I think the Social Justice Crowd is notorious for their ability to crank out marketable terms in order to label both friends and enemies, if just because when you play Identitary Politics you need a way to separate people into Identitary Groups so you can profit from the division.
Nah, take all the bullshit down. A majority of that stuff went up in the Jim Cr
w era for intimidation. We have wikipedia, the history will be okay.
Wikipedia, where anyone can edit and spin anything however they want. Where they had to lock down the editing of the "Recession" article because someone kept editing it to match the definition that the current White Hous
prefered to make sure whatever situation we are in doesn't match the definition.
Yes, that is a very good idea. <rolls eyes>
Just an example, use whatever you are comfortable with. To sum up wikipedia as
n anyone can edit failure is telling though.
That was just an example. But we don't need statues put up decades after the en
of the civil war for shitty reasons to keep our history.
Also, one side is not as good at creating marketing terms like "woke" and ha >> people like yourself carry the water. Good game.
Also, if memory server well, Black LIves Matter were among the first to popularize the term, and Wikipedia seems to agree:
"The term woke gained further popularity in the 2010s. Over time, it became increasingly connected to matters beyond race such as gender and identities perceived as marginalized. During the 2014 Ferguson protests, the phrase was popularized by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists seeking to raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans. "
Some were put up long after because immediately after such things were
not welcome. Example - any memorials to war dead who were not Union soldiers. Not to individuals, but the whole of the dead from an area. They may have fought on the losing side, but they were someone's fathers/brothers/sons.
I have edited a few BBS related pages. MRO has admited to editing pages. Would *you* want either of our interpretations to be used as evidence that "history will be okay"?
That was just an example. But we don't need statues put up decades after the en
of the civil war for shitty reasons to keep our history.
Some were put up long after because immediately after such things were not welcome. Example - any memorials to war dead who were not Union soldiers. Not to individuals, but the whole of the dead from an area. They may have fought on the losing side, but they were someone's fathers/brothers/sons.
Those people still have living relatives but, hey, it is again not cool to remember them, so let's not.
Some were put up long after because immediately after such things were not welcome. Example - any memorials to war dead who were not Union soldiers. Not to individuals, but the whole of the dead from an area. They may have fought on the losing side, but they were someone's fathers/brothers/sons.
More Americans died in the Civil War than any other war. We don't build statues for our enemies, and we don't care who their families are. That goes for any war we've been in...we don't have statues of Bin Laden or Hitler or
anyone else, and they had families. Let's not forget that confederate soldiers literally fought for the right to own human slaves. No, we shouldn't have statues of them, that's goofy.
esc wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Some were put up long after because immediately after such things were
not welcome. Example - any memorials to war dead who were not Union soldiers. Not to individuals, but the whole of the dead from an area.
They may have fought on the losing side, but they were someone's fathers/brothers/sons.
More Americans died in the Civil War than any other war.
We don't build statues for our enemies, and we don't care who their families are.
That goes for any war we've been in...we don't have
statues of Bin Laden or Hitler or anyone else, and they had
families.
Let's not forget that confederate soldiers literally
fought for the right to own human slaves. No, we shouldn't have
statues of them, that's goofy.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Now you have trainees who will outright refuse to wear the gas mask for practice because it would ruin their hair style, which is exactly what
you get when you try to bring in people from the wrong demographic
group.
I wasn't hiding the fact we don't need confederate statues put up decades after the civil war was over. I was pretty clear in that.
you're not the one to decide if we need statues or not.
what do you care? did a statue rape you as a child?
anybody that wants historical statues is stupid.
suggesting wikipedia and youtube instead is stupid.
"Failure" is your word, not mine, which is why I have over-quoted here. Maybe your use of that word is telling?
I use wikipedia regularly. It is good for many things. The cronological timing of events would be one -- like did this album by this group come out before or after that one? For political and social reasons an event happened, you'd better take it with a grain of salt because anyone indeed can edit it.
I have edited a few BBS related pages. MRO has admited to editing pages. Would *you* want either of our interpretations to be used as evidence that "history will be okay"?
More Americans died in the Civil War than any other war. We don't build statue
for our enemies, and we don't care who their families are. That goes for any w
we've been in...we don't have statues of Bin Laden or Hitler or anyone else, d they had families. Let's not forget that confederate soldiers literally foug
for the right to own human slaves. No, we shouldn't have statues of them, tha
s goofy.
Wikipedia should only be for entertainment. not to prove a point or be used in
an official compacity.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
also bring back uncle ben and the land of lakes woman and aunt jamima.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Now you have trainees who will outright refuse to wear the gas mask for > Ar> practice because it would ruin their hair style, which is exactly what
you get when you try to bring in people from the wrong demographic group.
Citation?
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Now you have trainees who will outright refuse to wear the gas mask for practice because it would ruin their hair style, which is exactly what you get when you try to bring in people from the wrong demographic group.
Citation?
what do you care? did a statue rape you as a child?
anybody that wants historical statues is stupid.
suggesting wikipedia and youtube instead is stupid.
