BBC cheering and encouraging ideological censorship of wikipedia
(www.bbc.co.uk)
Comments (51)
sorted by:
Everyone buy and hold on to as many print books as you can, especially history books.
And, unironically, kids books, especially Dr Seuss.
Also old Tinpan Alley-era music, like “Chestnuts Roasting”… As we know, they’ve already started censoring words. Just wait until the whole song is “problematic”!!
Reminds me of collecting Pre-War books in Fallout 3 or safekeeping books in Fahrenheit 451
I agree with this thought, and I have been doing this for awhile.
Anytime the media calls a group of people "deniers" it's a pretty good indication that whatever is being denied isn't undeniable.
Anyone heard Scientology's take on covid etc and these morons taking the limelight of "The Science"?
I hope BBC donates to the beggars of wiki because i will not.
Since we are going through de-dollarization we must shut down our nuclear plants and stop burning coal and start buying US gas.
I hope they fucking don't, the BBC shouldn't be "donating" any taxpayers money at all
Wikipedia hasn't got any credibility since feminist cancers got extra credit from editing its pages 15 years ago.
This is a good topic to introduce wikispooks.com. It is a work in progress and could use from all of our collaboration. Basically non woke/censored wikipedia. Spread it around boys!!
Stop fueling Deluezian territorialization. You need to let go of these liberal myths such as rational debate forming the basis of societal organization. The midwit vehemently defends leftist positions because he recognizes that adopting the state religion will help him advance. Political formulas are a post-hoc rationalization for establishing the right to rule. If literally Hitler took over tomorrow, the progressive midwits would instantly claim they were always national socialists, much like the many people that loyally served the Third Republic, the Vichy regime, and the de Gaulle regime without an ounce of cognitive dissonance. The only thing that matter is removing the entire governing managerial class from power and smashing their infrastructure.
Read some Mosca, Pareto, Bernays, Lippmann, de Jouvenel, Burnham, and Sam Francis.
If facts and logic could stop the poz, Thomas Sowell would have done it single-handedly 50 years ago. Yet, the west has only accelerated away from reality towards insanity. Where is your evidence that rational debate has ever been a driving force of policy? Technic advancement isn't politics, and there is no such thing as scientific governance. If you haven't noticed, Science™ can't even figure out what genders are anymore because governing elites have dictated it as such.
Spez; Moldbug's Cathedral is good starting point for understanding how western government functions, but you should really pickup Mosca, Pareto, de Jouvenel, and Sam Francis for an more in-depth analysis. Bernays and Lippmann give a wonderful breakdown of how the "invisible controllers" of public opinion engineer consent.
Your clear aversion to reading explains your ignorance of Sowell.
So they must become the meme and can not see outside of it? They must be with the in group, or something is wrong. Therefore the in group uses stranger and stranger ways to control, because that's all they have.
The popular kids with nothing to show in life except popularity.
They'll probably do about as well as they did with Vietnam and Afghanistan. An army set to fight an army can not fight the mafia style of guerilla warfare.
Love seeing a high IQ take. I don't know if "dopamine" is literally the key here, but I think you're on to something.
But if it's the brain seeking a reward ("dopamine" if you will) it's a little unfair to compare it to an addict seeking a high. I mean almost all good and bad behavior is the individual seeking a rewarding feeling.
"You have to read through about 100 pages of scientific information to edit a sentence," says the David, with no scientific background or related field knowledge.
This is why people really should listen to the rule of Don't Source Wikipedia. It's being curated by Joe Bloggs now. It has been for decades since it got too big in scope.
There's a reason why dictionaries gave you spelling, encyclopaedias gave you basics and other books specialised.
Are you forgetting William Connelly? He rewrote 5400 climate articles by 2009, that number can only have gone up.