Wikipedia Drama Goes Mainstream (msn.com) 237
Larry Sanger, who helped launch Wikipedia in 2001 before being ousted by co-founder Jimmy Wales a year later, has spent years arguing the online encyclopedia has abandoned its commitment to neutrality. Leading conservatives in the second Trump administration are now amplifying his critique. Elon Musk announced plans to launch an AI-powered alternative called Grokipedia this week, calling Wikipedia "hopelessly biased." Senator Ted Cruz sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation demanding answers about what he termed "ideological bias." House Republicans opened an investigation into possible platform manipulation.
Sanger published "Nine Theses" on reforming Wikipedia and appeared on Tucker Carlson's show. His arguments circulated widely among conservatives, including Trump's AI czar David Sacks. Sanger recently converted to Christianity and voted for Trump in 2024. He is working to recruit hundreds of conservatives to become active Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales maintains that neutrality remains the site's core policy.
Sanger published "Nine Theses" on reforming Wikipedia and appeared on Tucker Carlson's show. His arguments circulated widely among conservatives, including Trump's AI czar David Sacks. Sanger recently converted to Christianity and voted for Trump in 2024. He is working to recruit hundreds of conservatives to become active Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales maintains that neutrality remains the site's core policy.
Fuck these MAGAts. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not conservatives, they are radical right raging retards.
Re:Fuck these MAGAts. (Score:5, Informative)
The demands of these people and the Taliban are near identical.
Re: (Score:3)
Definitely +1 accurate. Not Troll. Metamods, take note!
Re:Fuck these MAGAts. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fuck these MAGAts. (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or genuine stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
He "saved" the astronauts? I hardly think that falling back to a second form of transportation in what was already the existing contingency plan because plan A failed really counts as "saved". I mean, you can argue that LEO is a dangerous environment but, since they just swap astronauts out, even if the Dragon capsule had outraced a fireball from an exploding ISS like the Millenium Falcon, the net number of dead astronauts would not have changed. So that's a pretty extreme over-dramatization. As for the res
Re: Democratic donor money is used for MAGA candid (Score:4, Interesting)
From the article:
âoeThe strategy seems to have paid off: In high-profile races where Democratic candidates or groups successfully used the strategy during the primaries, all of the Republicans they helped have either lost or are trailing, two days after Election Day.â
So, no, Democrats arenâ(TM)t helping MAGA retards win. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
The Fascinator with Cheese (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, conservapedia exist(ed). It might still - but at least they were honest in how they were biased.
The reason these sites should exist is because, generally speaking, the opponents of a political ideology tend to be the worst sources concerning what the ideology actually believes, versus what its detractors say it believes. If the enemies of the state are not allowed to speak, how will the public at large differentiate tyranny from the rule of law?
Wikipedia is neutral (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are not looking at anything political, about history, many medical topics, current events, the weather, several branches of science, and a few other things.
It's no different than Reddit in that sense. I love Reddit for things like game hints and obscure IT fixes and other hobbyist things. But it's useless for anything else. Just like slashdot, actually. Bias, trolls, liars, people who abuse the system to push their agenda. Standard internet behavior for the last 10-15 years, at least. All social media is the same. Toxic shitty people piss all over it without the self awareness they're the cause of why their shoes are wet.
That being said, I still love social media. Without toxic social media like Wikipedia, Reddit and slashdot, I'd still be working like the rest of you. But knowing how it works behind the scenes is why I don't use social media more than trivially.
Ironically, the best way to ruin a good thing like the social internet is to let people use it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree with the post title...not sure about the rest.
I use Wikipedia weekly, basically to look up stuff I see/hear/read elsewhere. For example somewhere I read about the "Great Unconformity". Go to Wikipedia there is a very detailed article, images, links, etc. just what I need. And importantly it clarified a mis-representation in the original source I read.
