ethnic jokes. And there is a difference between minstrel shows--who deliberately made fun of blacks in a harmful and racist manner--and this article, whose purpose is not to garner laughter at Arabs' expense, but rather to poke fun at stupid people's perceptions of them through wordplay. The last line of the article proves just where the humor is directed. One more thing: a work such as this is only as racist as its writer. If I had gone to that page with the idea that all Muslims really are terrorists and what-not, I'd have written a much different and seriously insulting article worthy of a huff, but the fact is: it's not racist, however much you want it to be. If this article truly offends you, you need to take a chill pill; if you're jsut doing this because you feel you or someone else "has to", then stop, because it's seriously unnecessary. --Señor DiZtheGreat CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 21:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- This article is racist. That's obvious. It is more than likely that this article was written by someone that does not particularly like Arabs, or someone that isn't the smartest, or someone that is both. However, there are people that enjoy this form of humo(u)r, and we have to respect that, even if we don't like it. There is a page on here called Holocaust Tycoon. It's just as offensive as this is, however, it's funny. I don't think that this article should be deleted because it is racist, but because it sucks. --Hhamdy283 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you think the article is not funny, that's fine, even I agree it's not one of my best works. But your observation that I'm either stupid or prejudice towards Arabs (which is stupid in itself) is based on the recurring idea that you have to be racist to write a racist article. Untrue. I know all the stereotypes, I know that lots of people think Arabs are terrorists, blacks are thugs, Asians can't drive, et cetera, et cetera. But just because I acknowledge the existence of these common stereotypes doesn't mean I give them any credit or believe them at all, because I don't; it's just a joke. That's what some people can't seem to grasp. Vote for humor content if you have to, not on the basis of racism. --Señor DiZtheGreat CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be deleted just because it's blatantly racist, I mean fuck, look at Niggers. It's racist as hell AND it's one of the best articles on the site, BUT it's brilliant, brilliant satire on the hypocrisy of using Native Americans as sports mascots but not blacks. I mean really, compare the Niggers logo to the Cleveland Indians actual logo. Is the Niggers logo any more racist? Not the slightest bit. It's just an unacceptable form of racism. That's satire. This article however doesn't seem to make an actual point about sand nippers. I wasn't actually going to vote delete at first, because honestly, it did have some cheap laughs, but as I read on, I actually felt like this was something an overt racist would write. I'm not accusing Diz of being racist, I'm just saying it doesn't rise above the level, in terms of humor, of what a blatant racist would write. I don't think Uncyc should just be a repository of obvious racist jokes that everyone has heard before. I mean honestly, Muslims kill people and drive Taxis? It's been done before. I don't think Diz is actually that bad of a writer, I just don't think he thinks his ideas through enough. Articles should be more than just a bunch of jokes pasted together, ideally. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 02:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: DiZ, while I don't like this article, I am not willing to vote for its deletion based solely on claims of racism. If we can feature an article on the "Birmingham Niggers" and not bat an eye at Black People or United Negro Porn Fund, then crying racism simply because anti-Arab racism is a hot issue right now is ridiculous. Sure, it's a racist article. So is the Niggers article. Even White People is racist. We have lots of offensive articles but we're not deleting them all. Fag is based on prejudice, sure, but it's funny in a stupid kinda way. I'm not saying everyone should vote to keep this article, but think about it for a minute. If you're saying the only reason it should be deleted is because it's racist, then what you're really saying is that racism is okay in some cases but not in others. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S]
 MUN CM NS F@H (drivel) 03:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum: ENeGMA has apparently already said it better than I could. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S] MUN CM NS F@H (drivel) 03:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum the Second: I am changing my vote to keep. I reread DiZ's explanation and I better appreciate the intent of this article. —Oblivion - Fire - Sex [O|F|S] MUN CM NS F@H (drivel) 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Some further clarification. The article doesn't offend me. Nothing like this could possibly offend me. It's just not an article that I think does the idea any service. A bunch of racist jokes CAN be funny, when done properly. But an article that's basically a litany of them isn't the correct treatment. But what do I know. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 03:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Admittedly Diz released it too soon, but there's the spark of something there. With more time it could be two sparks of something. Maybe three. If it's killed please put a copy under his userpage, so that he can work himself into a lather trying to coax the spark into something more.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
|
