Wikipedia Drama Goes Mainstream (msn.com)
- Reference: 0179863986
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/10/24/1753249/wikipedia-drama-goes-mainstream
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/a-wikipedia-cofounder-is-fueling-the-right-s-campaign-against-it/ar-AA1P6mpI
Sanger published "Nine Theses" on reforming Wikipedia and appeared on Tucker Carlson's show. His arguments circulated widely among conservatives, including Trump's AI czar David Sacks. Sanger recently converted to Christianity and voted for Trump in 2024. He is working to recruit hundreds of conservatives to become active Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales maintains that neutrality remains the site's core policy.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/a-wikipedia-cofounder-is-fueling-the-right-s-campaign-against-it/ar-AA1P6mpI
[2] https://politics.slashdot.org/story/25/08/27/1923235/republicans-investigate-wikipedia-over-allegations-of-organized-bias
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
The bias isn't totally fake, but it is overblown.
I mean, try posting anything using the words "Gulf Of America" in any Wikipedia article like for a coastal Texas city, and watch how fast it gets reverted even though it is technically the legal name of that body of water in the USA right now.
If you do it more than once, you'll probably get your account banned for "vandalism".
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to preface this with a disclaimer so that you don't try to call me a Trumpy in order to deflect from the fact that you have no point here.
Renaming the Gulf of Mexico was fucking stupid.
OK, that out of the way-
Gulf of America (stupid as it may fucking be) is the legal name within the United States of America.
There are many geographic features that have different names in different countries.
So, in the context of an American topic, the Gulf of America is what you would expect to see in an en
Re: (Score:2)
Did I miss where Congress passed a bill to do this?
Re: (Score:2)
You did not- Gulf of America is definitely not its statutory name in the US- it has no statutory name , which means in effect, the order to Federal agencies is the closest we have to a legal name for the body of water.
Granted- just because the name is legal doesn't mean that anyone who isn't under the Constitutional supervision of the President is beholden to respect it- which is actually the reason that it's still called Gulf of Mexico in Wikipedia. Many reliable sources are US-based, and they still refer
Re: (Score:2)
Everything that comes out of the president's mouth is not law. He is not a king. If he doesn't have the statutory nor constitutional authority to legally name it, then "Gulf of America" is not a legal name, and encyclopedias should continue to use the consensus name it has gone by for the last couple hundred years with maybe a foot note RE the Trump idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
> Everything that comes out of the president's mouth is not law.
Who are you talking to? It surely isn't me.
> He is not a king.
That isn't even a defining attribute of Kingship.
> If he doesn't have the statutory nor constitutional authority to legally name it
He has the constitutional power to order the Federal government to call it that, which makes it a legal name.
> and encyclopedias should continue to use the consensus name
This is the first thing you've said that wasn't stupid, and I agree with it.
Wikipedia's policy is sensible. They use a consensus among reliable sources within their language domain.
> it has gone by for the last couple hundred years
No, that's not part of the equation.
See: Ukraine.
Sigh. With a UID that low, I'd like to think you came from a period of time w
Re: (Score:1)
So you're saying that to not be biased, Wikipedia should use whatever self-centered America wants them to use, and fuck what the rest of the world say? Totally not a biased option.
Or that people who go into edit wars should still be tolerated?
Re: (Score:1)
but it's called the gulf of mexico everywhere else.
Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
The Gulf of Mexico is what the rest of the world calls it. Wikipedia isn't only for Americans, and America isn't the only place in the world.
Re:Reality (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's called dozens of things across the world.
What it is called across the world isn't relevant to its naming within wikipedia in the slightest.
They have clear policies for geographic and common names.
What matters is what exists in the reliable sources in the English-language world.
And for right now, that's Gulf of Mexico.
However, it may not always be that way.
The US is a majority of the English-language world.
Fortunately for the sanity of all- that name probably won't last long enough to catch on in reliable sources.
Re: (Score:2)
> The US is a majority of the English-language world.
I suspect India and decent chunks of Europe and Africa might want to lay claim to fluent speaking and writing in English too. Albeit as a second language.