So yeah, for people who are looking up other people. especially political figures, or ongoing geo-political conflicts in Wikipedia . Yeah goo
Re: (Score:2)
No, that results in lessening of bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Not wikipedia... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Granted that was falling apart by the end of Trump's term and he was banned for comments relating to Jan 6.
Tribalism (Score:5, Insightful)
The core tenet of conservative philosophy is that some people are innately better and more valuable than others. That thinking thrives on the constant identification and blaming of pariah groups. Even if it achieves the goal of destroying the currently identified pariah groups, they will quickly divide within themselves and destroy each other. Conservatism and tribalism are parasitic mind virus.
Re:Tribalism (Score:5, Insightful)
The core tenet of conservative philosophy is that some people are innately better and more valuable than others. That thinking thrives on the constant identification and blaming of pariah groups.
The belief, especially on the Right, and Trump specifically, that everything is a zero-sum game and there must be winners and losers doesn't help. More people having equal rights and opportunities or being able to be married doesn't take anything away from others
Even if it achieves the goal of destroying the currently identified pariah groups, they will quickly divide within themselves and destroy each other. Conservatism and tribalism are parasitic mind virus.
MAGA seems to operate this way - an ever smaller circle of who's "MAGA enough".
Close but it's just a little bit stupider than tha (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just that there are some people who are better and some people who are worse. That is absolutely the case but it's also that there is a natural hierarchy which everyone slots into.
This goes all the way back to the origins of the right wing as the party that sat in the right side of the French assembly supporting the monarchy.
What I find for a lot of modern right wingers it's literally just that they have certain people who give them the ick and they just don't like on some personal or emotional level and they are really really upset that they have to show those people respect.
That could be scientists or queer people or black people or women or whatever..
But there's also the desire to have somebody above you. Somebody who is on your side and has everything under control.
This is why the right wing always turn to authoritarianism.
They don't understand the world and even if they did the world is a scary and random and chaotic place.
So they want to use the hierarchy to enforce some kind of simple order on the world that they're capable of understanding.
The people above me are taking care of me and the people below me have to do what I say without questioning or respect.
That's the bargain you make when you become a right winger. The downside is you basically have to give up all of your possessions and your political and civil rights to anyone above you.
But for a lot of people the comfort that comes from believing that the world has order and structure is worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a race to the bottom of who is MAGA enough. Dinesh D'Souza recently experienced this when he proclaimed several years ago to be "one of the good ones". Fast forward to today and he's the target of MAGA for not being white. https://www.hindustantimes.com... [hindustantimes.com]
D'Souza appears completely flabbergasted on how MAGA can spew such rhetoric.
But don't feel too bad though. I guarantee who D'Souza will vote for in the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
People like Dinesh will hand power over to people who see no value in people like himself. It's about, as Elon says shifting the "Overton window". Slowly shift everything over to the right. A key step is to first cherry-pick and amplify legit instances of wrong. For example, historically there are 4000 large truck fatal collisions in the US. Yet when an Indian Sikh truck driver causes a death they immediately broadcast that. 20% of truck drivers are Indian, so we can surmise that all things equal, (4000 * .
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not a fact. The founders of this country felt that all persons have equal rights. If, as you believe, one person is inherently more valuable than another, how can they have the same rights?
Let's go with your assertion that some people are valuable than others. Is there even a way to determine it? What metric do we use? I mean, your own mother probably values you more than a random stranger. That's even though you're a retard and the random stranger may be a scientist whose discoveries saved a bunch
This isn't mainstream (Score:5, Insightful)
There's the old joke, reality has a liberal bias.
The right wing is extremely good at taking action because they are backed by billionaires who pay people to take action.
So when reality disagrees with the right wing they pay people to change reality.
I mean not really. You can't actually change reality. But if you have total and complete control of all media outlets you can do the next best thing.
Now for us non-billionaire peons sooner or later reality comes calling. Your trans kid blows their head off because of the pressures. You get measles and you die. Screw worms kill millions of cattle and you can't afford hamburgers anymore let alone steak. You lose your job because Wall Street crashed after deregulation. Your 401k gets looted. Medicare gets cut and you die of a heart attack. Your daughter dies in childbirth because she couldn't get reproductive healthcare.
