Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[UERISIMILITUDO]

I also want to mention that I hate this shit which can only be understood properly as written text. Accuse someone of jacking off in an oral argument and see how well that goes. It's for this reason I also hate emojis.

I decided to read that RationalWiki link out of curiosity:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions (archive)

Caveats​

Second, it should be clear that "just asking questions" only applies when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, and where the questioner exhibits willful ignorance.

Oy vey, millions of people can't be wrong. These retards probably would've killed Socrates. To be fair, I probably also would've killed Socrates, but still.

 

[AnOminous]

Oy vey, millions of people can't be wrong. These retards probably would've killed Socrates. To be fair, I probably also would've killed Socrates, but still.

Socrates forced the state to kill him because he despised democracy and its stupidity and wanted them to display in the most brutish possible way that the state's proclaimed ideals were bullshit.

He was both right and wrong, but you can't say he didn't use the Socratic method to force Athenian society to discredit its own philosophy.

Of course if Plato is to be believed he was a pederast.

 

[Alex Hogendorp]

Wikipedia is notorious for their massive double standards.

If that isn't insulting enough, they also like to claim to have the moral high ground on freedom of speech and abuse that argument if things don't go their way.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

Wikipedia is notorious for their massive double standards.
View attachment 5349984
If that isn't insulting enough, they also like to claim to have the moral high ground on freedom of speech and abuse that argument if things don't go their way.

They still claim that Fentanyl Floyd's death was a “murder” and actively locked the page to prevent people from adding in the truth or calling the overdose what it was because “the courts said it was murder”. Of course, they never do this for any other death that could reasonably be called a murder that somebody wasn't convicted for.

 

[WhiteNight]

They still claim that Fentanyl Floyd's death was a “murder” and actively locked the page to prevent people from adding in the truth or calling the overdose what it was because “the courts said it was murder”. Of course, they never do this for any other death that could reasonably be called a murder that somebody wasn't convicted for.

It is instructive to compare their policy that conviction at trial is absolute truth with other controversial cases.

Mumia Abu-Jamal (Wesley Cook) is the opposite situation, a black man convicted of killing a white cop. His guilt is clear, but the article is happy to share doubts about and criticisms of his trial:

Mumia Abu-Jamal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mumia writes books, does shows, and even has a street in Paris named after him. This article starts off calling him "a polarizing figure":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal_in_popular_culture

Numerous commentators have written articles raising serious issues with the St. Floyd trials (Example), but those apparently count for nothing.

For an older case, consider Hurricane Carter, a black boxer who was convicted of the murder of three white people. The evidence against him was compelling, but after decades of exhaustive appeals, he won the right to a new trial. Prosecutors decided that trying him again after so long (key witnesses were dead) was not practical and so dropped the case. Does this mean he's innocent?

Wikipedia declares unambiguously that he was "wrongfully" convicted.

 

[RobertDole]

Another one is Leo Frank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank

You know things are going to be juicy when there are 10 archived talk pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:...lame_a_black_man_who_was_never_tried_in_court

 

[Flaming Insignias]

Another one is Leo Frank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank

View attachment 5350578

You know things are going to be juicy when there are 10 archived talk pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leo_Frank/Archive_10#Concerns_about_invalidating_the_outcome_of_a_legally_concluded_trial_based_on_a_'consensus'_that_offers_no_sources,_the_attempts_to_blame_a_black_man_who_was_never_tried_in_court

View attachment 5350583

Atlanta was a haven for Southern Jews since the Antebellum Era, and they were absolutely treated well by the law. On the flipside, it was the height of Jim Crow, and the law was known to be lax on proving the guilt of black defendants (even if many of them absolutely were guilty), so the fact that the courts refused to believe the efforts to frame a severely mentally disabled black man and even the Klan refused to go along with the claim that Conley did it makes the claim that the kike bastard was innocent blatantly absurd.

The ADL was founded on lies, and they will do anything to protect their image as a defender of the poor persecuted Jews from being Shoah'd by those evil White Christians.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Atlanta was a haven for Southern Jews since the Antebellum Era, and they were absolutely treated well by the law. On the flipside, it was the height of Jim Crow, and the law was known to be lax on proving the guilt of black defendants (even if many of them absolutely were guilty), so the fact that the courts refused to believe the efforts to frame a severely mentally disabled black man and even the Klan refused to go along with the claim that Conley did it makes the claim that the kike bastard was innocent blatantly absurd.

The ADL was founded on lies, and they will do anything to protect their image as a defender of the poor persecuted Jews from being Shoah'd by those evil White Christians.

Leo Frank was not a southern Jew, he was a carpetbagger. There were many carpetbagging Jews in the South at the time, and many took occupations like Leo Frank had. Industrialization was not popular in many segments of the South since it meant being exploited by capitalists (many of whom were Jewish, and not even the local Jews) working 18 hour days in factories (a new thing, since the South was agrarian where the schedule is sunrise to sunset) and getting your hands chopped off in the machinery. Why is it a stretch to observe that since black people like to rape and murder white women, and some industrialized parts of the early 20th century South really didn't like carpetbagging Jews, that maybe, just maybe, Leo Frank actually was innocent?