Re: (Score:2)
> I suspect India and decent chunks of Europe and Africa might want to lay claim to fluent speaking and writing in English too. Albeit as a second language.
Indeed- I struggled to find a... way to indicate English-as-a-first-language world.
This is because English-as-a-second-language worlds usually follow some English-as-a-first-language country's naming conventions.
At first, I went with "English-speaking", but that's obviously wrong- since as you mentioned- it includes quite a fucking lot of people in India.
I figured "English-language" might be non-specific enough to lead one to think "English-centric-language/speaking-ness".
Re: (Score:2)
> That is now called The Gulf of America.
From the perspective of reliable sources, that is not the case.
If it were the case, Wikipedia would update to reflect that.
Wikipedia does not work via the diktat of some State- it works via consensus of reliable sources.
Pertinent Example (Score:2, Insightful)
Before her presidential run, Kamala Harris had a section on her page covering a few scandals she had as attorney general involving covering up a DNA lab's screwups. A week after announcing her run for president, it was scrubbed off her page. The change was buried three pages back in her history, as hundreds of edits had been made in the intervening days.
To this day, no mention of it is on her personal page, nor on her page as attorney general.
Re:Pertinent Example (Score:4, Insightful)
[citation required]
Re:Pertinent Example (Score:5, Informative)
Which section was that? What was it called? You should be able to look it up, the posting history is public. Here's a page from 6 months before announcing her presidential campaign and there is no mention of a section dedicated to her scandals: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind... [wikipedia.org]
Yes there were a lot of edits prior to her presidential campaign, that generally happens to all leaders all over the world on every corner of the political spectrum when they announce their presidential run. That is basic information management, people are going to look up who you are. That isn't bias against one or another side.
However your comment mentioned something specific, so please [Citation Required] because right now I can't find a corroborating evidence for your claim of a coverup.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&oldid=1203959699
Re: (Score:1)
> I mean, try posting anything using the words "Gulf Of America" in any Wikipedia article like for a coastal Texas city, and watch how fast it gets reverted even though it is technically the legal name of that body of water in the USA right now.
That might be its legal name somewhere, but not anywhere important.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot.
You don't like the US- I get it.
But the fact of the matter is, it is more important than wherever the fuck you're from, in every single objective measure of importance.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you folks think you are special, but there is a whole other world out there. You should check it out sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
> I know you folks think you are special
There's no think about it- it's literally quantifiable.
Of course, much more is inferred by that than is warranted, but that doesn't somehow justify deluding yourself into believing it doesn't exist.
Honest push-back is much more constructive.
> but there is a whole other world out there. You should check it out sometime.
Of course there is.
And I have, and will continue to do so.
You see, the problem isn't that you said:
> but there is a whole other world out there. You should check it out sometime.
People absolutely should see the world. How the fuck else are you going to get a real eyeful of the actual cultures that make it up?
The problem, is that you DID say:
> but not anywhere important.
W
Re: (Score:1)
> There's no think about it- it's literally quantifiable.
It may have been true at one time. You are kind of the laughing stock of the world right now. Hopefully this banana republic phase is temporary.
Re: (Score:2)
Laughing stock, and unmatched performance metrics in terms of geopolitical importance are not mutually exclusive.
So no, it's still true now.
And yes, hopefully this banana republic phase is temporary, because it's not a great thing for world peace, having this much economic and military power under a banana republic.
Re: (Score:2)
> unmatched performance metrics in terms of geopolitical importance
LOL. The entire rest of the world is working out deals amongst ourselves to avoid doing business with you. Your importance will continue to decline even when Trump is gone. It is hard to regain trust once it is lost.
Re: (Score:2)
See, now you've gone full stupid again.
The US is so far ahead of any other geopolitical entity in terms of economic power that it's almost like we're playing a different game.
You can try to deny that until you're blue in the face, but as I said- it's simple denialism.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a GDP of 30 trillion, the EU is 20 trillion, China is 20 trillion. So OK, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Let's call the EU's 20 trillion/500m people, and China's 20 trillion/1200m people the baseline.
The US is at +50% with.... 320m people.