I can go on and on and on. You can ignore reality for a very long time. Especially when you have an incentive like getting to act like an angry teenager.
But sooner or later reality comes calling.
And again the right wing knows this and they know that their policies and beliefs do not work in the real world so they have to deny reality as much as possible.
Go look up Russian science fiction books. Not the Soviet ones that were cool and subversive but the ones put out by Putin now that he has absolute control of all media and russia. They are so weird and fucked up and they are not fun they're just fucked up propaganda.
And if none of that gets your attention they're coming for your video games.
Re: (Score:3)
This is right wing extremists trying to take over every single possible media outlet in order to warp reality.
This has always been the case for a very long time. The main difference now is that the right wing extremists are in power. To the victor goes the spoils, and the greatest spoil of them all is the truth. The right wing extremists also know that whoever yells the loudest gets to define truth to the uneducated masses.
The right wing extremist have done very well in that they realize that the definitions of extremism are necessarily relative. So, yelling louder allows them to shift the perception among the
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
There's the old joke, reality has a liberal bias.
Perhaps because reality treats everything and everyone equally and that doesn't sit well with "Conservatives" and those on the Right, especially those, like Trump, who believe everything is a zero-sum game and there must be winners and losers.
of course it's these guys (Score:5, Insightful)
>>Senator Ted Cruz sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation demanding answers about what he termed "ideological bias." House Republicans opened an >>investigation into possible platform manipulation.
why the fuck is a senator demanding answers from a private website about "ideological bias"
Re: (Score:3)
So he has something to distract his constituents from why he fled Texas when the people were freezing to death due to Abbott's and Ercot's incompetence.
Also, because the Wikiepedia article about the battle at the Alamo explicitly states, "About one hundred Texians, wanting to defy Mexican law and maintain the institution of chattel slavery in their portion of Coahuila y Tejas by seeking secession from Mexico, . . ." To him, telling the truth is "liberal" bias.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start referring to him by his given name Rafael Edward Cruz
Archive (Score:4, Interesting)
Time to download your personal copy I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Years ago I had an alternate OS for a clickwheel iPod that had it. That was something else!
Slashdot Memoir of Larry Sanger (Score:3)
What, is Slashdot too good to plug its own web site [slashdot.org] now?
Sanger even links to Slashdot in the Nine Theses [larrysanger.org] mentioned (but not linked) in the summary.
Remember Conservapedia? (Score:2)
It will be just like that, but this time with AI!
They are not conservatives. They are cultists insisting that everyone accepts the reality that they made up in their minds. Whoever refuses to do so will have "consequences." That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha I essentially said the same thing a while back and someone came out of the woodwork to say i cosplay as a conservative! So bizarre. It really is 1984 where words have now taken on opposite meanings. War is peace, freedom is slavery. Doubleplus good.
Comment wasteland (Score:2)
Haha the comments are a -1 wasteland. Wonder if the admins are getting involved?
Darn it (Score:2)
I'm out of popcorn. Could you guys hold on a couple minutes while I make more?
Neutrality is really impossible (Score:2)
Conservatives have never been "neutral" (Score:2)
definitely not in my lifetime and I'm pretty old
When conservatives... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wales is really indefensible, he pretty much stole Wikipedia from Sanger and a lot of the original investors will support that version of events. Sanger is also who you have to thank for a Wikipedia that is a community project and not an enshitified mess of ads that Wales originally envisioned.
Slashdot won't care about any of that thought, because the karma farmers here won't see past their virulent anti-Christian bigotry.
I'm not seeing any ads. What do you think is stopping them?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Reality has a well-known liberal bias (Score:4, Informative)
I am confused. Did Wales steal Wikipedia from Sanger as in your other post, or did Wales start Wikipedia himself as in this post? You do know that it can't be both, right?
