Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

Really bad attempt at wiki-lawyering, and borderline defamatory as they are attempting to weasel accuse him of a crime. Someone else (correctly) points out that since the rifle never in fact left the state of WI, its a big, fat who gives a fuck about Illinois law on the matter (IL has such shit gun laws I've known of people who made out of their way detours around the state when traveling with guns in the car).
That’s Wikipedia for you go hijacked by far left while other times it’s down right normal on occasion. Other Times it’s infected by people who want to hide something.
 
bros you have until the 15th to bid on this incredible piece of history
nft.png
 
Someone else (correctly) points out that since the rifle never in fact left the state of WI, its a big, fat who gives a fuck about Illinois law on the matter (IL has such shit gun laws I've known of people who made out of their way detours around the state when traveling with guns in the car).
It's for a reason that the state version of Heller v. D.C. is McDonald v. Washington.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The Sacred Chao
Sorry bigot, but /pol/ Pot was literally a far-right white supremacist, that's why he was killing so many minorities
If you're on the political compass at all, you're a nazi. That's just how it works, sweetie :)
You have to be off the chart all the way to the left to even count as a moderate.
It's fucking depressing that this is sarcasm yet there are actual lefties who call commies right wing because they murdered people and were dictators. Even worse when they say actually it's ok they murdered millions because communism wants to free people from oppression.
 
It's fucking depressing that this is sarcasm yet there are actual lefties who call commies right wing because they murdered people and were dictators. Even worse when they say actually it's ok they murdered millions because communism wants to free people from oppression.
My favorite is leftists calling commies right-wing because they were anti-gay.
 

After a massive fucking paragraph calling this declaration antiscience bigotry despite it's draftees being elitst Haarvard types the opening of the article tops it off with this



I've not checked the sources but I am 100% certain knowing how wikipedos morph words I'm betting this institue funded a look into politicizing climate warming or whatever they call it now or told climate alarmists like Kerry to fuck off already.
So you got me to look at the sources for this:
1639122487235.png


The Byline Times will publish literally anything apparently. lolcow Jake Alley has published a conspiracy theory about Steve Bannon in The Byline Times. Even worse than this is when you go to the two articles by Ahmed (who is directly employed by The Byline Times), his sources are "documents seen by" himself:
1639122589752.png


And more "documents seen by" that say that the group has paid another group in the past and that same group was paid by the Kochs in the past too:
1639122661777.png


The third source is a published article by a psychologist who makes almost an exactly similar claim similar to the Wiki article:
1639122801995.png


His source for this is this "commentary" at Grantham Institute, a climate change think tank: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminsti...ing-denial-of-health-and-environmental-risks/

So the three sources for this claim are "documents seen by" that established that AEIR has been funded by and has funded groups that have ties to other groups and a paper which makes a claim that sources back to a single article by a climate change think tank.

It seems they are right about AEIR, but the sources they use to back it up are awful. The source I eventually found through that paper is a far better source, he links to actual multiple AEIR publications that "deny" climate change and make other supposedly wacky claims. This is far better evidence than conspiracy theorizing about evil ties to the KOCH NETWORK and BIG OIL MONEY.
 
This is nothing egregious compared to the rest of the thread but I was reading the page for American Sniper and the baby doll has a section of its own:

1639187349061.png


Why would someone think something this specific that only appears for less than a minute is worthy of a section? And why did they choose to quote three people in full for this when it amounts to absolutely nothing? Just why?
 
Last edited:
This is nothing egregious compared to the rest of the thread but I was reading the page for American Sniper and the baby doll has a section of its own:

View attachment 2790860

Why would someone think something this specific that only appears for less than a minute is worthy of a section? And why did they choose to quote two people in full for this when it amounts to absolutely nothing? Just why?
They hate the movie because it's patriotic and want to grasp at anything to make it sound like a joke.
 
Back