Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
There are no "sensors" for this. There is no equivalent to "inventory management". You're introducing pieces of negative evidence that didn't exist.
The only safeguard that actually existed is the same one in the shop analogy: the fact that staff are supposed to be around, and sometimes are. So no: it's an accusation of shoplifting in a shop that cannot count inventory and with no sensors. That has staff that are meant to be around but often realistically aren't.
I had it on good authority that they would never do this
The best part is that those who told us this would never happen will say they never actually said that
Hypocrisy and lies
Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Wikipedia editors
The conservative think tank told prospective donors that the project was part of its work to combat antisemitism.
forward.com
Hands off the volunteer librarians you putrescent skeeves
not sure why they talking like pro Israel and right wing aren't almost the same whole circle in the venn diagramScoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Wikipedia editors
The conservative think tank told prospective donors that the project was part of its work to combat antisemitism
The Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, plans to “identify and target” Wikipedia editors who it believes are engaged in antisemitism, according to documents obtained by the Forward. Photo by Getty Images
The Heritage Foundation plans to “identify and target” volunteer editors on Wikipedia who it says are “abusing their position” by publishing content the group believes to be antisemitic, according to documents obtained by the Forward.
Employees of Heritage, the conservative think tank that produced the Project 2025 policy blueprint for the second Trump administration, said they plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia, who mostly work under pseudonyms. It’s not clear exactly what kind of antisemitism the Wikipedia effort, which has not been previously reported, is intended to address. But in recent months some Jewish groups have complained about a series of changes on the website relating to Israel, the war in Gaza and its repercussions.
In June, a panel of Wikipedia editors declared the Anti-Defamation League a “generally unreliable” source of information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, limiting when the organization can be cited in Wikipedia articles. And there was an outcry this fall among some Jewish scholars and pro-Israel activists over edits to Wikipedia’s entry for Zionism to add references to “colonization.”
Wikipedia has also recently drawn ire from right-wing figures including Elon Musk, the billionaire who has been by President-elect Trump’s side during much of the transition. Musk posted on X (formerly Twitter) in December: “Stop donating to Wokepedia.”
Graphic by Heritage Foundation
A Heritage Foundation spokesperson said she was not able to answer questions about the organization’s work related to Wikipedia, which editors it was seeking to identify or how it sought to “target” them. The Wikimedia Foundation, which provides the infrastructure for Wikipedia, declined to comment.
The Heritage Foundation sent the pitch deck outlining the Wikipedia initiative to Jewish foundations and other prospective supporters of Project Esther, its roadmap for fighting antisemitism and anti-Zionism. The slideshow says the group’s “targeting methodologies” would include creating fake Wikipedia user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.
Tamzin Hadasa Kelly, a prolific Wikipedia editor, said that the methods mentioned in the Heritage document were familiar, and that Wikipedia editors know that it can be difficult to maintain their anonymity.
“It’s scary they want to do this, but it’s not a ‘zero day,’” Kelly said in an interview, referring to the hacking methods that the intended victim is unaware of before they occur.
Allegations of bias
Wikipedia has long faced claims from conservatives that it has a liberal bias. Chaya Raichik, the Orthodox former real estate broker behind “Libs of TikTok,” has assailed Wikimedia’s spending on diversity programming, for example. And a June study from the right-leaning Manhattan Institute found a “mild to moderate tendency” for Wikipedia to more negatively describe some conservative public figures.
Several prominent Jewish groups have also expressed concern that Wikipedia is tilted against Israel. A World Jewish Congress report released in March said the site’s articles about the Israel-Hamas war were biased in “terminology, framing and lack of context, one-sided sources and critical omissions,” while Aish.com, an Orthodox news website, said in November that it had been “hijacked by digital jihadists.”
In May, the Los Angeles Jewish Journal ran a cover story titled “Wokepedia?” that described “seven tactics Wikipedia editors used to spread anti-Israel bias.” The article said that the term “anti-imperialism” had been added to the Hamas page as one of the Palestinian terror group’s ideologies, and the term “antisemitism” removed. Neither term is currently on the Hamas page; editors frequently discuss and change the content of controversial articles.
(Wikipedia has an entire entry on the back-and-forth between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors of the encyclopedia that it says began in earnest around 2006.)
Campaign would be unusual
The Heritage Foundation told prospective donors the project would be led in part by Tom Olohon, a former FBI agent, and noted that he had won a SHIELD award from the ADL in 2015.
The ADL did not respond to a request for comment about Wikipedia, the Heritage Foundation project, or the group’s mention of its award in fundraising efforts. After Wikipedia declared it an unreliable source on Israel and Zionism in June, ADL rallied more than 40 Jewish groups to oppose the site’s decision and stated that “Wikipedia is stripping the Jewish community of the right to defend itself.”
The appeal was directed to the Wikimedia Foundation, which said that it does not interfere in decisions made by Wikipedia’s volunteer editors.
Molly White, a software engineer and longtime contributor to Wikipedia, has criticized the “right’s war on Wikipedia.” Photo by Getty Images
The ADL had faced backlash in 2021 after several of its staff members were found to be editing Wikipedia entries on domestic extremism to add information about the organization’s research. The site’s rules generally discourage editing aimed at promoting an organization the editor works for, but an ADL spokesperson said at the time that its employees had followed the rules by disclosing that they worked for the group.
editors in Wikipedia, violates the site’s rules and can result in users being banned, according to the site’s guidelines. Kelly, who has been a volunteer editor on the site since 2012 with a focus that includes sexuality and religion, and serves as an administrator, said that in the past, such problems have usually been rooted in interpersonal conflicts or ad hoc online campaigns
A well-funded campaign against individual Wikipedia editors by an organization like the Heritage Foundation, which is one of the most prominent conservative think tanks in the country, it seems, would be a first.