Re:Reality has a well-known liberal bias (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that will be "fair and balanced" like... umm... Fox News obviously.
Also as far as Sanger recently finding Christianity a bit late in life, and appearing on Tucker Carlson's show, I'm sure the Nine Theses are surely unbiased at all. Tucker is known for his fair and bsllll... oh fuck it. I'm sure there's no sour grapes to being "ousted" by Jimmy Wales
Re: (Score:2)
No river to the sea for me... I found Christianity as an adult? Tucker Fuckerson? Like the Nazipedia, anything Tucker utters is terminally biased. Hope you're not getting your propaganda from him, for your sake.
Clusterfuck is apt.
How's that peace deal working out?
Re: (Score:3)
Wales is really indefensible, he pretty much stole Wikipedia from Sanger and a lot of the original investors will support that version of events.
"Investors"... Ok. Way to tell us that you know nothing about Wikipedia without saying you know nothing about Wikipedia.
What I've seen from personal experience (Score:3, Informative)
As a long time editor I've seen how the bias works. It's frustrating because I remember when, broadly speaking, it was neutral. It starts at the top where the Wikimedia Foundation funds left wing groups and does not fund right wing groups. It runs fundraisers but people don't realize that it is swimming in money and diverting it to Art +Feminism, Black Lunch Table and Whose Knowledge.
These organizations publicly admit that they aim is to edit Wikipedia pages with leftist ideologies. Art + Feminism has an in
It seems like your own bias is showing (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, in a sane world, creating content about "transgender and LGBTQ+ individuals" would not be an "ideology" of any kind, just more facts. That's only polarizing to those who start with the base assumption that consenting adults living non-mainstream lifestyles are somehow bad or wrong. Which, ironically, is why such groups feel the need to exist and normalize something that should already be uncontroversial to everybody but religious bigots.
>Wikipedia has removed conservative news organizations as acceptable sources for news articles
It's telling that you don't say WHICH organizations, because there are a host of news organizations that consistently lie and distort facts, mainstream or not. And you have not mentioned or discussed the actual processes by which Wikipedia evaluates the trustworthiness of news organizations, which would be the actual thing to evaluate for bias.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We all had a good chuckle at freedom fries. Trump is conducting extrajudicial murder of Venezuelans. It's not funny anymore. If he can do it to them he can do it to you and he absolutely will.
And I really should not have to explain to you the problem with hypernationalistic renaming of bodies of water and why that's precursor to world war III and the draft.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Renaming the Gulf of Mexico was fucking stupid.
OK, that out of the way-
Gulf of America (stupid as it may fucking be) is the legal name within the United States of America.
There are many geographic features that have different names in different countries.
So, in the context of an American topic, the Gulf of America is what you would expect to see in an en
Re: (Score:3)
Did I miss where Congress passed a bill to do this?
Re: (Score:3)
Granted- just because the name is legal doesn't mean that anyone who isn't under the Constitutional supervision of the President is beholden to respect it- which is actually the reason that it's still called Gulf of Mexico in Wikipedia. Many reliable sources are US-based, and they still refer
Re: (Score:3)
Everything that comes out of the president's mouth is not law. He is not a king. If he doesn't have the statutory nor constitutional authority to legally name it, then "Gulf of America" is not a legal name, and encyclopedias should continue to use the consensus name it has gone by for the last couple hundred years with maybe a foot note RE the Trump idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything that comes out of the president's mouth is not law.
Who are you talking to? It surely isn't me.
He is not a king.
That isn't even a defining attribute of Kingship.
If he doesn't have the statutory nor constitutional authority to legally name it
He has the constitutional power to order the Federal government to call it that, which makes it a legal name.
and encyclopedias should continue to use the consensus name
This is the first thing you've said that wasn't stupid, and I agree with it.
Wikipedia's policy is sensible. They use a consensus among reliable sources within their language domain.
it has gone by for the last couple hundred years
No, that's not part of the equation.
