221–230 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Occasionally people shoehorn it into conversations thinking it's more inclusive (it's not) when in reality it just confuses people unnecessarily.
at least stallmans "pers" makes sense and is grokable after seeing it a few times
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> advocating for whitelisting of sources like Fox News As I understood it, he wasn't advocating for whitelisting Fox News, he was advocating for removing the blacklist. That's a stark difference. > it's not a good look for Sanger either way. What doesn't look good for him? It doesn't seem that he has an intent other than enabling the viewpoint of those other than the far-left, which compromise almost the entirety of…
>he was advocating for removing the blacklist. Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. If he got his way the website would quickly be overrun with right wing misinformation campaigns. I hope he stays banned.
I'd rather see neither side successfully oust the other. But it seems that the left got there first and is entrenched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>he was advocating for removing the blacklist. Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. If he got his way the website would quickly be overrun with right wing misinformation campaigns. I hope he stays banned.
For many topics Wikipedia is well known to be overrun with left wing campaigns - LGBT, and US political topics chief among them. I'd rather see neither side successfully oust the other. But it seems that the left got there first and is entrenched.
There is a long history here, and if you are looking at just the WikiProject and the community ban discussion, you are missing a Hell of a lot. Very short background: Larry Sanger left Wikipedia in 2003. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/707321 Sanger went on to set up Citizendium, a wiki encyclopaedia project organized the way that xe thought one should be organized, with an extensive rulebase and 'consta…
Maybe not particularly relevant, but I'm noticing you using "xe" pronouns for Sanger. Why is that? Just wondering if I am missing more context.
I don’t think he’s ever explained his intentions with "Xe" on HN. My guess is that forcing “Xe” somehow gives him pleasure, neverminding the misunderstanding it incurs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, banned by the status quo for trying to disturb it. Wikipedia is nowadays highly politicized and more time and energy are spent on politics than on actually contributing with any useful knowledge. I've stopped contributing years ago after a decade of writing because of how bad things had gotten. It's a lost battle, all that remains is scorched earth filled with toxic editors trying to push their POV and banning e…
Yeah, try to make any substantive change on many pages and you'll get met with a barrage of "WP:OR! WP:POV! WP:NPS! WP:WTF!" and don't fall into the amateur trap (that certain editors hope you will) of reverting their reversion. They'll look to get you blocked for a revert war. "What should I do then?" "You should respond to my comments on the Talk page for why I reverted you." "But you haven't made any comments on t…
> "But you haven't made any comments on the Talk page about that."
Well then, make that comment yourself and you can go ahead and revert it later if the other person does not respond.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be confusing a couple of things. Nazis couldn't care less about the "west". In fact, in the Nazi world view, Jews already controlled most of western contries. They were, first and foremost, "aryan" supremacists (not white supremacists, as commonly understand today), and saw the world under a dialectic lens of Aryans vs. everyone else. There is no "west" there. The people who most talk about "Cultural Marxis…
Please read the article I linked. It addresses both of your points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not particularly relevant, but I'm noticing you using "xe" pronouns for Sanger. Why is that? Just wondering if I am missing more context.
The GP (Jonathan Pollard) has been using the “Xe” pronouns on other people since about 2015. I think he’s also edited/argued for unusual pronouns on Wikipedia as late as 2025. I don’t think he’s ever explained his intentions with "Xe" on HN. My guess is that forcing “Xe” somehow gives him pleasure, neverminding the misunderstanding it incurs.
(I'm not necessarily endorsing his screed here... but it is one of my "favorite" bits of Stallmanism. His first entry in the "subsequent notes" section makes me laugh every time.)
edit: oh, this user actually has a similar piece on xe/xem pronouns on his website! excellent. this pleases me greatly (no sarcasm).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's a rephrasing of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, which was at the core of Breivik's Manifesto. A conspiracy theory that originated as "Cultural Bolshevism", the justification the actual Nazis used to justify their mass murder.
False and a non sequitur.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a documented leftist political strategy [0].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please read the article I linked. It addresses both of your points.
I read it. In my second reading, I found nothing that contradict the first point, and that address the second point. If you found otherwise, could you cite the relevant sections?
> Jewish Bolshevism, also Judeo–Bolshevism, is an antisemitic, anti-communist conspiracy theory, and myth[2] that claims that a Jewish conspiracy was behind the Russian Revolution of 1917, controlled the Soviet Union and international communist movements, and had a secret plan to control or destroy Western civilization; or, more generally, it is the antisemitic myth that Bolshevism was fundamentally Jewish.[3] It was one of the main Nazi beliefs that served as an ideological justification for the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the Holocaust.[4]
I had a history education in Austria, a big part of it was trying to teach how we ever got to the atrocities that were committed, and as part of that we were thought how the Nazi ideological apparatus worked.
The conflating of Jewishness and Communism was a key pillar of their ideology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For many topics Wikipedia is well known to be overrun with left wing campaigns - LGBT, and US political topics chief among them. I'd rather see neither side successfully oust the other. But it seems that the left got there first and is entrenched.
For many topics right wing ideas are just factually incorrect. This isn't Wikipedia's fault.