I trust Wikipedia more than Britannica

Attached: 1624577796474.png (489x489, 167.72K)

This.

>Mention the out in the open conspiracy to control the national narrative
>get called crazy by a frog posting nobody
Suite yourself, kid. But this is actual “red pill”

Cope tranny

>buzz word
Pavlovian for sure

go back

Attached: 1628673948685.jpg (480x360, 23.85K)

Did you not know they donate to Wikipedia and control what gets put up?

*They aren't even*

It's always been that way. I was reading my old World Book Encyclopedia from the 90s a few weeks ago and it talks about Communism in glowing terms while half the Capitalism article is dedicated to "Problems with Capitalism". It's that that not that many people noticed at the time because there was no worldwide social media for people to piece things together and see exactly how slanted the narrative was.

Truly amazing that you'd come to board focused on the written word and refuse to communicate with it
Prove me wrong nigger
Post anything that refutes what I said
Take your meds
Dial 8
You will never pass

In all seriousness, how can you think you come off as the rational, no biased party when every other word in your post is "nigger".

Get a grip, take your meds, touch grass, get some pussy, etc

Lmao still not a rebuttal nigger
I gave a specific example
You can call out my use of the word nigger all you want.
Doesn't mean shit if you can't refute my actual points
I can be rational about a topic well also being racist about a different unrelated type of people/topic
This really isn't complicated

seek actual help

Contribute anything of value

You really can't. Your example can be correct, but you cannot be rational if you think that you will convert people in an argument about bias, when you're making your own bias so obvious.
You are stupid. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

>doesnt count
cope

dumbass

My contribution is to ask you to seek help and snap back to reality.

tub o lard lookin ass

What bias am I making obvious. I said the nigger was innocent but Wikipedia said he was guilty?
Is my bias pro black?
Walk me through your rational thought process here.
You're really going to talk about rationality well ignoring my actual point because I said the nigger word.
That doesn't seem very rational to me

Still not a rebuttal

>What bias am I making obvious
>nigger

they don't bait like they used to i tell ya

It seems like you're the only one who's unhinged. You seem unable to cope with differing views than your own. You can't even explain why you disagree with them
Are you okay?

I didn't ask you to speak negro

Yes what bias
Say it
Am I anti black because I said nigger?
Well in the same breath calling out Wikipedias racist attack on an innocent black man?
Again, walk me through your rational thought process.
Don't just read individual words you don't like
I know it's asking alot on the reading board to read my posts but you need to read the whole post to get context.

Attached: 1641114544809.png (800x387, 220.99K)

>dumb opinion
>at least it was a different view
lmfao

See

What was said that you take offense at? Surely not the fact that academia is filled with people sympathetic to communism?

see

>Still can't explain why he disagrees with an opinion
>It's dumb because...
>IT JUST IS OKAY
Truly shameful

Lmao holy fuck genuinely unhinged
Why do you trannies even come to Yea Forums if nigger drives you this crazy

wikipedia has bots that automatically revert any obvious edits you make within seconds
with that being said, i once managed to upload a gigantic picture (10,000 x 10,000) of a random celebrity and opening up the page caused your pc to lock up and crash

good times

fucking idiot

> political and history articles
Much like everywhere else the hard sciences can be trusted and the soft ones are just full of ideological idiots lying to each other.

Cool story bro

>racism outside of Yea Forums
yup in the cringe list it goes

Didn't read.

>it doesnt align with my political belief which is anything or anybody than me is some [Insert Political Ideology that I disagree]
okay

You sound like a mouthbreathing moron you know that.

>Still not a rebuttal
You mean you can't read

>Still not a rebuttal
>Calling anyone a mouth breather when you lack the ability to express why you don't like something
Do you get from place to place by instinct or do you have a retard wrangler that helps you with the day to day

I post lies on Wikipedia all the time, mostly to counter the Jews who post an equal number of lies.
Wikipedia exists specifically to encourage revisionism, and is structured so a clique of Jews may edit all known knowledge through proxy.