See: Ukraine.
Sigh. With a UID that low, I'd like to think you came from a period of time w
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think the Golfo de Mexico woke up one day and proclaimed itself thus?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to continue to play whack-a-mole with you.
Here is the codified Public Law discussed earlier. [cornell.edu]
It is the very same justification used for every renaming since 1947.
Before then, a similar board existed that had no Congressional authorization. You will find reference to it in the codified law.
The board is composed entirely of the appointees of Presidential appointees, meaning it is directly subject to Presidential order (though I doubt it
Re: Reality (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He's a commie, so of course rsilvergun loves him and thinks he's great.
Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying that to not be biased, Wikipedia should use whatever self-centered America wants them to use, and fuck what the rest of the world say? Totally not a biased option.
Or that people who go into edit wars should still be tolerated?
Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
The Gulf of Mexico is what the rest of the world calls it. Wikipedia isn't only for Americans, and America isn't the only place in the world.
Re:Reality (Score:5, Interesting)
What it is called across the world isn't relevant to its naming within wikipedia in the slightest.
They have clear policies for geographic and common names.
What matters is what exists in the reliable sources in the English-language world.
And for right now, that's Gulf of Mexico.
However, it may not always be that way.
The US is a majority of the English-language world.
Fortunately for the sanity of all- that name probably won't last long enough to catch on in reliable sources.
Re: (Score:2)
> The US is a majority of the English-language world.
I suspect India and decent chunks of Europe and Africa might want to lay claim to fluent speaking and writing in English too. Albeit as a second language.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect India and decent chunks of Europe and Africa might want to lay claim to fluent speaking and writing in English too. Albeit as a second language.
Indeed- I struggled to find a... way to indicate English-as-a-first-language world.
This is because English-as-a-second-language worlds usually follow some English-as-a-first-language country's naming conventions.
At first, I went with "English-speaking", but that's obviously wrong- since as you mentioned- it includes quite a fucking lot of people in India.
I figured "English-language" might be non-specific enough to lead one to think "English-centric-language/speaking-ness".
Re: (Score:2)
The US is a majority of the English-language world.
No the US is a majority of the people living in a country with English as the official language world. They are a tiny portion of total English speakers in an official capacity. It's important to remember that the USA doesn't dictate the English language beyond their borders. There's well over a billion people who do not live nor are they governed by any country that recognises the English name "Gulf of America".
Re: (Score:2)
No the US is a majority of the people living in a country with English as the official language world.
Correct, I consider those synonymous.
They are a tiny portion of total English speakers in an official capacity.
Nobody said otherwise.
It's important to remember that the USA doesn't dictate the English language beyond their borders.
Of course they don't, but to claim that it's not influential in the direction of Global English is fucking laughable, if that's what you were trying to do.
There's well over a billion people who do not live nor are they governed by any country that recognises the English name "Gulf of America".
Proximity isn't relevant. Governance is only partially relevant, and not really these days since top-down imposed language is generally frowned upon these days.
Global English once meant British English, solely.
These days, it includes piles of American colloquialisms.
That's just how things work
Re: (Score:3)
That is now called The Gulf of America.
From the perspective of reliable sources, that is not the case.
If it were the case, Wikipedia would update to reflect that.
Wikipedia does not work via the diktat of some State- it works via consensus of reliable sources.
Gulf of Mexico [Re:Reality] (Score:4, Informative)
The bias isn't totally fake, but it is overblown.I mean, try posting anything using the words "Gulf Of America" in any Wikipedia article like for a coastal Texas city, and watch how fast it gets reverted even though it is technically the legal name of that body of water in the USA right now.
[my emphasis].
You do know that Wikipedia is international, right? Not just U.S.?
And, I'm not even sure by what legal system you say it is "the legal name" even in the U.S.. What body of law exactly says that the president has the unilateral power to rename international bodies of water? Can he rename Florida "Trumpia?" Can he rename the Appalachian mountains "Donald's Hills"?