I didn't say any of this, you are a trip. I'll take the loss for not being able to communicate my point I guess.
Sure, you can click to see who has edited what and for what reasons. There's a full log. It's a great resource and I don't think southern generals will be erased because of statues. Anyone can create a website as well.
else, d they had families. Let's not forget that confederate soldiers literally foug
for the right to own human slaves. No, we shouldn't have statues of them, tha
s goofy.
The difference here is that the "enemy" deaths were also Americans. Also, your assumption that the soldiers were fighting for the right to own slaves is also false in most cases and shows a lack of understanding of what all was going on during that time.
Wikipedia should only be for entertainment. not to prove a point or be used in
an official compacity.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
People don't like complicated information.
It's easier to believe it was a fight of good VS evil.
There were thousands of factors that divided our country.
Furthermore, nobody talks about indentured servitude which was just as
bad and went on longer than slavery.
That's not really what the civil war was about. that was a small part, but it was due to money as usual with rich white powerful people. also the northern states were not defending the southern states from bandits that were causing hell.
Wikipedia should only be for entertainment. not to prove a point or be used in
an official compacity.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
Libraries are way more convienient and informative than statues, you are right.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
Libraries are way more convienient and informative than statues, you are right.
you really have a warped sense of thought, dude.
I suggest you visit virginia and experience the history of the various locations.
it might enlighten you.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Do you really want me to phone an officer from the Paratroopers Brigade
so he can post his experiences here? Because he would tell me to get
lost.
I suggest you visit virginia and experience the history of the various locations.
it might enlighten you.
I have. Haven't spent as much time in Virginia as I have in Georgia/Ten though. Very presumptuous.
Libraries are way more convienient and informative than statues, you are right.
If you're implying that this was first-hand information and not
published somewhere, I'd think that was awfully convenient, or should
have been cited that this was first-hand, non-confirmable information in
the first place.
Wikipedia should only be for entertainment. not to prove a point or be u in
an official compacity.
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
yeah and anybody can make 100 accounts. wikipedia is an online mmorpg. anybody that considers it a source of reliable information is sad.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias
and
written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because
written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it's on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the people who
wrote it are some how less flawed.
For every person looking to 'erase' history on wikipedia I would imagine there are 10 who proudly hang a confederate flag in their front yard watching those pages like a hawk ready to undo any tampering.
Fun experiment, go and try to edit any page of even moderate importance with something subtle that changes the narrative and see how long it stays up for.
yeah and anybody can make 100 accounts. wikipedia is an online mmorpg. anybody that considers it a source of reliable information is sad.
Scientific, historical and other societies have been digging into Wikipedia for almost 20 years now to test just how reliable it is and the answer usually comes back the same, it's 90x larger than Brittanica and more
https://www.smh.com.au/national/evidence-suggests-wikipedia-is-accurate-and- rel iable-when-are-we-going-to-start-taking-it-seriously-20220913-p5bhl3.html
Real research is libraries is where you find much reliable information.
Indeed. People seem to forget about those.
They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias and written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it's on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the people who wrote it are some how less flawed.
They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias and > written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it' > on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the people who
wrote it are some how less flawed.
Scientific, historical and other societies have been digging into Wikipedia for almost 20 years now to test just how reliable it is and the answer usually comes back the same, it's 90x larger than Brittanica and more accurate, more up to date and less biased on average.
encyclopedias and written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it's on paper or in a Library people assume the information or the people who wrote it are some how less flawed.
I've wondered about this too. Wikipedia might not be perfect, but it can be corrected in real-time.
Re: Re: going to war
By: Nightfox to unc0nnected on Mon Dec 04 2023 09:26 am
Yeah the articles on wikipedia regarding modern conflicts such as the Israeli-hamas conflict are fairly comprehensive, and have a large body of people actively working to update the article at all time of the day.
Re: Re: going to war
By: unc0nnected to MRO on Sun Dec 03 2023 10:03 pm
Scientific, historical and other societies have been digging into Wikipedia for almost 20 years now to test just how reliable it is and the answer usually comes back the same, it's 90x larger than Brittanica and more accurate, more up to date and less biased on average.
Refutation follows:
https://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
problem is. at best, wikipedia is accurate due to it's plagorism of more reliable sources.
They have done countless studies on this, when compared to encyclopedias and written references Wikipedia is more accurate more of the time. Because it's on paper or in a Library people assume the information or th
people who wrote it are some how less flawed.
I've wondered about this too. Wikipedia might not be perfect, but it can be co
rected in real-time.
Wikipedia is nice for finding general information about a subject (such as "What is X?") and finding listings (such as the titles of the songs on some albums). It is also nice for gathering some trivia.
Re: Re: going to war
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Dec 05 2023 08:37 am
problem is. at best, wikipedia is accurate due to it's plagorism of more reliable sources.
Plagarism? I remember Wikipedia saying it's against the rule to post original information on Wikipedia, and anything you put there must have a
citation of another resource. Basically, Wikipedia's rules are that it's to be used as a reference based on other sources. I guess you could call that "plagarism" but I don't know if that's an accurate term.
problem is. at best, wikipedia is accurate due to it's plagorism of
more reliable sources.
