• 1 Post
  • 63 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle

  • A lot of the political entries are written with a bent towards being sympathetic with leftists.

    The Kyle Rittenhouse article spends a lot of time on how Rittenhouse ‘appeared in conservative media’ or ‘appeared with conservative personalities’ which is a pretty weird thing to say, if you don’t already understand the political undertones of the Kenosha riot.

    When you click the article for the Kenosha riot, it’s titled ‘civil unrest in Kenosha’ and focusses a lot on what a reader would perceive as positive aims of the riot. Protesting racism and police brutality, and doesn’t focus at all on the crime, danger, guns, vandalism, arson, etc

    That article mentions BLM and when you read that article it makes sure to state that BLM protests were ‘largely peaceful’ and totally misses the amount of deaths and destruction that had happened at them.

    The BLM article, if written like the Rittenhouse article, should focus a fair amount in the organizations ties to Marxism, the overthrowing of capitalism and colonialism, but doesn’t.

    Wikipedia articles are written and edited and maintained to push a narrative.

    If you agree with the narrative, you probably like that it does this. If you disagree, you probably don’t bother reading Wikipedia very much.

    The issue with sources, is that a lot of ‘sources’ for stuff like this are already heavily curated to paint a picture the editors want to put on front street.

    And anything that would combat that narrative is just outright banned from the site.

    A lot of citations with politically charged topics are just opinions anyway. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer or sources on the war between Palestine and isreal, for example. But if Wikipedia editors want to push propaganda for either side over the other, all they have to do is only cite pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli sources.

    This is easily exploitable by editors for whatever narrative they choose to push.

    Wikipedia is not an exhaustive gathering of all relevant information, it is a carefully curated propaganda machine for the editors.















  • OMG! I’m so relieved that I’m not the only one. Some of the replies I’ve received in other conversations when I respond out of context have been so demeaning as if I’m making up excuses.

    Replying from the inbox is terrible.

    Thank you for validating my experience, although it also sucks for you. I appreciate you commenting





  • Mudface@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlMurdoch never saw it coming
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The actual baby boomers were the weak men created by the good times.

    The strong men created by hard times were their parents who fought in wwi and wwii

    My generation (millennial/gen x) is also weak.

    My children’s generation, unfortunately, might be the ones who grow to be strong, if we don’t turn around this disaster


  • It’s super frustrating, I would like to know why someone said “good luck with your wish then” before I respond to them, but I can’t find the post in the thread lol

    I’d feel bad just responding randomly, and sometimes I get it wrong and respond out of context to people, which must be super frustrating for them.

    It doesn’t help that most things I comment get a ton of replies, I understand why they do (a lot of people here disagree with me and want to tell me how horrible and stupid I am)