In any case, Mexico's coastline on the Gulf is longer than the US's coastline, so if anybody can name it, they should.
Re: (Score:2)
And, I'm not even sure by what legal system you say it is "the legal name" even in the U.S.. What body of law exactly says that the president has the unilateral power to rename international bodies of water? Can he rename Florida "Trumpia?" Can he rename the Appalachian mountains "Donald's Hills"?
Presumably if Trump wants it called the United States of Trumpia, Wikipedia should comply. ROFLMAO.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And, I'm not even sure by what legal system you say it is "the legal name" even in the U.S..
In this particular instance, the Constitution.
What body of law exactly says that the president has the unilateral power to rename international bodies of water?
In this particular instance, the Constitution.
Can he rename Florida "Trumpia?"
Yes.
Can he rename the Appalachian mountains "Donald's Hills"?
Yes.
In any case, Mexico's coastline on the Gulf is longer than the US's coastline, so if anybody can name it, they should.
That is not how things work at all, and frankly, it isn't even logical.
I'll break it down for you.
There are several dozen names of the Gulf of Mexico within the world.
Gulf of Mexico is its most common name in the English-language world.
What it's name is within Mexico is meaningless.
I suspect you're exactly the kind of douche-waffle that will argue that it's dumb to call the US America while ignoring the
The constitution says no such thing [Re:Gulf o...] (Score:2)
What body of law exactly says that the president has the unilateral power to rename international bodies of water?
In this particular instance, the Constitution.
The constitution says no such thing. Try reading it.
Re: (Score:2)
First sentence of Article 2:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
This is held, in ~225 years of jurisprudence, to mean that he has plenary control over the Executive branch, and therefor- the power to issue orders to that branch (Executive Orders).
This is simple shit.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. Go check it, you ignorant bitch. And yes, "América" means the whole continent in Spanish, what you're calling "America" is usually referred to as EE. UU. (Estados Unidos) in the Spanish speaking world.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't conflate Latin America, which stupidly refers to the US as "Estados Unidos" (despite Mexico sharing that legal name) with "The spanish speaking world".
It is not uncommon to for Americans to be called americanos in Spain (though estadounidense is also common)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, try posting anything using the words "Gulf Of America" in any Wikipedia article like for a coastal Texas city, and watch how fast it gets reverted even though it is technically the legal name of that body of water in the USA right now.
I mean, that's just wrong. Gulf of America is not the legal name of the Gulf of Mexico in the US right now. The legal names of these things is set through legislation. Trump issued an executive order to rename it to federal agencies. That leads to the odd situation where federal agencies call it something other than the legal name because they have been ordered to, but that is a de facto change, not a de jurem one. The accepted international name and the legal US name are (in English) the Gulf of Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
If Congress were to pass a statute naming the body of water, then I'd agree that the statutory name was its legal name.
Re: (Score:3)
That appears to disagree with your earlier argument where you said:
I'd argue that it is the legal name insomuch as it doesn't have a statutory name, leaving him basically free to name it.
Statutory name and legal name are essentially the same thing and you've already said that it doesn't have a statutory name. Otherwise we're just having a pointless semantic argument about what the "legal name" of a place even means. The US does have a board on Geographic names, that could be considered the authority on the legal names of places. The problem is that they have rules and the naming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America s
Re: (Score:3)
I will merely correct your misunderstanding of Article 1 powers.
You think it's cut and dry. It is not.
The BGN was only established by Congress in 1947.
It existed before that, created by Executive Order.
Are we to think that no name in use by the Government was legal before then?
Legal does not mean "by statute".
If a President has the power to order the Government to call chickens turkeys, then it fits every definition of legal.
Re:Reality (Score:4, Interesting)
As of right now, it's pretty clear that Gulf of Mexico is the proper name according to their guidelines.
Over time, that could change, if "Gulf of America" ever sees common usage in reliable sources.