Plagarism? I remember Wikipedia saying it's against the rule to post
original information on Wikipedia, and anything you put there must have a
man are you gullable.
furthermore you can post info without references. someone puts a 'citation needed' tag but you can delete that at at time when the person does not notice or care to police it.
More Americans died in the Civil War than any other war. We don't build statues for our enemies, and we don't care who their families are. That goes for any war we've been in...we don't have statues of Bin Laden or Hitler or anyone else, and they had families. Let's not forget that confederate soldiers literally fought for the right to own human slaves. No, we shouldn't have statues of them, that's goofy.
are very bad at. Many kids (thanks to a distorted liberal education) can't even tell you what the capital of our country is or how many states we have. And to forget history is to repeat it. It's important to learn from the country's mistakes.
You are wrong about many things here. First of all, the majority of people living in the south did not have slaves and had no interest in slavery. That's not what the war was about. It was more about wanting to have more control over local laws and taxes.
Also, people in the south were Americans and they had relatives living in the north. Many families had family members fighting on both sides. Some fought for the north and some fought for the south. They weren't anti-American, they were anti-government, just like many people living in the United States today and the only way they could see they would achieve equal control was to secede from the union.
Plus, you build statues to remember history - something that young people are very bad at. Many kids (thanks to a distorted liberal education) can't even tell you what the capital of our country is or how many states we have. And to forget history is to repeat it. It's important to learn from the country's mistakes.
I have no idea what they teach kids in school these days. I don't remeber by kids having a history class or what history they were taught? Maybe they were teaching them my generations era 60's - 70's? I know they knew who JFK was and Martin Luther King. But civil war? No way. BTW. Even though the
forget history is to repeat it. It's important to learn from the country's mistakes.
Re: Re: going to war
By: Alonzo to esc on Wed Dec 13 2023 11:11 am
forget history is to repeat it. It's important to learn from the country's mistakes.
You know, we didn't have toilets for like a thousand years just because some idiots decided they wanted nothing to do with a particular civilization and completely burried all evidence of their toilet tech.
What would happen if, at the height of cancel culture, there was a rumor that the inventor of the toilet was a racist and a rapist? :D
people are also generally dumb. the civil war was very complicated. it's easier to teach that it was good guys vs bad guys and it was all about slavery.
The north fought to stop the emancipation. the south fought because they were being shafted by the govt and they were sick of it.
Re: Re: going to war
By: MRO to Alonzo on Thu Dec 14 2023 08:11 am
people are also generally dumb. the civil war was very complicated.
it's easier to teach that it was good guys vs bad guys and it was all about slavery.
The north fought to stop the emancipation. the south fought because they were being shafted by the govt and they were sick of it.
lolz
What would happen if, at the height of cancel culture, there was a rumor that the inventor of the toilet was a racist and a rapist? :D
You know, we didn't have toilets for like a thousand years just because some idiots decided they wanted nothing to do with a particular civilization and completely burried all evidence of their toilet tech.
Remember, these are the same people who won't ditch Harry
Potter even though Rowling is a transphobe, but they sure
as hell boycott anything anyone else "problematic" creates.
They would most certainly come up with a reason to still use them. Remember, these are the same people who won't ditch Harry Potter even though Rowling is a transphobe, but they sure as hell boycott anything anyone else "problematic" creates.
It is a shame when having an opinion about <something> makes a
person labelled as a <something>phobe.
Re: going to war
By: Ogg to Kurisu on Fri Dec 15 2023 09:15 pm
It is a shame when having an opinion about <something> makes a
person labelled as a <something>phobe.
Quite the example of many peoples very black-or-white thinking. There can't be any nuance, it immediately has to be this extremely strong buzzword we've chosen and can't be anything else.
Ironically that serves my point just as well, because if they treat her opinion as being that level of severity, then the fact they, in this one case, separate art from the artist means they are using one hell of a double standard.
people are also generally dumb. the civil war was very complicated. it's easier to teach that it was good guys vs bad guys and it was all about slavery.
The north fought to stop the emancipation. the south fought because they were being shafted by the govt and they were sick of it.
lolz
They would most certainly come up with a reason to still use them. Remember, these are the same people who won't ditch Harry Potter even though Rowling is transphobe, but they sure as hell boycott anything anyone else "problematic" creates.
Can't separate art from the artist until it's convenient for them to....
Remember, these are the same people who won't ditch Harry
Potter even though Rowling is a transphobe, but they sure
as hell boycott anything anyone else "problematic" creates.
It is a shame when having an opinion about <something> makes a
person labelled as a <something>phobe.
You know, we didn't have toilets for like a thousand years just because some
What would happen if, at the height of cancel culture, there was a rumor that the inventor of the toilet was a racist and a rapist? :D
Refutation follows:
https://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
| Sysop: | Ruben Figueroa |
|---|---|
| Location: | Mesquite, Tx |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 240:45:38 |
| Calls: | 77 |
| Files: | 49 |
| Messages: | 65,509 |
