Keep (2) |
- Keep (TLDR version at end) I think abortion is a F'n terrible thing. It's a brutal nasty process which arguably kills a human. Not a nice thing. I hear some schools are giving abortions to kids without even needing to tell the parents these days... The world IS a fucked up nasty evil place. I do not wish Uncyclopedia to pretend that the world is not a fucked up evil place by not dealing with fucked up evil issues like this. This article attempts to do this... IMO, This article needs to be far more shocking than it currently is. It also needs to be more direct and to the point about the process of abortion. I feel it is a little too "verbose" in places and some of the text could be trimmed down a bit. Aborting is not FUN. That's the point... JFC 19:25. Jun 18
- Are you mocking me?
Say, what's with all these pro-life men? It's not your body that's at stake. Let women decide for themselves, eh? We have enough pain and suffering without you lot telling us we need more. Abortion has its purpose. It has its disadvantages, yes, but to weigh them properly, perhaps you should walk a mile in the relevant shoes first. Not that I have, or ever will, mind you, but you know. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:55, 18 Jun 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
- I'm not mocking you love. I never have, and I intend never to do so. My only wish is to mock the world. Shocking is required here. Because the issue is shocking... I think you pre-judge people too much. I don't think you understand my world view... That's also my opinion. Socky's also I suspect. He is FAR more sensitive than me, and wrote this. Trust me. The guy is a living saint! ... You guys voting against this don't understand Uncyclopedia. Yet... JFC 20:05. Jun 18
- I understand you more than you realise. I admit that I do not understand you as fully as you could be understood, but nobody does, not even yourself. You do not understand me very well either. I use fewer words, address fewer facets and invest less thought in my words than I could because I often have little desire to make the entirety of my thoughts clear to everyone, though I know this does not permit for as full an understanding; but full understanding comes only with patience, and I try to allow those with lesser patience a chance to understand what I say. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:13, 18 Jun 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
- Uncyclopedia is not a soapbox for pro-life, anti-life, pro-war, anti-war, or whatever people -- it's a humor wiki. And the article is not funny. Not even close. And it's apparently not intended to be funny; you've as much as said it's just a serious pro-life shock piece. So all in all, whether or not it's a fine article, it doesn't belong on uncyclopedia. Anal fisting is terribly destructive (da goatse dude has a major problem), hard drugs do untold damage, global warming is on the verge of ruining the planet, turning the world veg is one of the (very few) changes that might actually make a difference -- but none of these things are appropriate topics for serious articles on Uncyclopedia, because that's not what it's for. In fact this article, as it stands, is absolutely in the same category as the articles attacking gays (and "furries") which are so beloved by some people here who find gays (and "furries") offensive. You think this thing is wrong -- OK, but that doesn't mean you should attack it from Uncyclopedia! (IMHO) Snarglefoop (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are two conflicting views here, as I see it. They both spring from the same source, as does everything on this chaotic earth, but they diverge along different paths and rise to meet each other with bared teeth. One is that Uncyclopedia is primarily intended to be funny and anything that isn't funny - regardless of what other purpose it serves - should not be permitted to exist. The other is that Uncyclopedia is primarily (or permissibly) intended to promote various points of view, and if the primary purpose of an article is to promote a point of view that someone considers to be important to promote, and the article is not particularly funny, it should remain, or even be featured. Snarglefoop and I are of the former inclination, and JFC is of the latter. I am willing to respect either inclination if that is what the community dictates, but I believe that in general we as a community tend towards valuing humour over POV-pushing.
