> They prohibit people from editing who believe child sexual activity isn't harmful[1],
From the linked page:
> Wikipedia does not tolerate inappropriate adult–child relationships. Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked and banned indefinitely.
Looks pretty sane to me? If it's only one "party" that draws this line, what are those that don't?
I haven't filled-in a profile page, and I haven't had occasion to make any edit concerning transness, sex and gender. My Wikipedia handle is a name I've used in other places, so a determined stalker could draw inferences about my views; but I haven't used the handle outside of Wikipedia for a decade.
I have opinions about the Middle East that, if expressed in my editing, would get me into trouble - but probably not banned; my edits would simply be reverted in a microsecond.
Editing with an opinion is fine; you just get reverted. Nobody bans you. You get into trouble if you try to take a stand: e.g. revert the revert, or if you take it to the talk page, or ask for admin review.
Neoliberalism is an economic viewpoint, not a sociological one.
I don't know a good word for the "safe", modern, liberal point-of-view. Perhaps that's why everyone calls it "woke", a word that I don't use, because it's usually meant as an insult. In the USA, "liberal" seems to be an insult too.
The viewpoint I'm referring to is that of educated, urban, mainly white people, who sympathize with oppressed minorities, but are scared of any kind of revolution, because they depend on capitalism.
