Let me have my comically unrealistic scenario, please. The alternative is that he’ll keep killing with American weapons until hundreds of thousands more are dead, and all Palestine is a blasted wasteland, and no one will stop him.
Let me have my comically unrealistic scenario, please. The alternative is that he’ll keep killing with American weapons until hundreds of thousands more are dead, and all Palestine is a blasted wasteland, and no one will stop him.
Maybe “He’s getting people on all sides killed because he is a depraved and criminal liar with no regard for human life, let’s bring him to justice” will be the single rallying cry that finally forms the nucleus of peace and understanding in the Mideast.
Most of the people on the receiving end of the missiles are not in either of those groups, I am sad to say. I think you should cheer for Netanyahu to go to the Hague and the rest of the adults to figure out a workable solution.
Actually: I changed my mind. I’m going to give this a real response.
I didn’t treat you like a child. I explained what was going on, and you seem to have a mentality where someone who’s explaining something to you that you don’t know is “treating you like a child” or “being a pedantic asshole.”
That’s entirely on you. Most people, once they reach adulthood, are able to listen to something even if they don’t already know it, able to learn from the world. I was a little bit snarky talking to you initially, but then I felt bad when I realized you just didn’t know how Wikipedia worked, and were operating on some bad assumptions, but what you were thinking made actually perfect logical sense. Go back and read my “Got it, that does make sense” message. I read your message, I got where you were coming from, and like I said, I realized you just didn’t know something, and I tried to help you understand it.
You have to let go of that mentality where someone who’s telling you something you didn’t already know is offensive, and you have to try to seize the upper hand and try to explain something back to them, or decide they’re being a jerk or something or it needs to be a hostile interaction. That’s going to make it impossible for you to learn. It also makes a lot of interactions more stressful than they need to be.
I realize that this whole message is explaining more stuff to you, which you probably won’t react well to. But like I said, that’s on you. If you were willing to absorb this, it would help you.
Yes!
I said plenty, you just can’t hear it. Oh well. I tried.
Yes! That is an extremely productive attitude when someone tries to explain to you how Wikipedia works, and then when you seem to miss the point, gets a little more pointed about it in hopes that you will pick it up and realize that you missed something, and learn a useful nugget of information relevant to our current discussion.
It seems you’re happy with how much you already know, in life, because you are committed to not learning anything else beyond your present level of achievement. Congratulations! I hope this approach serves you well, and I look forward to seeing how much and how far you can get with it.
Yes! You have successfully found the content page. If only someone had kindly explained to you that there’s a whole other side of Wikipedia which is more relevant to this discussion. It would have been nice for you to be able to have a whole patient explanation about how it all works.
“What do you mean, I have to WORK to make progress in the world. Like, every single election? And then also OUTSIDE the election? Or else things will keep getting worse because some bad people have a lot of power? Fuck that. I think I’ll just let things get as bad as they get. What’s the worst that could happen? It’s not like anything bad could happen in the world, if I just refuse to participate.”
Got it, that does make sense. You should know, though, that Wikipedia on the content side is a different thing from Wikipedia on the talk page side.
People can have nice things to say about a source in their Wikipedia page about the source, on the content side, while there’s still a consensus on the talk page side that the source is unreliable and shouldn’t be used for sourcing claims about other matters on other Wikipedia pages. The big table that I and someone else linked to are good summaries of the consensus on the talk page side, which is what’s most relevant here.
I think you are both right. I edited the title away from Newsweek’s misleading title, and added a note adding some context.
I’m not sure I should have posted this, to be honest, for that exact reason.
They’re not saying that. How did you summarize 23 words using 39 words, and get the summary wrong?
They’re saying that there is no external professional vouching for MBFC’s conclusions, which is their usual gold standard for things being “reliable.” And that, on top of that, people within Wikipedia have specifically pointed out flaws with how MBFC does things, without any of the qualifications and categories that you added.
How long did you wait? Sometimes it takes some time for things to get federated.
As long as someone is subscribed to it from your home instance, it should get there, though.
Edit: A word
Tell me you have no idea how Wikipedia works, without telling me you have no idea.
You’re putting trust in the stuff that doesn’t mean very much, and "best guess"ing that the stuff that is dependable is not.
It’s from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media_Bias/Fact_Check
There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site’s ratings.
I think the perennial sources list gets a lot more attention than the wiki page for MBFC itself, and probably the standards for judging it reliable are higher.
Interestingly enough, Wikipedia’s sourcing list counts Wikipedia as unreliable. It says you need to find information somewhere else so as not to create a self-referential loop. You have to justify it from a solid source that’s outside the system.
MBFC says that MBFC is incredibly reliable, and incidentally also tends to mark sources down if their biases don’t agree with MBFC’s existing biases, which are significant. It needs no outside sources, because it’s already reliable.
Good stuff.
If they link directly to {instance}/c/{community} but not to !{community}@{instance} it can chime in with that second thing.
Most people link to something, but they don’t always link to the thing that works everywhere.
Okay, so explain it to me. What have I gotten wrong and what do I need to understand?
There should be a bot.
Actually, do you want me to make a bot? It wouldn’t be hard.
Borg borg borg
You can combine it with a FUSE mount of the Google Drive, I’m not sure if that works but I don’t see why it wouldn’t.