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Leo Frank was not a southern Jew, he was a carpetbagger. There were many carpetbagging Jews in the South at the time, and many took occupations like Leo Frank had. Industrialization was not popular in many segments of the South since it meant being exploited by capitalists (many of whom were Jewish, and not even the local Jews) working 18 hour days in factories (a new thing, since the South was agrarian where the schedule is sunrise to sunset) and getting your hands chopped off in the machinery. Why is it a stretch to observe that since black people like to rape and murder white women, and some industrialized parts of the early 20th century South really didn't like carpetbagging Jews, that maybe, just maybe, Leo Frank actually was innocent?

Because every eyewitness every bit of testimony points to Leo Frank as the perpetrator not the black guy he literally was convicted by a jury of his peers and only wasn't executed because he was friends with the governor

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Because every eyewitness every bit of testimony points to Leo Frank as the perpetrator not the black guy he literally was convicted by a jury of his peers and only wasn't executed because he was friends with the governor

The eyewitnesses are contradictory and the best evidence suggests that the negro murdered the girl for her purse and paycheck and then managed to pin the crime on his boss (whom no one liked). Looking at the investigation and the circumstances surrounding the trial and its prosecution, Leo Frank's trial was just as rigged against him as Derek Chauvin, right down to the mobs outside the courthouse intimidating the jury.

But I'm honestly curious. Can you give me a link to someone arguing Leo Frank's guilt that isn't someone with an axe to grind against Jews or the ADL?

 

[WhiteNight]

But I'm honestly curious. Can you give me a link to someone arguing Leo Frank's guilt that isn't someone with an axe to grind against Jews or the ADL?

It's an old case but you can probably find books on it. I would guess that people in this thread don't know much about it either and only read the basics (this includes me).

The jury could have gotten it wrong. Happens all the time. It's happening now. But I don't buy the ADL's story that he was convicted for being Jewish. Nor however do I accept that the South is so darned racist they would've strung up the black janitor if there were any hint of guilt. It's a complex case with aged evidence, so there's no substitute for a very deep dive.

No one can seriously care about this case today other than to score cheap political points. I don't believe any normie Jews are living their lives bothered about what happened to poor Leo Frank.

 

[Molly White's Breast Milk]

Leo Frank was not a southern Jew, he was a carpetbagger. There were many carpetbagging Jews in the South at the time, and many took occupations like Leo Frank had. Industrialization was not popular in many segments of the South since it meant being exploited by capitalists (many of whom were Jewish, and not even the local Jews) working 18 hour days in factories (a new thing, since the South was agrarian where the schedule is sunrise to sunset) and getting your hands chopped off in the machinery. Why is it a stretch to observe that since black people like to rape and murder white women, and some industrialized parts of the early 20th century South really didn't like carpetbagging Jews, that maybe, just maybe, Leo Frank actually was innocent?

Found the jew.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

Leo Frank was not a southern Jew, he was a carpetbagger. There were many carpetbagging Jews in the South at the time, and many took occupations like Leo Frank had. Industrialization was not popular in many segments of the South since it meant being exploited by capitalists (many of whom were Jewish, and not even the local Jews) working 18 hour days in factories (a new thing, since the South was agrarian where the schedule is sunrise to sunset) and getting your hands chopped off in the machinery. Why is it a stretch to observe that since black people like to rape and murder white women, and some industrialized parts of the early 20th century South really didn't like carpetbagging Jews, that maybe, just maybe, Leo Frank actually was innocent?

Yeah I’m going to need a source on the 18 hours a day crybaby shit

 

[Ewan McGregor]

But I'm honestly curious. Can you give me a link to someone arguing Leo Frank's guilt that isn't someone with an axe to grind against Jews or the ADL?

On the other hand, it would appear you want to play devil's advocate here in no small reason because you have an axe to grind against niggers.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Extremely hard to find decent sources and coverage on Leo Frank and his trial, given the ADL has spent about 100 years manufacturing and engineering shit to make him look clean.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

What's a carpet-bagger?

 

[Briananderson1138]

What's a carpet-bagger?

A carpetbagger is a Yankee commercial adventurer who moved South to exploit the disorder, poverty, and degradation of the South subsequent to the Civil War. They are, in the progressive view of postwar Southern history, frequently neglected or excused in order to explain all Southern societal problems as the result of fanatical Negro-hatred.

 

[JJLiautaud]

What's a carpet-bagger?

Someone from the north who moved to the south to exploit political and or economic opportunities after the defeat of the confederacy, named after their luggage.

 

[WhiteNight]

What's a carpet-bagger?

C'mon, use Wikipedia.

 

[alpha889boba]

I've noticed more and more on Wikipedia, out of place counter argument sections defending some concept or philosophy against an imagined right wing argument. Its not like a typical criticism or commentary section on other pages, more jarring. And its usually a stretch of an argument. Like asking someone about crime generally and having a rando appear and talk about how black people don't cause more crime. Its just off topic from the rest of the article.

Case and point, on the Equality of Outcomes page, there is a huge section called "Conflation with Marxism, socialism and communism" that sticks out like sore thumb. Nowhere else in the article is communism brought up, except this section that says its mistakenly conflated with those ideologies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome#Conflation_with_Marxism,_socialism_and_communism

I would figure like other articles where its not relevant based on the sources and writing in the rest of the article, why is a counter argument saying it has nothing to do with it in there at all. If it has nothing to do with it, according to primary sources even, why include it.