Keep up the good work, boys.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing global trade isn't per-capita.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? lol.
Do you think a large portion of global trade is bulk agreements between countries? Fascinating.
No wonder you fuckers are behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You think criticism of your leader (that's also shared by at least half Americans) means that someone hates the US? And with your last statement there, it's no wonder you see so much apparent hatred in the world. That's the crux whole problem right there.
We don't really want to live without you, but Trump as a unreliable partner is making that impossible, much like an abusive spouse. So yes the world will have many problems without the US as it used to be, but Trump's given us all no choice reall
Re: (Score:2)
> Really? You think criticism of your leader (that's also shared by at least half Americans) means that someone hates the US?
Not at all.
> And with your last statement there, it's no wonder you see so much apparent hatred in the world. That's the crux whole problem right there.
No, in this case it's your illiteracy.
> We don't really want to live without you
Nor do you have a realistic choice to.
Sometimes I'd love to see you try, though.
> but Trump as a unreliable partner is making that impossible, much like an abusive spouse.
No argument there whatsoever.
> So yes the world will have many problems without the US as it used to be, but Trump's given us all no choice really, so we move on and make the best of it.
lolwut? You move on? Is that what you call the current trade situation between the EU, the Americans-US, and the US?
That isn't moving on, that's clamoring to suck that Mussolini-wannabe's cock.
Own it, dude. Denial isn't helping you.
Person above did not "criticize our leader".
I couldn't give a fuck about Trump.
They said:
> but not anywhere important.
Which is frankly just stup
Gulf of Mexico [Re:Reality] (Score:1)
> The bias isn't totally fake, but it is overblown.I mean, try posting anything using the words "Gulf Of America" in any Wikipedia article like for a coastal Texas city, and watch how fast it gets reverted even though it is technically the legal name of that body of water in the USA right now.
[my emphasis].
You do know that Wikipedia is international, right? Not just U.S.?
And, I'm not even sure by what legal system you say it is "the legal name" even in the U.S.. What body of law exactly says that the president has the unilateral power to rename international bodies of water? Can he rename Florida "Trumpia?" Can he rename the Appalachian mountains "Donald's Hills"?
In any case, Mexico's coastline on the Gulf is longer than the US's coastline, so if anybody can name it, they should.
Re: (Score:2)
> And, I'm not even sure by what legal system you say it is "the legal name" even in the U.S.. What body of law exactly says that the president has the unilateral power to rename international bodies of water? Can he rename Florida "Trumpia?" Can he rename the Appalachian mountains "Donald's Hills"?
Presumably if Trump wants it called the United States of Trumpia, Wikipedia should comply. ROFLMAO.
Re: (Score:3)
> And, I'm not even sure by what legal system you say it is "the legal name" even in the U.S..
In this particular instance, the Constitution.
> What body of law exactly says that the president has the unilateral power to rename international bodies of water?
In this particular instance, the Constitution.
> Can he rename Florida "Trumpia?"
Yes.
> Can he rename the Appalachian mountains "Donald's Hills"?
Yes.
> In any case, Mexico's coastline on the Gulf is longer than the US's coastline, so if anybody can name it, they should.
That is not how things work at all, and frankly, it isn't even logical.
I'll break it down for you.
There are several dozen names of the Gulf of Mexico within the world.
Gulf of Mexico is its most common name in the English-language world.
What it's name is within Mexico is meaningless.
I suspect you're exactly the kind of douche-waffle that will argue that it's dumb to call the US America while ignoring the
The constitution says no such thing [Re:Gulf o...] (Score:2)
>> What body of law exactly says that the president has the unilateral power to rename international bodies of water?
> In this particular instance, the Constitution.
The constitution says no such thing. Try reading it.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure does.
First sentence of Article 2:
> The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
This is held, in ~225 years of jurisprudence, to mean that he has plenary control over the Executive branch, and therefor- the power to issue orders to that branch (Executive Orders).
This is simple shit.
Re: (Score:2)
> I mean, try posting anything using the words "Gulf Of America" in any Wikipedia article like for a coastal Texas city, and watch how fast it gets reverted even though it is technically the legal name of that body of water in the USA right now.
