• 4 Posts
  • 61 Comments
Joined 2 years 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.

















  • If you think government overreach during covid ‘inconvenienced’ people a ‘tiny bit’ you’re crazy.

    My wife lost her job 3x, 3 different jobs, all because the government kept shutting down businesses.

    Even my barber lost his business, I donated to a go fund me he put up to try to save it, but it wasn’t enough.

    Because he stepped out in his own and took the risk of starting his own business (dude had 5 kids and he and his wife both ran the barbershop together) but hadn’t been in business for two years or whatever, the government shut him down and didn’t pay him anything.

    He still had to pay rent on the space though, he still had to pay his loans to get the business up and running. I hope he’s recovered somewhat financially from that, but he never returned to that business.

    Maybe he killed himself, I sure hope not, but people surely did.

    So no, government overreach didn’t ‘inconvenience’ people ‘a little bit’

    It hurt a lot of people.


  • I wasn’t allowed to eat in the food court at the mall with my daughter and we both had ours.

    But because I don’t carry my government issued ID with me at all times (I have my vaccination stuff in my iOS wallet and my daughters in a PDF and pay for shit using my watch) the security guards wouldn’t let us sit down to eat.

    It was perfectly fine for us to sit on a bench in the mall and eat though. It was perfectly fine for us to stand in line to buy food, too.

    Just not good enough to present a vaccination card without a government issued photo ID to sit in the food court. I don’t know how the security guards expected me to have a government issued photo ID for my daughter though, maybe that was just a requirement for people 18+

    So ridiculous.