I said these divergent points of view spring from the same source: this source is SPOV, satirical point of view. This could, I suppose, be interpreted to mean either that our POV must be satirical and nothing else, or that we may have any POV we please as long as it makes some pretence to being satirical. I believe it lends itself more easily to the former; but you know of what persuasion I am so I will rest my case. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:36, 18 Jun 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
- If we admit the point of view that says it's not a humorous satire wiki then WTF did we get our tails in a knot over how we had to track changes on Wikipedia, even if nobody here especially likes them? There was a lot of shouting about how this is a parody of Wikipedia. How does putting serious articles in it which are intended to push particular points of view, because someone thinks those points of view are "right", fit in with that? (And if we're to be a soapbox for anyone's strongly held beliefs, where do you draw the line? Which points of view are acceptable? Are serious articles on gay pride, for example, acceptable content for Uncyclopedia? Or, for that matter, how about women's rights articles, which address the question of how male religious leaders come to dictate what women can and can't do, abortion rights included?) Snarglefoop (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- You ask a good question, one I would echo but cannot answer. I have no true answers, only questions. The truth is in the questions; the answers are only beliefs, as sturdy and trustworthy as a pattern in the sand. Those who fail to recognise this are those whose voices are the most confident and those who acquire the power to put their answers on a pedestal above others that are just as true or false. Such is the irony of life. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:55, 18 Jun 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
- Indeed. Check out the Dunning–Kruger effect .... somewhat related, I think. (And potentially funny, maybe, even, a little bit.) Snarglefoop (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I would love it if people stopped assuming so many things about what others do and do not assume. I have no idea of the actual world views of any of you lot. ... This article IS funny BECAUSE abortion is a not laughing matter. Something like this on many other pages would not be suitable for Uncyclopedia. In this case, it is suitable. Hiding from the truth is not funny. The joke is that it's not funny. JFC 21:08. Jun 18
- I don't think anyone was assuming anything about your POV, JFC; rather, we were taking your initial comment in this thread as being a literal and accurate statement of your view of the article, and the issue. (Perhaps you should re-read that comment; maybe it's stronger than you intended.) That comment sure makes it sound like your concern is to get the message out, with no apparent reference to whether it's funny or not. If you didn't mean the comment seriously, well, I'm sorry I took it that way, then. But frankly, I still don't see how "abortion isn't fun(ny)" turns the article into something humorous; it just means it's mistitled. Do you think anyone will laugh when they read it? Snarglefoop (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- And have you asked yourself if you are assuming anything about us?
Mistitled, perhaps, but I believe you are saying that the contrast between the unfunniness of abortion and the title makes the title funny, which means that it is not mistitled. The article was originally titled Why?:Abortion is EVIL but was moved by TKF to its current title. The original title may be truer to Socky's idea of the joke: namely, that pro-choicers would (probably? possibly?) reconsider their stance if they knew how an abortion was really performed. What you say is rather cryptic, I find, so I think I must fall back on what I said about multiple points of view on how important it is for an article to be funny. If you believe that to be untrue, please tell me where I have spoken wrongly and how. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:29, 18 Jun 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
- It's not possible to speak "wrongly". :P ... Does my POV matter so much to this? It should not at all. Would you like me to share it? I stand by my statement "I think abortion is a F'n terrible thing. It's a brutal nasty process which arguably kills a human. Not a nice thing.". ... I have also myself personally been to an abortion clinic on two separate occasions. Does that validate my argument now? ... :P I hope not... I'm not teasing or attacking, maybe just amusing myself, and perhaps only myself as I enjoy dragging pre-justice out of those around me. You want more explanation of why this is funny? A person who choose to read this would no doubt expect to be finding a rather explicit article. Maybe something you might find on say.. ED for example... They might also expect to find some rather graphic images. Which they do. I would also expect that the reader of this article might expect that the article was toned in such as way as rape which plays lite of the subject. I think that after looking at the first few images the reader would assume their assumptions to be correct and would be expecting to find some gross but perhaps humorous punch line. But.. There is not one. They were tricked. They were tricked by the brilliance of Sockpuppet of an unregistered user. That's just one aspect of may ways in which this is funny. I think you are blinded in appreciating the humour because the images are so graphic. There are other reasons I think this is funny also... The amount of fuss something like this causes on a wiki for example. That is funny. I bet we have put as much effort into talking about this now as socky put into creating it. That is funny... There are many other reasons this is funny, but I'm running out of keys to type... JFC 21:43. Jun 18