I mean, that's just wrong. Gulf of America is not the legal name of the Gulf of Mexico in the US right now. The legal names of these things is set through legislation. Trump issued an executive order to rename it to federal agencies. That leads to the odd situation where federal agencies call it something other than the legal name because they have been ordered to, but that is a de facto change, not a de jurem one. The accepted international name and the legal US name are (in English) the Gulf of Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that it is the legal name insomuch as it doesn't have a statutory name, leaving him basically free to name it.
If Congress were to pass a statute naming the body of water, then I'd agree that the statutory name was its legal name.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia has guidelines for geographical and common location names.
As of right now, it's pretty clear that Gulf of Mexico is the proper name according to their guidelines.
Over time, that could change, if "Gulf of America" ever sees common usage in reliable sources.
Not following the guidelines repeatedly is, indeed, a way to get your editing privileges removed. Does that not make sense to you? That's not left-wing bias- there are procedures. There are pages to talk about those procedures, and pages to
What I've seen from personal experience (Score:5, Informative)
As a long time editor I've seen how the bias works. It's frustrating because I remember when, broadly speaking, it was neutral. It starts at the top where the Wikimedia Foundation funds left wing groups and does not fund right wing groups. It runs fundraisers but people don't realize that it is swimming in money and diverting it to Art +Feminism, Black Lunch Table and Whose Knowledge.
These organizations publicly admit that they aim is to edit Wikipedia pages with leftist ideologies. Art + Feminism has an instructional guide showing how to create Wikipedia content about transgender and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Wikipedia has removed conservative news organizations as acceptable sources for news articles. The problem with that act of censorship, is that to construct a neutral article you frequently need balancing sources to achieve neutrality. Often there are facts that only a right or a left wing source will say. Given that mainstream new organizations are left wing, certain facts become impossible to source on the site.
You won't find the same treatment for conservative leaning people as you would for progressives. Often a few dog whistle words are added prominently by editors to a conservative's profile to signal that they are outside of Wikipedia's own Overton Window. And they will not uncommonly coordinate privately off-site, despite that being a violation of Wikipedia's rules.
Ironically, I remember completely different times before 2012 when I got into an edit war with conservatives that didn't want inconvenient facts mentioned about an anti-immigration organization. I spent significant time expanding a stub-like article into something comprehensive, only to be viscously attacked.
Now it's the other way round. It's progressives doing the attacking and edit warring. I was drawn to Wikipedia in part because of it's neutral point of view but it's now a progressive point of view hidden behind a few figleaf phrases here and there to deceive a superficial reader.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Wales is really indefensible, he pretty much stole Wikipedia from Sanger and a lot of the original investors will support that version of events. Sanger is also who you have to thank for a Wikipedia that is a community project and not an enshitified mess of ads that Wales originally envisioned.
Slashdot won't care about any of that thought, because the karma farmers here won't see past their virulent anti-Christian bigotry.
Re: (Score:2)
> Wales is really indefensible, he pretty much stole Wikipedia from Sanger and a lot of the original investors will support that version of events. Sanger is also who you have to thank for a Wikipedia that is a community project and not an enshitified mess of ads that Wales originally envisioned.
> Slashdot won't care about any of that thought, because the karma farmers here won't see past their virulent anti-Christian bigotry.
I'm not seeing any ads. What do you think is stopping them?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The fact that it is a non-profit. Wales started it as a for profit, Sanger changed that.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm am kind of surprised they don't have ads myself, it has to cost a lot for infrastructure. I do make an annual donation though, because I find it useful. I'm pretty sure reasonably intelligent people can identify subjects that attract bias (the same ones that attract bias everywhere else as well actually, not just Wikipedia) from the otherwise vast trove of useful information.
Re: (Score:2)
I am confused. Did Wales steal Wikipedia from Sanger as in your other post, or did Wales start Wikipedia himself as in this post? You do know that it can't be both, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing inspires confidence like an AI "powered" encyclopedia from the maker of Nazi friendly Xhitter.