Not following the guidelines repeatedly is, indeed, a way to get your editing privileges removed. Does that not make sense to you? That's not left-wing bias- there are procedures. There are pages to talk about those procedures, and pages to talk about the naming controversy (it even has its own article).
Trying to subversively go around the policies by making edits to articles hoping you'll achieve some kind of critical mass is abuse.
Re: (Score:3)
Cause it is vandalism. The English Wikipedia is not UnitedStatesOfAmerica-pedia. The same reason they use metric units in the English wikipedia. It is not hard to put two sets of units on one page if there is a reason why both units should be stated (like explaining how big a pint or a gallon is.) It is annoyingly hard to have two terms used for a geopolitical entity because the way data "is", is there can only be one source of truth. So if every new article about something in texas said "gulf of america",
Re:Pertinent Example (Score:4, Insightful)
[citation required]
Re:Pertinent Example (Score:5, Informative)
Which section was that? What was it called? You should be able to look it up, the posting history is public. Here's a page from 6 months before announcing her presidential campaign and there is no mention of a section dedicated to her scandals: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind... [wikipedia.org]
Yes there were a lot of edits prior to her presidential campaign, that generally happens to all leaders all over the world on every corner of the political spectrum when they announce their presidential run. That is basic information management, people are going to look up who you are. That isn't bias against one or another side.
However your comment mentioned something specific, so please [Citation Required] because right now I can't find a corroborating evidence for your claim of a coverup.
Re: (Score:2)
Here are a list of edits. Which one is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I know you folks think you are special
There's no think about it- it's literally quantifiable.
Of course, much more is inferred by that than is warranted, but that doesn't somehow justify deluding yourself into believing it doesn't exist.
Honest push-back is much more constructive.
but there is a whole other world out there. You should check it out sometime.
Of course there is.
And I have, and will continue to do so.
You see, the problem isn't that you said:
but there is a whole other world out there. You should check it out sometime.
People absolutely should see the world. How the fuck else are you going to get a real eyeful of the actual cultures that make it up?
The problem, is that you DID say:
but not anywhere important.
W
Re:Reality (Score:4, Insightful)
unmatched performance metrics in terms of geopolitical importance
LOL. The entire rest of the world is working out deals amongst ourselves to avoid doing business with you. Your importance will continue to decline even when Trump is gone. It is hard to regain trust once it is lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US is at +50% with.... 320m people.
Keep up the good work, boys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think a large portion of global trade is bulk agreements between countries? Fascinating.
No wonder you fuckers are behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trades, prices, and power is flexed individually.
It is true that certain things like taxation regimes are negotiated as blocs. Sanctions of course also apply between blocs.
The EU does not call up the US and ask for 1.2 million iPhones.
The effect of GDP-per-capita on trade is Econ 101.
There are many examples if you'd like to take a deep dive.
Brazil and South Korea, Spain and Mexico.
Let me know if you'd like to know more.
That isn't to say that blocs don't add a force
Re: (Score:2)
The US may be a tricky jurisdiction to do trade within right now, but the people who buy the goods- US people- are still the best customers on the planet.
Businesses will continue to seek the best customers, and they will continue to influence their local jurisdictions to facilitate that.
EU customers are also decently good customers.
Chinese customers? The worst. They can't afford shit.
High per-capita income countries is a category for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Let's call the EU's 20 trillion/500m people, and China's 20 trillion/1200m people the baseline. The US is at +50% with.... 320m people. Keep up the good work, boys.
The discussion was about "geopolitical importance", so having a big population and a 20 trillion GDP might be better than being near the top of this list [wikipedia.org] with Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Bermuda. If we've moved away from discussing "geopolitical importance" to "doing a great job enriching their citizens" then fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Economic influence is a mix of bulk GDP and the economic power of the individual units of demand- the people.
This is what makes the EU different, economically, than China.
This is what makes the US far more than just +50% greater in geopolitical economic importance than those two.
Or would you argue that South Korea and Brazil have similar geopolitical economic importance?
