That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

Whoever said that should step out of their bubble and have a look around once in awhile

Exactly

A lot of the political entries are written with a bent towards being sympathetic with leftists.

The Kyle Rittenhouse article spends a lot of time on how Rittenhouse ‘appeared in conservative media’ or ‘appeared with conservative personalities’ which is a pretty weird thing to say, if you don’t already understand the political undertones of the Kenosha riot.

When you click the article for the Kenosha riot, it’s titled ‘civil unrest in Kenosha’ and focusses a lot on what a reader would perceive as positive aims of the riot. Protesting racism and police brutality, and doesn’t focus at all on the crime, danger, guns, vandalism, arson, etc

That article mentions BLM and when you read that article it makes sure to state that BLM protests were ‘largely peaceful’ and totally misses the amount of deaths and destruction that had happened at them.

The BLM article, if written like the Rittenhouse article, should focus a fair amount in the organizations ties to Marxism, the overthrowing of capitalism and colonialism, but doesn’t.

Wikipedia articles are written and edited and maintained to push a narrative.

If you agree with the narrative, you probably like that it does this. If you disagree, you probably don’t bother reading Wikipedia very much.

The issue with sources, is that a lot of ‘sources’ for stuff like this are already heavily curated to paint a picture the editors want to put on front street.

And anything that would combat that narrative is just outright banned from the site.

A lot of citations with politically charged topics are just opinions anyway. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer or sources on the war between Palestine and isreal, for example. But if Wikipedia editors want to push propaganda for either side over the other, all they have to do is only cite pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli sources.

This is easily exploitable by editors for whatever narrative they choose to push.

Wikipedia is not an exhaustive gathering of all relevant information, it is a carefully curated propaganda machine for the editors.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Does that say Russia has lost 300k people?

He’s obviously a terrible human being, I think you have to be to be a wildly successful CEO.

But those are the people who are best at running companies. I wouldn’t be good at it, because I’m not a piece of shit

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

That entirely depends on your expectations of a company CEO

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ATVI/activision-blizzard/stock-price-history

I can’t think of a company that wouldn’t hire someone with this kind of stock performance over 30 years.

The issue is really that consumers just keep spending money on things that they hate.

If they didnt do that, Bobby would have been gone a long long time ago

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

It only knows about things people talk about online. I bet it knows how trump likes his bed made, but doesn’t even know what you can do in a library

It’s the company who has to sign off on the CBA, too.

A union can ASK for things, but it’s always the company guaranteeing it.

They would need to earmark money for defense, which means cutting budgets on social programs or raising already high euro taxes.

Not a great way to get votes, I think

They shouldn’t allow pets in the office anyway

Honestly, you don’t know shit. And I don’t even think you believe the stuff you’re saying.

The only other explanation is that you’re a child, which is probably also true.

Are you like a paid user to shill bullshit? Or are yo undoing it for free?