I'm sure that will be "fair and balanced" like... umm... Fox News obviously.
Also as far as Sanger recently finding Christianity a bit late in life, and appearing on Tucker Carlson's show, I'm sure the Nine Theses are surely unbiased at all. Tucker is known for his fair and bsllll... oh fuck it. I'm sure there's no sour grapes to being "ousted" by Jimmy Wales /clusterfuck
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I really find it odd that a Nazi wore a neckless saying 'Bring them home" about the Jewish hostages. Of course, I expect folks like you are singing "From the River to the Sea" daily.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me both sides this.
No river to the sea for me... I found Christianity as an adult? Tucker Fuckerson? Like the Nazipedia, anything Tucker utters is terminally biased. Hope you're not getting your propaganda from him, for your sake.
Clusterfuck is apt.
How's that peace deal working out?
Re: (Score:2)
> Wales is really indefensible, he pretty much stole Wikipedia from Sanger and a lot of the original investors will support that version of events.
"Investors"... Ok. Way to tell us that you know nothing about Wikipedia without saying you know nothing about Wikipedia.
The Fascinator with Cheese (Score:2, Troll)
If one of these neo-Confederate turd-tossers actually builds an AI Wikipedia without training it on Wikipedia itself, I'll eat a hat in any style you care to name.
They actually did (Score:2)
There is a right wing version of wikipedia. I can't remember the name of it it might be a stupid as conservapedia or something. But I seem to remember it is absolutely bonkers and full of complete and verifiable nonsense.
Look it up if you care and that's basically what Trump and the heritage foundation goons who are running America plan to turn Wikipedia into.
The scary thing is about 1/4 of the people here are chomping at the bit for it. If nothing else to own the libs.
Like the old saying goes a
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, conservapedia exist(ed). It might still - but at least they were honest in how they were biased.
The reason these sites should exist is because, generally speaking, the opponents of a political ideology tend to be the worst sources concerning what the ideology actually believes, versus what its detractors say it believes. If the enemies of the state are not allowed to speak, how will the public at large differentiate tyranny from the rule of law?
Wikipedia is neutral (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are not looking at anything political, about history, many medical topics, current events, the weather, several branches of science, and a few other things.
It's no different than Reddit in that sense. I love Reddit for things like game hints and obscure IT fixes and other hobbyist things. But it's useless for anything else. Just like slashdot, actually. Bias, trolls, liars, people who abuse the system to push their agenda. Standard internet behavior for the last 10-15 years, at least. All social media is the same. Toxic shitty people piss all over it without the self awareness they're the cause of why their shoes are wet.
That being said, I still love social media. Without toxic social media like Wikipedia, Reddit and slashdot, I'd still be working like the rest of you. But knowing how it works behind the scenes is why I don't use social media more than trivially.
Ironically, the best way to ruin a good thing like the social internet is to let people use it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree with the post title...not sure about the rest.
I use Wikipedia weekly, basically to look up stuff I see/hear/read elsewhere. For example somewhere I read about the "Great Unconformity". Go to Wikipedia there is a very detailed article, images, links, etc. just what I need. And importantly it clarified a mis-representation in the original source I read.
So yeah, for people who are looking up other people. especially political figures, or ongoing geo-political conflicts in Wikipedia . Yeah goo
Not wikipedia... (Score:1)
Look how twitter got destroyed as a common medium for communication, with no replacement. X (right) and Bluesky (left) together are not a replacement for what twitter used to be. Now wikipedia as a store of knowledge goes the same route? Can't we just have one reality, but have different opinions about it?
Re: (Score:2)
You say it was an echo chamber but remember how much Donald Trump used it? Everybody used it.
Granted that was falling apart by the end of Trump's term and he was banned for comments relating to Jan 6.
Tribalism (Score:5, Insightful)
The core tenet of conservative philosophy is that some people are innately better and more valuable than others. That thinking thrives on the constant identification and blaming of pariah groups. Even if it achieves the goal of destroying the currently identified pariah groups, they will quickly divide within themselves and destroy each other. Conservatism and tribalism are parasitic mind virus.
