Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

What conservative stances are we allowed to have at all these days? Perhaps protesting a bit about reckless spending and debt enslaving?
You have to be all for trooning out kids...

...but only by private companies and NOT government healthcare.

Ah yes, the far right Nazi's that uncritically support Israel no matter what.
Oh they have explanations for it.
1699240973291.png
 
Can someone explain why Wikipedia has such a weird aversion to anything to do with CWC?
Maybe they see it as some kind of bullying. Making fun of a 41 year old tranny usually will get them mad. Remember, a lot of wiki editors have the same mindset as Redditors.
 
There is a lot of autism and debate to be had about whether if the far right is actually far right, and if the nazis were so, but it's ultimately pointless.
It kind of tramples all over the very concept of the Nazis being sui generis and "ontologically evil" if they're just "far right" just like everything else the propagandists at Wikipedia don't like. If they're all just exactly the same anyway why should we even care about Nazis?
 
Today I saw the term "Far Right" being applied to Vladimir Mitrofanovich Purishkevich (dead by 1920)

Vladimir Mitrofanovich Purishkevich (Russian: Влади́мир Митрофа́нович Пуришке́вич, IPA: [pʊrʲɪˈʂkʲevʲɪt͡ɕ]; 24 August [O.S. 12 August] 1870, Kishinev – 1 February 1920, Novorossiysk, Russia) was a far-right politician in Imperial Russia, noted for his monarchist, ultra-nationalist, antisemitic and anticommunist views. Because of his restless behaviour, he was regarded as a loose cannon. At the end of 1916, he participated in the killing of Grigori Rasputin.

Make of that what you will.
 
Literally all of those are completely mainstream basic shit for a Russian nobleman in the 1900s and 1910s.

I know they would argue "But far right is appropriate because muh French Revolution"

Bitch, you and I we both know by "Far Right" we are not talking about people really really into getting the House of Bourbon back on the throne of France.

Speaking of which:

Insanity
 
Why even have the neutral point of view rule if it's not being enforced?
View attachment 5475478

Everyone that cares knows that is much less respectability and much more an open disagreement with Jean-Marie in that MLP is of the opinion that it is better to focus on immigration and, especially, fighting the muslim invasion and that it was necessarily that as long as muslims represent as much of a danger to women, homosexuals and jews it was effectively politically savvy to try and make peace with those 3 groups and form a common front because otherwise there is no hope.

It is working for her so far.
 
Why even have the neutral point of view rule if it's not being enforced?

It's a fig leaf to fool people who don't pay attention and trick NPCs into repeating the propaganda lines. Anyone who tries to enforce it evenly ends up being either bullied out of the site, runs against a gaggle of no-life editors who religiously watch their pet pages and revert the changes or gets banned.
 
I love shit like this, because the original way to sell Wikipedia to normal people was to dismiss the very idea that things like this would happen over and over again. No, a bored housewife would never falsify history for years. No, a teenager could never take control of an entire language's Wikipedia despite not knowing the language. The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia is its greatest strength.
 
Back