Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grokipedia and the coup against reality

thedissident.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 214 posts

Re: Grokipedia and the coup against reality

#161

Post by GeoAtreides »

quotemstr wrote: post #101

Leaving culture war articles aside, I think having on other subjects, a diversity of perspectives is legitimate. Consider a personal interest of mine, the dark ages in Europe after the fall of the western Roman empire. The Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) ) is a one-sided presentation that begins with denying the historical reality of a period called "the dark ages", contin…

>its editors see themselves as enforcers of academic orthodoxy.

Correct, that's exactly what I want from encyclopedia, the current academic consensus on a topic. Digging deeper on a topic requires moving to other sources, like books and specialized literature.

Re: Grokipedia and the coup against reality

#163

Post by gadders »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #108
gadders wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad hominem attack. Nice one.

They don't deserve a single iota of respect, are a total joke & nightmare for the world, feeding lies and disinformation to the world. Would be plutocrats Koch Brothers, Harlan Crow, Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, Chris twitter-poster-shit-show-freaking Rufo?! A whose who of extreme conservatives eager to get us back to the 1850's. Here's some sites from about covering them, in gentle neutral terms, but Manha…

They are the counter-balance to far left people like George Soros and his numerous foundations.

Re: Grokipedia and the coup against reality

#164

Post by gadders »

tigerali wrote: post #133
gadders wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad hominem attack. Nice one.

as an attorney, the lowest form of scum on earth is someone pulling out so-called logical fallacies and thinking that is an argument. perhaps i thought your clearly biased "institute" didn't deserve any more feedback than that

[flagged]

Re: Grokipedia and the coup against reality

#166

Post by cess11 »

gadders wrote: post #165
cess11 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a far-right lobby group.

But do you disagree with their conclusions? What about Larry Sanger?

You can't reason with fascists so the 'but they say things I agree with sometimes' is irrelevant. Either you keep pushing them out of public spaces and undermine their ability to organise regardless of whether they manage to say something innocuous or dress nicely for once, or you're at best lacking in knowledge about how the movement functions but more likely a sympathiser.

Sanger has been voicing politically motivated antipathy towards Wikipedia for a quarter of a century or so, and worked for competing projects for most of that time. This includes supporting far-right nasties like The Heritage Foundation.

Re: Grokipedia and the coup against reality

#167

Post by Rover222 »

tomhow wrote: post #153
Rover222 wrote: post #32

[flagged]

The sentiment behind your comment has merit, but the content and style are inflammatory and count as flamebait, which is why the comment has been flagged and killed. HN intended purpose is curious conversation, and phrases like this are not consistent with that ideal: > I'd challenge someone to provide > It's disturbing how indoctrinated in ... thought > if you think ... you are truly indoctrinated Please take a mome…

Okay, understood

Re: Grokipedia and the coup against reality

#168

Post by Rover222 »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #146
Rover222 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is. You're saying there is no objective truth, and there is not point in trying for it?

> You're saying there is no objective truth, and there is not point in trying for it? Not exactly but kinda. I'd like to think it's less nihilistic than this makes it sound, at least. Here's a definition which I think is a good working one: https://www.wordnik.com/words/bias > A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. To attempt to answer the question directly, there is still ag…

Thanks for the thoughtful response, lots to think about.

Re: Grokipedia and the coup against reality

#169

Post by gadders »

cess11 wrote: post #166
gadders wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do you disagree with their conclusions? What about Larry Sanger?

You can't reason with fascists so the 'but they say things I agree with sometimes' is irrelevant. Either you keep pushing them out of public spaces and undermine their ability to organise regardless of whether they manage to say something innocuous or dress nicely for once, or you're at best lacking in knowledge about how the movement functions but more likely a sympathiser. Sanger has been voicing politically motiva…

[flagged]

Re: Grokipedia and the coup against reality

#170

Post by tomhow »

Rover222 wrote: post #167
tomhow wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sentiment behind your comment has merit, but the content and style are inflammatory and count as flamebait, which is why the comment has been flagged and killed. HN intended purpose is curious conversation, and phrases like this are not consistent with that ideal: > I'd challenge someone to provide > It's disturbing how indoctrinated in ... thought > if you think ... you are truly indoctrinated Please take a mome…

Okay, understood

Cheers, many thanks.
Post reply on HN