Re: (Score:2)
> The core tenet of conservative philosophy is that some people are innately better and more valuable than others. That thinking thrives on the constant identification and blaming of pariah groups.
The belief, especially on the Right, and Trump specifically, that everything is a zero-sum game and there must be winners and losers doesn't help. More people having equal rights and opportunities or being able to be married doesn't take anything away from others
> Even if it achieves the goal of destroying the currently identified pariah groups, they will quickly divide within themselves and destroy each other. Conservatism and tribalism are parasitic mind virus.
MAGA seems to operate this way - an ever smaller circle of who's "MAGA enough".
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not a fact. The founders of this country felt that all persons have equal rights. If, as you believe, one person is inherently more valuable than another, how can they have the same rights?
Let's go with your assertion that some people are valuable than others. Is there even a way to determine it? What metric do we use? I mean, your own mother probably values you more than a random stranger. That's even though you're a retard and the random stranger may be a scientist whose discoveries saved a bunch
Close but it's just a little bit stupider than tha (Score:2)
The core tenet of the right wing, which we constantly confuse with conservatives because the right wing are extremists and they would very much like you to think of them as being conservative and therefore safe, is a unflinching belief in the benefits of the hierarchy.
It's not just that there are some people who are better and some people who are worse. That is absolutely the case but it's also that there is a natural hierarchy which everyone slots into.
This goes all the way back to the origins of t
Re: (Score:1)
> The core tenet of the right wing, which we constantly confuse with conservatives because the right wing are extremists and they would very much like you to think of them as being conservative and therefore safe, is a unflinching belief in the benefits of the hierarchy.
By that rubric, Martin Luther King is an “extremist”. The so called “right wing” hierarchy involves valuing:
- Judgement by merit, wisdom, love, productivity, and/or actual need instead of identity
- Sanctity of individual life over the “collective”
- Individual agency, property rights, and free speech
- Raising familial rights (parents and child) over government interference (in loco parentis)
- Decentralized government, policing, and judiciaries
MLK’s “extreme ri
Re: (Score:2)
It's a race to the bottom of who is MAGA enough. Dinesh D'Souza recently experienced this when he proclaimed several years ago to be "one of the good ones". Fast forward to today and he's the target of MAGA for not being white. [1]https://www.hindustantimes.com... [hindustantimes.com]
D'Souza appears completely flabbergasted on how MAGA can spew such rhetoric.
But don't feel too bad though. I guarantee who D'Souza will vote for in the next election.
[1] https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/racist-remarks-anti-india-discourse-maga-why-trump-ally-dinesh-dsouza-is-shocked-101761209324100.html
This isn't mainstream (Score:4, Informative)
This is right wing extremists trying to take over every single possible media outlet in order to warp reality.
There's the old joke, reality has a liberal bias.
The right wing is extremely good at taking action because they are backed by billionaires who pay people to take action.
So when reality disagrees with the right wing they pay people to change reality.
I mean not really. You can't actually change reality. But if you have total and complete control of all media outlets you can do the next best thing.
Now for us non-billionaire peons sooner or later reality comes calling. Your trans kid blows their head off because of the pressures. You get measles and you die. Screw worms kill millions of cattle and you can't afford hamburgers anymore let alone steak. You lose your job because Wall Street crashed after deregulation. Your 401k gets looted. Medicare gets cut and you die of a heart attack. Your daughter dies in childbirth because she couldn't get reproductive healthcare.
I can go on and on and on. You can ignore reality for a very long time. Especially when you have an incentive like getting to act like an angry teenager.
But sooner or later reality comes calling.
And again the right wing knows this and they know that their policies and beliefs do not work in the real world so they have to deny reality as much as possible.
Go look up Russian science fiction books. Not the Soviet ones that were cool and subversive but the ones put out by Putin now that he has absolute control of all media and russia. They are so weird and fucked up and they are not fun they're just fucked up propaganda.
And if none of that gets your attention they're coming for your video games.
