The only President I recognize is

You’ll regularly find a link to a secondary source that contains a reference to a primary source. If you just want generically available historical, scientific, or broadly epistemological knowledge, its great. If you want an on-the-ground testimonial from an eye-witness, it may give you the start of a breadcrumb trail towards your destination.

That said, the bias endemic to Wikipedia is largely a product of its origins - primarily English, western media focused, heavily populated by editors from a handful of global north countries. If you want to learn about the history of a mayoralty in Saskatchewan going back to the 18th century, its a rich resource. If you want to find out the political valence of the major political parties of Nepal or Azerbaijan, you’ll find a much thinner resource.

Some of that is a consequence of the editors (or absence of them) around a particular topic. Some of that is a consequence of the moderators/admins graylisting or outright blacklisting sources. Newer sources - 404media, for instance - aren’t tracked while older sources that have changed management significantly and lost some of their trustworthiness - WSJ, CBS, National Geographic, as recent examples.

jihadists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Arabic word that means “exerting”, “striving”, or “struggling”, particularly with a praiseworthy aim

Curious choice of words.

To a degree. But you also run into the classic XKCD problem of Citogenesis. This isn’t a hypothetical, either.

Had you, for instance, mentioned something you read about your own historical house on Wikipedia in the city’s newspaper, it would now be a cited piece of information that Wikipedia links onto.

There’s also the problem of link rot. When your small town newspaper gets bought up by ClearChannel or Sinclair media and the back archives locked down or purged, the link to the original information can’t be referenced anymore.

That’s before you get into the back-end politics of Wikipedia - a heavy bias towards western media sources, European language publications, and state officials who are de facto “quotable” in a way outsider sources and investigators are not. Architectural Digest is a valid source in a way BanMe’s Architecture Review Blog is not. That has nothing to do with the veracity of the source and everything to do with the history and distribution of the publication.

Gotta keep the Boy Who Cried Wolf around in case there’s a wolf.

I have heard the smoke alarm many, many times.

I have never been in a burning bidding

Misread that as

I don’t have chicken

Only thing you can do is crack a door and take a peak.

There’s just enough communists to lose an election but never enough to win one. Truly, the liberal electoral it’s paradox.

But where is the lie? Eric Adams, Andrew Cuomo, and Curtis Sliwa were all stabbed in the back by the Leftists, costing the city three perfectly liberal Mayors.

Fascists never threaten capitalism

Glancing at the Argentinian economy

Directly, maybe. But the fallout of fascism has ruined more than one billionaire.

No Gods No Mayors

It’s not “Vote;” it’s “Vote and…”

I’d almost say it’s “… Yadda yadda yadda, and Vote”. Voting is quick, relatively easy, and largely insignificant. We blow it out of proportion, mostly so we can scream at equally impotent people voting for someone different.

But when you have a large engaged community of activists all working toward a desired outcome, that begins to look a lot like a voting base, too.

Discrete! Elegant! Precise!

Our Children Is Learning!

See, I feel like ‘can read a book every month or so’ isn’t all that much.

Can’t read a book if you’re wasting all your time online reading posts.

you don’t understand that simple idea despite reading it

What if simple ideas aren’t the best way to view the world? What if you need to understand complex ideas?

But how do you convey complex ideas to a large audience efficiently? Do you drown them in walls of text? Or do you break down the complex ideas into shorter, discrete components?

Think about it this way. Do you read a book all at once, cover to cover, in one sitting? Or do you tackle it by paragraphs and chapters, bit by bit, over an extended period of time?

This is bad. It’s the opposite of good.

It’s a heuristic for absorbing information that’s predicated on people not having infinite time or attention.

Lots of Wall Of Text posts aren’t actually worth reading.

In an ecosystem full of text-based discussions, a single individual putting up an enormous wall of text that fails to engage the reader is often ignored in favor of a number of smaller posts layout out the argument piecemeal.

Also, iterative comments expressing the same view in a few short words can reinforce the idea as popular in the eyes of a reader. A long winded spiel can come across as defensive, by comparison, and weaken the argument in the end.

The Neoconservative Counterrevolution

Many of the early neoconservatives were members of “the family,” Murray Kempton’s apt designation for that disputatious tribe otherwise known as the New York intellectuals. They had come of age in the 1930s at the City College of New York (CCNY), a common destination for smart working-class Jews who otherwise might have attended Ivy League schools, where quotas prohibited much Jewish enrollment until after World War II.

Gertrude Himmelfarb, Irving Kristol, and their milieu learned the art of polemics during years spent in the CCNY cafeteria’s celebrated Alcove No. 1, where young Trotskyists waged ideological warfare against the Communist students who occupied Alcove No. 2. During their flirtations with Trotskyism in the 1930s, when tussles with other radical students seemed like a matter of life and death, future neoconservatives developed habits of mind that never atrophied.

They held on to their combative spirits, their fondness for sweeping declarations, and their suspicion of leftist dogma. Such an epistemological background endowed neoconservatives with what seemed like an intuitive capacity for critiquing New Left arguments. They were uniquely qualified for the job of translating New Left discourses for a conservative movement fervent in its desire to know its enemy.

deleted by creator

Cited the Simple Sabotage Field Manual and mentioned how it was used against civil rights organizers, anti-war demonstrators, and labor organizers.

Got called a Tankie.

Crazy how the term seems to shut down the higher brain functions for certain people.

Also, the machine costs $500B/year to operate and generates less than $2B in gross revenue. So John Shareholder is going to need a multi-trillion dollar bailout in a year or two.