Now the relationship isn't direct- for sure. But it's highly influential indirectly.
A perhaps crude way to say it is:
So
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Canada we are actually working to sell more oil, gas, and various other resources to Asia. They can indeed afford it. And they are not as sketchy to deal with.
lol, no. ;)
That's why you're "working to".
93% of Canadian oil exports go directly south
If China could take up that demand, you'd send them east and west tomorrow. But they can't, so you can't.
You're disconnected from reality, my Great Northern Friend.
Re: (Score:2)
https://energynewsbeat.co/the-... [energynewsbeat.co]
Natural gas is the bigger news. Lots on non-US export contacts for that going forward.
https://natural-resources.cana... [canada.ca]
That Trump can move the needle even a few percent is an illustration of how much damage he is doing to a once mutually beneficial relationship. And of course he is doing that with every country on earth. So enjoy. I don't miss Jack
Re: (Score:2)
Gonna take time, but we are indeed working on it. Need another pipeline to the coast now that TMX is filling up.
Not even 100% of your sea exports go overseas (you actually send some of that shit to us, amazingly)- but still, it's a small fraction.,br>
Natural gas is the bigger news. Lots on non-US export contacts for that going forward.
Well that makes sense- the US natgas imports have been falling since 2007, as we have a production glut here of the stuff.
our natgas exports surpassed our imports back in 2017.
That wasn't by any kind of policy you guys made on your side. That's just the market doing what the market does.
That Trump can move the needle even a few percent is an illustration of how much damage he is doing to a once mutually beneficial relationship. And of course he is doing that with every country on earth. So enjoy. I don't miss Jack Daniels that much anyway.
Not really.
It's more a demonstration that US domestic policy has made cheap im
Re: (Score:2)
However, your belief that that relationship is somehow moving any export needle for Canada is pretty silly.
Your belief that there are not better trading partners elsewhere won't serve you well. The free market also routes around bullshit. It is kind of like the internet that way. Trump makes it economically advantageous for our exporters to look elsewhere. Tariffs are like that. Especially ones that change regularly in completely unpredictable ways. There is a huge hidden cost there that can be avoided by trading with normal people.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? You think criticism of your leader (that's also shared by at least half Americans) means that someone hates the US? And with your last statement there, it's no wonder you see so much apparent hatred in the world. That's the crux whole problem right there.
We don't really want to live without you, but Trump as a unreliable partner is making that impossible, much like an abusive spouse. So yes the world will have many problems without the US as it used to be, but Trump's given us all no choice reall
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You think criticism of your leader (that's also shared by at least half Americans) means that someone hates the US?
Not at all.
And with your last statement there, it's no wonder you see so much apparent hatred in the world. That's the crux whole problem right there.
No, in this case it's your illiteracy.
We don't really want to live without you
Nor do you have a realistic choice to.
Sometimes I'd love to see you try, though.
but Trump as a unreliable partner is making that impossible, much like an abusive spouse.
No argument there whatsoever.
So yes the world will have many problems without the US as it used to be, but Trump's given us all no choice really, so we move on and make the best of it.
lolwut? You move on? Is that what you call the current trade situation between the EU, the Americans-US, and the US?
That isn't moving on, that's clamoring to suck that Mussolini-wannabe's cock.
Own it, dude. Denial isn't helping you.
Person above did not "criticize our leader".
I couldn't give a fuck about Trump.
They said:
but not anywhere important.
Which is frankly just stup
Re: (Score:2)
But the fact of the matter is, it is more important than wherever the fuck you're from, in every single objective measure of importance.
Actually it's not. A body's name by its nature has its importance dictated by the group representing its users. The USA isn't an exclusive user of the body of water in the ocean so the naming convention falls to the agreement of an intergovernmental body. If they wanted to rename a lake within its borders more power to them, they are the only authorities on that, but outside the USA is irrelevant, the only important people in this scenario are the International Hydrographic Organization who are the internat