And it's all because of the violence of the right (Score:1)
Wing extremists. Have you ever seen the left wing committing any violence they never ever ever do and that's because the right wing is inherently better at violence because they're better at command structures and you need a strong command structure to do effective violence, a command structure you aren't going to get rid of when the shooting stops. There's a growing problem with right wing baby boomers they all are right wing who just want to kill somebody and they're old so they decide what the hell I'm g
Re: (Score:2)
> This is right wing extremists trying to take over every single possible media outlet in order to warp reality.
This has always been the case for a very long time. The main difference now is that the right wing extremists are in power. To the victor goes the spoils, and the greatest spoil of them all is the truth. The right wing extremists also know that whoever yells the loudest gets to define truth to the uneducated masses.
The right wing extremist have done very well in that they realize that the definitions of extremism are necessarily relative. So, yelling louder allows them to shift the perception among the
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
> There's the old joke, reality has a liberal bias.
Perhaps because reality treats everything and everyone equally and that doesn't sit well with "Conservatives" and those on the Right, especially those, like Trump, who believe everything is a zero-sum game and there must be winners and losers.
of course it's these guys (Score:5, Insightful)
> Senator Ted Cruz sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation demanding answers about what he termed "ideological bias." House Republicans opened an >>investigation into possible platform manipulation.
why the fuck is a senator demanding answers from a private website about "ideological bias"
Re: (Score:3)
So he has something to distract his constituents from why he fled Texas when the people were freezing to death due to Abbott's and Ercot's incompetence.
Also, because the Wikiepedia article about the battle at the Alamo explicitly states, "About one hundred Texians, wanting to defy Mexican law and maintain the institution of chattel slavery in their portion of Coahuila y Tejas by seeking secession from Mexico, . . ." To him, telling the truth is "liberal" bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Ted persecuted?
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh_uDuxkdws
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start referring to him by his given name Rafael Edward Cruz
Archive (Score:4, Interesting)
Time to download your personal copy I guess.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Years ago I had an alternate OS for a clickwheel iPod that had it. That was something else!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download
Slashdot Memoir of Larry Sanger (Score:3)
What, is Slashdot too good to [1]plug its own web site [slashdot.org] now?
Sanger even links to Slashdot in the [2]Nine Theses [larrysanger.org] mentioned (but not linked) in the summary.
[1] https://features.slashdot.org/story/05/04/18/164213/the-early-history-of-nupedia-and-wikipedia-a-memoir
[2] https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/
Remember Conservapedia? (Score:2)
It will be just like that, but this time with AI!
They are not conservatives. They are cultists insisting that everyone accepts the reality that they made up in their minds. Whoever refuses to do so will have "consequences." That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha I essentially said the same thing a while back and someone came out of the woodwork to say i cosplay as a conservative! So bizarre. It really is 1984 where words have now taken on opposite meanings. War is peace, freedom is slavery. Doubleplus good.
Comment wasteland (Score:2)
Haha the comments are a -1 wasteland. Wonder if the admins are getting involved?
Darn it (Score:2)
I'm out of popcorn. Could you guys hold on a couple minutes while I make more?
Neutrality is really impossible (Score:2)
The less bias there is, the more extremists believe the only bias is in favor of their opponents.
Conservatives have never been "neutral" (Score:2)
definitely not in my lifetime and I'm pretty old
Fuck these MAGAts. (Score:1, Insightful)
They are not conservatives, they are radical right raging retards.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They already tried with [1]Conservapedia [conservapedia.com]. Go check it out! All the latest crowdsourced news from an alternate dimension.
[1] https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
Re:Fuck these MAGAts. (Score:4, Insightful)
I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or genuine stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be both.
Re: (Score:2)
He "saved" the astronauts? I hardly think that falling back to a second form of transportation in what was already the existing contingency plan because plan A failed really counts as "saved". I mean, you can argue that LEO is a dangerous environment but, since they just swap astronauts out, even if the Dragon capsule had outraced a fireball from an exploding ISS like the Millenium Falcon, the net number of dead astronauts would not have changed. So that's a pretty extreme over-dramatization. As for the res
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The demands of these people and the Taliban are near identical.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Definitely +1 accurate. Not Troll. Metamods, take note!