Molly White, an independent journalist and Wikipedia contributor who wrote an article last week describing “the right’s war on Wikipedia,” said Heritage’s plan to target editors was concerning: “The document is sort of vague about what they would do once they ID a person,” she noted, “but the things that come to mind are not great.”
Last edited:
So you want to rely on her testimony as truth to argue that none of the things I suggested can be true, but you want to call her testimony false when you want to argue what you suggested is true? You should be able to see why that's a problem.
No, I'm trying to use a probability example to illustrate a point: that the relatively rarity with which an event occurs cannot so readily be employed to deny an event happened. In the example, for instance, the modest chance of rolling a three doesn't equate to the same chance that you lied about it.
Given I just explicitly gave you example where the possibility was 1:6, I think you just shot yourself in the foot with that attempted dig.
I'm okay with you arguing that a potential problem with her claim is that the department store has attendants and dressing room locks.
What is much more problematic is the strength you put in it. Remember, you stormed into this debate saying that putting any credit in her claims makes a person "ridiculous", with this as the apparent centrepiece of your argument as some form of near-proof that her testimony is false. (And by false, no matter what your waffle about inaccuracy just now, you mean she's a liar - certainly in the central claim Trump sexually assaulted her.) Centrepiece as pretty much the rest of your arguments are just standard rape apologism, because rape apologism is where everyone who wants to defend a sex attacker seems to end up.
Wikipedia doesn't give you the right to defend yourself. That's not at all the way it works. Instead it builds articles matching the bias of the majority of editors by parroting whatever is claimed by "reliable sources", where what is considered "reliable" is subjective in a way designed to match the biases of a majority of editors, and then those guidelines are applied unevenly. It's...good enough for things that aren't politically contentious but sources that tend to have overt political leans are a great demonstration of how flawed "reliable source" determination is - basically the bar to be deemed "unreliable" is much lower for some sources than others.
Were it not for the prevailing political leanings among editors after the 10/7 attack, ADL would still be a reliable source for all purposes, but anything source that's pro-Israel is going to be held to a much higher degree of scrutiny and possibly stripped of being a reliable source for some/all topics as a consequence.
Yes.
But if Joe gets a drug that costs $1,000/month, that $1,000 comes from insurance premiums that the insurer uses to pay the PBM (to buy the drug). Then, say the PBM gets $700 back from the drug manufacturer, no money was actually made by the PBM. The drug manufacturer made $300. The other $700 is just basically redistributed money among the PBM and insurer (and all that came from insurer premiums). Even if say Blue Cross uses Optum Rx for the drug, you can say the PBM made money from Blue Cross since they are different companies, but that initial $1,000 is coming from the same place regardless.
Don't waste your breath or even a single thought on anything Phoenixmgs will or won't say.
The worst mistake people on the Left make is trying to counter or debunk right-wing politicians and grifters. An egg or milkshake to the face does far more than a hundred hour long video essays.
It’s funny that no matter how hard James Wood tried not believing in Climate change, it still didn’t stop climate change from burning his house down.
It wasn't climate change, it was the woke. How or why? Don't matter, I pointed my finger at woke - get pissed off!
Anyway, I'm glad Woods lost his house.
When you say "that initial $1,000"-- it's not literally the same money, like the same actual bills and coins that go to the manufacturer. The relevant part here is how the cost of premiums are determined. And they're determined according to the cost to the insurer. The insurer doesn't ever have or see any of the money retained by the PBM.
Elon Musk ‘discussing ways to oust Keir Starmer’
The billionaire has launched a barrage of criticisms at the PM after accusing Jess Phillips, the safeguarding minister, of being a ‘rape genocide apologist’
www.thetimes.com
Google becomes the latest tech company to donate to Trump’s inauguration
Trump’s inaugural fund has received more than $170 million in donations
www.independent.co.uk
Look at it laughing at the other thing's joke, or whatever
Also, speaking of the LA fires
Granted, while acab, these fires are not the kind of problem that be solved simply by throwing manpower and budget at them.
That said, there is a silver lining
Cybertruck Owner Who Decried Taxes Mocked for Begging for Help as California Wildfire Threatens His Property
West Coast-based real estate mogul and Elon Musk fan Keith Wasserman, who has called for cutting property taxes, triggered a tidal wave of schadenfreude on social media after begging for "private firefighters" to come "protect our home" in the city. Los Angeles has been battling with several...
It can in theory be the same bills if everyone was in the same room. Premiums worth of 10 $100 bills, insurer hands PBM 10 bills, PBM hands drug company those 10 bills, drug company hands back 7 of those bills to the PBM (who maybe gives some back to the insurer).
I'm analyzing her testimony, why would I consider things neither of them said? If he says the event never happened, and she said it did and nobody was around, why would I consider an option where people were around but Trump got them to keep quiet? We may as well throw in the possibility that he raped her in her own home and she just thought it was a ritzy department store.
She allegedly preserved her clothes from the day long enough to wear them in a magazine cover shoot to sell her book, and while be interviewed about the event she suggested it wasn't rape because rape is sexy. I'm not putting extra weight on the attendees or door lock because they are the key, those are just the points Silvanus thinks don't count for anything. She's got potential ulterior motives and a record of absurd statements to nuke her own credibility on top of the specific details of the claim that seem less than likely.