Again, all the ‘sources’ they cite calling Dinesh a conspiracy theorist are left-wing biased. Meanwhile on the article for coomer “secretary of health” Richard Levine, there’s no mention ANYWHERE that he’s actually a man, just because HE SAID SO:
Imagine writing an article on a leftist figure and citing only right-wing news sources… oh wait that’s right, Wikipedia already bans most right-wing sources.
You... aren't familiar with GamerGate on Wikipedia, are you?
We've all seen this before. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is doing this because Dinesh is an effective right-wing agitator, speaker, and lecturer who was imprisoned by the Obama administration on trumped up charges.
Which also happens to be the reason why he's so absolutely unrelenting against the political Left. He wants them to be completely fucking raised. Some of the best anti-Leftists we have are people who were directly impacted by Leftist political aggression and violence. Like David Horowitz who realized that one of his friends he recruited into his Leftist organization was IIRC raped and murdered by the Black Panthers, whom he had also associated with and considered friends.
there’s no mention ANYWHERE that he’s actually a man, just because HE SAID SO:
Not explicitly, but the article mentions several times that he is transgender, including in the intro, which lets anyone reading know that he's really a man.
A better example would be the article for Brianna "John Walker Flynt" Wu, where there is no mention at all..
Stephen Crowder pointed this out. There's a quote from an unnamed grad student calling him a nazi as a "reliable source" while academics with degrees and published work are disqualified because they don't parrot wokeness.
"Conspiracy theorist" and its many forms are a litmus test for someone you shouldn't listen to. Anyone who uses the words for any reason is, at best, a complete moron who has nothing valuable to say. All leftist shibboleths are this way, and people are increasingly realizing it.
The MSM and its drones are the source of infinitely more conspiracy theories than anyone else, just as they're the source of more systemic racism, oppression, misinformation, and every other buzzword they throw at us.
The difference is we tend not to label these things as such. We call their racism "anti-white". We call their conspiracy theories "the narrative". And so forth. They have their diluted, meaningless words, and we have our correct ones.
and leftists use the phrase "conspiracy theorist" as justification for ignoring whomever they apply that label. Also that phrase was started by commie scum to smear those who knew what the commie scum were up to.
I once removed an "unverifiable" slur about a minor celebrity that got reverted immediately. It was from the Guardian, who even admitted in their piece that it was hearsay. One of Wikipedia's creepy sentinels kindly explained to me why:
"...we don't try to determine where a news source gets its information from or how we know it to be true. Instead, we consider the news source's reputation for accuracy."
Just flat out admitting that you can lie about someone, as long as it is from the right liar.
Instead, we consider the news source's reputation for accuracy.
Literally the problem. I think everyone here knows already, but wikipedia's move (which started at least 10 years ago) to filter and rank content based on arbitrarily-defined reliable sources was a scam to lock down the narrative. There's only a few major corporations and wire services in the entire English speaking world that decide the truth for every media outlet. Still others use wikipedia for reference, which creates a feedback loop and keeps people in a bubble. It's like a semi-decentralized Ministry of Truth. The deep state's proposed department of misinformation would have simply formalized it.
That's the heart of every Wikipedia problem. Even if you got rid of every tin pot dictator with a personal stake, it would still have the same problems because of that.
They only allow things to be on articles that are reported from elsewhere, no original research, and base which articles are worth on vague metrics that can barely be stated out loud.
Its interesting to note that wikipedia was artificially promoted and pushed to the top of all google searches despite rampant falsehoods and misinformation. Most of the success of the site is owed to Google just forcing it on everyone.
Again, all the ‘sources’ they cite calling Dinesh a conspiracy theorist are left-wing biased. Meanwhile on the article for coomer “secretary of health” Richard Levine, there’s no mention ANYWHERE that he’s actually a man, just because HE SAID SO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Levine
Imagine writing an article on a leftist figure and citing only right-wing news sources… oh wait that’s right, Wikipedia already bans most right-wing sources.
You... aren't familiar with GamerGate on Wikipedia, are you?
We've all seen this before. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is doing this because Dinesh is an effective right-wing agitator, speaker, and lecturer who was imprisoned by the Obama administration on trumped up charges.
Which also happens to be the reason why he's so absolutely unrelenting against the political Left. He wants them to be completely fucking raised. Some of the best anti-Leftists we have are people who were directly impacted by Leftist political aggression and violence. Like David Horowitz who realized that one of his friends he recruited into his Leftist organization was IIRC raped and murdered by the Black Panthers, whom he had also associated with and considered friends.
Not explicitly, but the article mentions several times that he is transgender, including in the intro, which lets anyone reading know that he's really a man.
A better example would be the article for Brianna "John Walker Flynt" Wu, where there is no mention at all..
Stephen Crowder pointed this out. There's a quote from an unnamed grad student calling him a nazi as a "reliable source" while academics with degrees and published work are disqualified because they don't parrot wokeness.
"Conspiracy theorist" and its many forms are a litmus test for someone you shouldn't listen to. Anyone who uses the words for any reason is, at best, a complete moron who has nothing valuable to say. All leftist shibboleths are this way, and people are increasingly realizing it.
I dunno, the corporate media is pretty adept at peddling conspiracy theories like Russiagate.
The MSM and its drones are the source of infinitely more conspiracy theories than anyone else, just as they're the source of more systemic racism, oppression, misinformation, and every other buzzword they throw at us.
The difference is we tend not to label these things as such. We call their racism "anti-white". We call their conspiracy theories "the narrative". And so forth. They have their diluted, meaningless words, and we have our correct ones.
QAnon has nothing on BlueAnon
and leftists use the phrase "conspiracy theorist" as justification for ignoring whomever they apply that label. Also that phrase was started by commie scum to smear those who knew what the commie scum were up to.
muh rELiAbLE SoURcEs
Dinesh D'Souza played a key role in cancelling Sam Francis. Let him burn.
Yep, he's a fucking turd.
I once removed an "unverifiable" slur about a minor celebrity that got reverted immediately. It was from the Guardian, who even admitted in their piece that it was hearsay. One of Wikipedia's creepy sentinels kindly explained to me why:
"...we don't try to determine where a news source gets its information from or how we know it to be true. Instead, we consider the news source's reputation for accuracy."
Just flat out admitting that you can lie about someone, as long as it is from the right liar.
Literally the problem. I think everyone here knows already, but wikipedia's move (which started at least 10 years ago) to filter and rank content based on arbitrarily-defined reliable sources was a scam to lock down the narrative. There's only a few major corporations and wire services in the entire English speaking world that decide the truth for every media outlet. Still others use wikipedia for reference, which creates a feedback loop and keeps people in a bubble. It's like a semi-decentralized Ministry of Truth. The deep state's proposed department of misinformation would have simply formalized it.
That's the heart of every Wikipedia problem. Even if you got rid of every tin pot dictator with a personal stake, it would still have the same problems because of that.
They only allow things to be on articles that are reported from elsewhere, no original research, and base which articles are worth on vague metrics that can barely be stated out loud.
Dinesh is a grifter. Fuck him.
2000 Mules is the most palpable content for red-pilling normies about the 2020 election.
I'm sure it is. Doesn't change the fact that he is a grifter. Just makes him more successful.
lol. he doesnt pass your personal purity test so everything he does is null and void.
Its interesting to note that wikipedia was artificially promoted and pushed to the top of all google searches despite rampant falsehoods and misinformation. Most of the success of the site is owed to Google just forcing it on everyone.