censorship

censorship

log in
sign up
subreddits
search
sidebar

Wikipedia has become a one-sided 'thought police' for liberals, cofounder warns. "In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources — and sources friendly to globalist progressivism — are permitted"(justthenews.com)

118 points117 points120 points submitted by Chipit

[deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 2 years ago

Chipit - I am merely offering some history about the source and why he's got an axe to gind. It's that simple. I didn't say that Sanger is a bad person or anything about his personal life. We should cross-examine sources, just as Sanger has done to cross-examine Wikipedia. There are right-wing writers on Wikipedia, for what it's worth. Regarding the points he'e made, there isn't much legitimately corroborated material on the so-called "The Biden Family Ukraine Scandal", or the "The Biden Family Chinese Deals", or some of his claims about the so-called "Antifa/BLM riots". There are serious holes in all of those arguments, due to lack of evidence, or also evidence to the contrary.

Let's pick "Antifa/BLM riots" as an example. First, during the BLM peaceful protests, 'antifa' was only a few people in each state, and not organized nationally. Portland had the only organized group that could be called 'antifa'. The Trump admin made this seem like an organized national movement at the time of the peaceful BLM protests, a small portion of which became riots. 99% of the BLM protests were not riots, but of course Sanger wants us to believe the disinformation about this. There are also numerous videos, shared at places like Reddit's /r/PublicFreakout that offered definitive proof of white, out of town, agitators in full black gear, torching buildings and murdering unarmed, peaceful protestors. Wikipedia has a responsibility to avoid disinformation and phrases like "Antifa/BLM riots". Do you agree?

Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun 2 years ago

https://thenationalpulse.com/bidenleaks/

Go check Biden's laptop yourself.

First, during the BLM peaceful protests, 'antifa' was only a few people in each state, and not organized nationally.

[citation needed]

Portland had the only organized group that could be called 'antifa'.

[citation needed]

The Trump admin made this seem like an organized national movement at the time of the peaceful BLM protests, a small portion of which became riots.

[citation needed]

99% of the BLM protests were not riots, but of course Sanger wants us to believe the disinformation about this.

[citation needed]

There are also numerous videos, shared at places like Reddit's /r/PublicFreakout that offered definitive proof of white, out of town, agitators in full black gear, torching buildings and murdering unarmed, peaceful protestors.

[citation needed] and suddenly Reddit is a credible source?

You're arguing against yourself. And losing.

JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun 2 years ago

LOL and A+ for good work.

[deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 2 years ago

Chipit - you do realize, I hope - that you are attacking me in both of your statements, providing no counter arguments - other than one link - and expecting me to offer arguments. Regarding the one bit of evidence you want to use, thenationalpulse.com is entirely focused on extreme right-wing propaganda and disinformation. It's not a credible source, as you must know. You're proven with that link that you are not concerned with credible sources. Work on your arguments, supported by reliable, corroborated evidence.

Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun 2 years ago

Yes, that's how it works. Cite sources! Make arguments! Personal attacks aren't arguments!

is entirely focused on extreme right-wing propaganda and disinformation

You're doing it again. You're not making arguments, you're attempting a character assassination. Likely because you can't refute the fact that the laptop's raw data is right there on the site. I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

[deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 2 years ago

The webside is not trustworthy, obviously. For example: how were those laptop contents obtained? How do we know that those are the actual contents? Because someone said so? Think about the sources and why they are not trustworthy. Those laptop contents were changed in order to fit the narrative at that website. It is obvious, common sense, logical, and there is no link that will provide the actual laptop contents because those sites cannot be trusted to provide the actual contents. Do you understand why this doesn't work?

Instead of attacking me, for the 3rd time, provide an argument and reliable evidence.

JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun 2 years ago

There are serious holes in all of those arguments, due to lack of evidence, or also evidence to the contrary.

There are serious holes in all of socks' arguments, due to lack of evidence, or also OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.