Mar-a-Lago Face

#1

Post by cobbzilla » Sat, Aug 09, 2025, 9:34 PM UTC

Re: Mar-a-Lago Face

#2

Post by treetalker » Sat, Aug 09, 2025, 9:53 PM UTC

To play the devil's advocate: citing Laura Loomer's mug as an example is a slander to Mar-a-Lago–faced folks everywhere. Her "signature look" is best considered as an anti-model for future surgeons and operees.

Re: Mar-a-Lago Face

#3

Post by moralestapia » Sat, Aug 09, 2025, 10:25 PM UTC

Despicable, really.

So now it's suddenly ok to ridicule the appearance of women Weren't they supposed to be their allies? What a bunch of sc*mbags.

Never giving a cent to Wikipedia ever, as it is clear it is now a political platform, away from its intended purpose, and for one very specific country.

Re: Mar-a-Lago Face

#4

Post by pavel_lishin » Sat, Aug 09, 2025, 10:28 PM UTC

moralestapia wrote: post #3

Despicable, really. So now it's suddenly ok to ridicule the appearance of women Weren't they supposed to be their allies? What a bunch of sc*mbags. Never giving a cent to Wikipedia ever, as it is clear it is now a political platform, away from its intended purpose, and for one very specific country.

How much have you given in the past?

Re: Mar-a-Lago Face

#5

Post by moralestapia » Sat, Aug 09, 2025, 10:38 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #4

moralestapia wrote: post #3

Despicable, really. So now it's suddenly ok to ridicule the appearance of women Weren't they supposed to be their allies? What a bunch of sc*mbags. Never giving a cent to Wikipedia ever, as it is clear it is now a political platform, away from its intended purpose, and for one very specific country.

How much have you given in the past?

That doesn't make any difference.

Weird.

Re: Mar-a-Lago Face

#6

Post by cobbzilla » Sat, Aug 09, 2025, 11:08 PM UTC

I frankly didn’t know much about Kristi Noam until the most recent South Park piqued my curiosity. I found this fascinating gem of an article diving into a wikipedia rabbit hole.

Re: Mar-a-Lago Face

#7

Post by arresin » Sun, Aug 10, 2025, 12:13 AM UTC

Is this dailymail style editorial appropriate for Wikipedia?

Re: Mar-a-Lago Face

#8

Post by bediger4000 » Sun, Aug 10, 2025, 12:56 AM UTC

moralestapia wrote: post #3

Despicable, really. So now it's suddenly ok to ridicule the appearance of women Weren't they supposed to be their allies? What a bunch of sc*mbags. Never giving a cent to Wikipedia ever, as it is clear it is now a political platform, away from its intended purpose, and for one very specific country.

Very strange! This article had the opposite effect on me. I just donated.

Re: Mar-a-Lago Face

#9

Post by pavel_lishin » Sun, Aug 10, 2025, 1:49 AM UTC

moralestapia wrote: post #5

pavel_lishin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much have you given in the past?

That doesn't make any difference. Weird.

It does. If you've never donated to Wikipedia, then saying you'll never donate means nothing, as you weren't likely to start anyway. It would have all the weight of a vegan telling us they're going to start boycotting a local steakhouse.

Re: Mar-a-Lago Face

#10

Post by moralestapia » Sun, Aug 10, 2025, 4:34 AM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #9

moralestapia wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make any difference. Weird.

It does. If you've never donated to Wikipedia, then saying you'll never donate means nothing, as you weren't likely to start anyway. It would have all the weight of a vegan telling us they're going to start boycotting a local steakhouse.

Me donating or not donating does not make Wikipedia more or less political.

It's so dumb that I have to explicitly state this, but apparently is necessary.