I gave up complaining about their organized revisionism when I learned a literal Jew started the company.
Now I just post antisemetic lies because it's an inherently hostile platform.

A. you've got regional dominance, editors aren't geographically represented.
A Jew can edit the article about your hometown and you can neither identify or stop them doing this, they can re-write your history because they speak your language; you on the other hand can't speak or read Hebrew.
We see this dynamic in academia all the time, where linguistic minorities present their own culture collectively and attack majority language cultures.
B. most of the senior editors are using hundreds of proxies to astroturf articles and game the resolution system.
You simply don't see senior editors contesting content they don't like- they merely run bots to auto-revert the work of new users then employ proxies to contest the articles they don't like.
C. Jews exert external pressure through lawfare, simply giving the website an excuse to delete content.
The most serious issue here is that Jews may cite secondary sources when the primary source is proprietary.
A Jewsih scientist claims to have read a manuscript and publishes a thesis on it, the thesis is a valid source while the manuscript is actively suppressed through copywrite.
You even see the Jews taking pictures of artistic works, then destroying the original work so the only version accessible is their copy- which is somehow copywritable

Fuck jews, fuck wikipedia

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASED

>its not a rebuttal because... because... because i said so

>I post lies on Wikipedia all the time, mostly to counter the Jews who post an equal number of lies.
>Wikipedia exists specifically to encourage revisionism, and is structured so a clique of Jews may edit all known knowledge through proxy.
>
>I gave up complaining about their organized revisionism when I learned a literal Jew started the company.
>Now I just post antisemetic lies because it's an inherently hostile platform.
>
>A. you've got regional dominance, editors aren't geographically represented.
>A Jew can edit the article about your hometown and you can neither identify or stop them doing this, they can re-write your history because they speak your language; you on the other hand can't speak or read Hebrew.
>We see this dynamic in academia all the time, where linguistic minorities present their own culture collectively and attack majority language cultures.
>B. most of the senior editors are using hundreds of proxies to astroturf articles and game the resolution system.
>You simply don't see senior editors contesting content they don't like- they merely run bots to auto-revert the work of new users then employ proxies to contest the articles they don't like.
>C. Jews exert external pressure through lawfare, simply giving the website an excuse to delete content.
>The most serious issue here is that Jews may cite secondary sources when the primary source is proprietary.
>A Jewsih scientist claims to have read a manuscript and publishes a thesis on it, the thesis is a valid source while the manuscript is actively suppressed through copywrite.
>You even see the Jews taking pictures of artistic works, then destroying the original work so the only version accessible is their copy- which is somehow copywritable
>
>Fuck jews, fuck wikipedia

Get a Life

Attached: 1634547144588.png (645x770, 33.12K)

Imagine being this pathetic.

Lmao you haven't refuted anything
Responding isn't a rebuttal
Saying cope isn't a rebuttal
Address anything anyone has said explain why it's wrong
You literally can not do it
Even after I directly called you out for it, you still can't explain yourself
So that's a yes you have a wrangler I assume you're posting here because they're asleep.

>blah blah blah i just hate jews for no particular reason i made it all up wahhhh

Attached: 1629205034312.jpg (270x292, 26.22K)

I have refuted and answered all of your arguments. If you cannot accept it then it is Not My Problem.

Lmao Where. Show me where.
You haven't responded to
I only posted the last two
Explain what bias I have well both insulting and defending a black person

You are arguing with three people.

>Not one of them has addressed what I've said
Why would that matter. The guy I responded to hasn't addressed anything

The Jew cries in pain as he strikes you.

Attached: 1623961860520.jpg (413x395, 78.83K)

Tourist refugees deserve the hammer.

So which one of them?

>Wikipedia

Attached: 1638707707410.png (715x895, 426.38K)

Read