- tl;dr ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 22:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- --Mimo&maxus 12:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Delete (6) |
- Delete. Shock or almost shock images mixed with ... no content don't make a funny Uncyclopedia article. Anton (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Not as bad as I expected it to be but it sure isn't good. Snarglefoop (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Rolling with the tide. I thought it was funny until I found out what the joke was. If it were mainly composed of text, as it was in a now-reverted edit by EpicAwesomeness, I think it would be better. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 17:33, 18 Jun 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
- Say what? Was there a joke there? I must have missed it... Snarglefoop (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's the kind of joke that isn't a joke to everyone. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:56, 18 Jun 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
- The joke is that it's not funny. The method of parody used is called "deadpan". JFC 20:05. Jun 18
- "Deadpan" does not mean "not funny". It means the delivery is done, literally, with a still face -- IOW the comedian does not smile or laugh, but presents the information in a serious manner. The audience, on the other hand, should find it funny, and should be heard to laugh. If it doesn't cause laughter, it's not funny, and it's not "deadpan humor", because it's not humor. From Wordnet: "deadpan adv: without betraying any feeling; "she told the joke deadpan" adj: deliberately impassive in manner; "deadpan humor";" So, here's the nub ... Does this page make you laugh when you read it? Snarglefoop (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I know Deadpan. See? ... Also. Edit the deadpan article! I did... Anyway... YOU are not the intended audience of this article. That's why you don't find it funny. I don't find it funny either. I find it funny that many others will expect to find it funny and then not find it funny. ... Get it? JFC 21:55. Jun 18
- Delete. No. Just no. - B@NZai k!tten (Meow?)B 20:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Ok I nominated this way back in 2011 not because of the shocking content. Shock can be funny if it is pulled off in a way which shows that both some amount of effort went into it and actually attempts to satarise/be ironic about a topic. This does neither, it's just a cartoon of an abortion. What's the joke??? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 22:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete.. No comments. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz 08:11, 19 June, 2014 (UTC)
|
Comments |
- Comment. If anyone here thinks articles which present points of view which the author considers important should be included in Uncyclopedia whether or not they are funny, simply because they are important, they should open a Village Dump discussion of the issue. The proposal would be that non-funny pages be included in the Uncyc as long as they're significant enough. At this time, that has not been done and no such proposal has been accepted. Until that's done, it seems to me the "Did it make me laugh?" test is still the primary, and ultimately, only important, check which should be applied when deciding whether an article should be kept. Snarglefoop (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- As usual Snarglefoop I agree with everything you say. However, I think perhaps the fact that you are making a point of saying the above obvious statement suggests that you have again pre-judged me. I do find this funny. I do not consider this to be important or whatever you perhaps speculate my views might be. I looked at it for the first time today... It made me smile, I thought it was clever, so I voted keep. That's it. Please stop guessing at my or anyones POV and using that to decide things. Or... Keep doing it. Maybe that's what I want. :P JFC 22:54. Jun 18
- POV is irrelevant. Humor is relevant. You vote keep if you find it funny, you vote delete if you don't. It's a simple procedure that shouldn't be changed. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 23:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- JFC: I'm sorry; I apparently misunderstood! Your comments at the beginning, starting with "I think abortion is ... F'n terrible ... nasty ... kills... I do not wish Uncyclopedia to pretend ... not ... evil", along with your later comment, "I don't find it funny", and the fact that I saw no hint that the article "made you giggle" (as you sometimes say), or that you ever expected anyone else to laugh at the article itself, led me to the conclusion that you were valuing it for its information content. Again, I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. Snarglefoop (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- FROSTY. I said I found it funny, but apparently you did not read my comments. It's cool. I think we all kinda know everyone else means well. By saying what I did initially I was trying to reply to comments given in delete reasons, and deflect those who might pre-judge me as being a person who thought the subject frivolous. I guess I went too far and was labeled a preacher. Can't think why... :P HeHe. . I should have stuck to the facts... My position is that I'm simply not offended at all by these images, and although I did not "giggle" which is my test for VFH I did "feel amused". You can be assured that I will never and have never voted for anything based on any reason other than humour. Also, some images can offend me. When I was an admin I once cock blocked a better writter than me (who knows who they are) from using a fully clothed non-suggestive picture of a young girl in one article, just because of the title of and context article. I have a line. It's just far from these images... Images which can hurt people that can't defend themselves I don't like. IMO These images can not hurt anyone. I wonder if these images will be nominated for deletion now... JFC 18:06. Jun 19
|