The Official Inauguration of Donald J. Trump News Thread: Reality sets in Edition
1,099 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tigster;51705467]Do you do that with Trump too when he says something[/QUOTE]
people on here already do that for me.
[QUOTE=Judas;51705559]do you seriously think calling for ethnic cleansing can be taken out of context?[/QUOTE]
I'm talking generally. I honestly don't really care about Spencer. He's irrelevant in the big picture.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51705553]Sometimes. It's very easy to take things out of context and selectively quote.[/QUOTE]
"Today, in the public imagination, “ethnic-cleansing” has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so). But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully."
[url]http://www.npiamerica.org/the-national-policy-institute/blog/facing-the-future-as-a-minority[/url]
Yeah this is taken out of context im sure
[QUOTE=sgman91;51705573]I'm talking generally. I honestly don't really care about Spencer. He's irrelevant in the big picture.[/QUOTE]
We're specifically discussing Spencer though...
[QUOTE=sgman91;51705573]I'm talking generally. I honestly don't really care about Spencer. He's irrelevant in the big picture.[/QUOTE]
quit moving goalposts every time someone calls you out on defending genocidal fascists
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51705580]We're specifically discussing Spencer though...[/QUOTE]
The topic of Wikipedia's general reliability came up and I decided to comment about it.
[editline]21st January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Judas;51705582]quit moving goalposts every time someone calls you out on defending genocidal fascists[/QUOTE]
Wat. I'm sorry if you put a mountain of assumptions into my molehill of a comment, but that's on you, not me. I haven't done any real research into Spencer because, like I said, he's irrelevant.
At most, he's a strawman for the left to attack as a false representative for the right, or even the alt-right (which I don't identify with).
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51705413]I dont know shit about GamerGate, not interested a bit. Can you provide examples of agenda driven editing on Wikipedia?[/QUOTE]
Editors who disliked the GG narrative spent months changing, and changing, and changing the narrative to fit the populist one that GG is PURELY a hate driven anti women mob.
Ryulong, an editor, was permanently banned from the site for his repeated, non stop efforts to editorialize the wiki page for the event. Being the worst, and most obvious of the editors got him banned, but smarter, more laidback editors have continued to manipulate the narrative.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51705745]Editors who disliked the GG narrative spent months changing, and changing, and changing the narrative to fit the populist one that GG is PURELY a hate driven anti women mob.
Ryulong, an editor, was permanently banned from the site for his repeated, non stop efforts to editorialize the wiki page for the event.[/QUOTE]
Another one was that one of the other editors who did that, was also a self-admitted marxist who removed the cultural marxism page on Wikipedia and make it redirect to an article claiming that it's a conspiracy theory instead of an actual term the far-left in academia had been using since the 70s-80s. Can't really remember how that editor was named exactly, RGloucester, I believe?
[QUOTE=Jordax;51705771]Another one was that one of the other editors who did that, was also a self-admitted marxist who removed the cultural marxism page on Wikipedia and make it redirect to an article claiming that it's a conspiracy theory instead of an actual term the far-left in academia had been using since the 70s-80s. Can't really remember how that editor was named exactly, RGloucester, I believe?[/QUOTE]
I'm not familiar with that incident but that kind of stuff doesn't surprise me.
Ultimately, Wikipedia lives and dies based on it's editors, and for the most part, I think wikipedia is pretty good at what it does. It's the bad eggs ruining it for everyone.
Wikipedia's bias is in what they choose to cite. Say there are two conflicting viewpoints, they don't cite both and describe the disagreement, those running wikipedia pick the ones they agree with and everyone trying to provide context gets banned.
In the gamergate article buzzfeed and random twitter posts ended up being considered a credible source over forbes articles because they happened to agree with buzzfeed, and anyone trying to fix it got banned. Also oh gee i wonder if citing kotaku is violating some conflict of interest rules considering we disallow primary sources and they're directly involved in the accusations of corrupt gaming journalism nah kotaku says everyone who criticizes them are a bunch of sexists and have no ethical critics whatsoever therefore we're fine citing them!
Like their whole beurocracy is so unbelievably fucked to the point where if your involved enough in their bureaucracy you can just accuse hundreds of users at once and get them group banned over vague shit, then if one of the entrenched editors gets accused it takes a fucking committee and month long trial to even be allowed to tell them to stop.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
