Ted Cruz thinks we should stop attacking pedophiles

Cruz alleged that "bias is particularly evident in Wikipedia's reliable sources/perennial sources list" because it describes "MSNBC and CNN as 'generally reliable' sources, while listing Fox News as a 'generally unreliable' source for politics and science. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center gets a top rating, but the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, is a 'blacklisted' and 'deprecated' source that Wikipedia's editors have determined 'promotes disinformation.'"

It's kind of funny how when your goal becomes to present factual information, there aren't many especially right-leaning sources. I wonder why that might be.

Can you think of why that might be the case, Ted?

Left wing bias = says objectively true things about me I don’t like.

while listing Fox News as a 'generally unreliable' source for politics and science.

You mean that Fox News that argued it’s an entertainment show that no reasonable person would take seriously?

The point of him making this dumb comparison is to quietly sell the idea to The Stupids that Heritage, Fox and other propaganda places deserve equal consideration as reality.

If reality is left of you, maybe your position is far too right?

Reality has a left wing bias

Cruz alleged that “bias is particularly evident in Wikipedia’s reliable sources/perennial sources list” because it describes “MSNBC and CNN as ‘generally reliable’ sources, while listing Fox News as a ‘generally unreliable’ source for politics and science.

Fox News, the one that successfully argued in court they they were for entertainment purposes only and not actual news? That Fox News?

"Wahhhh! They don't let us lie to you and treat us as reliable sources!"

I can't stand these scum...

Reality has a liberal bias

I recently looked into this on another forum where someone shared some articles supposedly proving bias. One article was itself highly biased to the right, so not particularly credible.

The other article, from an organization that ranked the bias of news sources, was very neutral and objective, took accusations of bias seriously, went into detail, and removed the "unbiased" classification from Wikipedia, but didn't conclude any provable bias, leaving it unranked. The best example of bias they had was the fact that articles on socialism and communism didn't list Soviet atrocities, but those atrocities have their own pages and are also mentioned on pages of the countries involved, so that was not a great example.

All these accusations are just the result of a massive right-wing campaign against facts and reality-based reporting. Everything that doesn't follow their propaganda is biased, according to them.

You mean Rafael Cruz, who uses the chosen first name of Ted?

Do not treat this as just a tantrum. It's the right's playbook of moving the overton window to the right by taking extreme positions and invoking the golden mean fallacy. It certainly has worked on MSM.

Not false. Reality is proven to have a left-wing bias.

Attacking Wikipedia can not be normalized, we must protect it.

Why are we still taking these right wing fascist morons seriously?

Apparently things like truth and reality are left wing now. Good luck with that, psychotic ultra right wingers.

Ted Cruz picks a fight with mirror, accusing it of falsely making him look like Grandpa Munster grew a beard.

Repeat after me, Die Mad About It. The sooner the better.

Is there a way to just download a straight copy of Wikipedia?

Def not asking because I expect every possible thing to go awry and we end up with Big Brother’s version of wiki

These people are such little babies. The whole reason Conservapedia exists is because they had a meltdown over using CE and BCE for dates. You know, as is the standard. But little whiny conservatives need to have their little book club centered at all times.

Sounds like the modern equivalent of burning books to me.

Any publisher of truth exhibits strong anti-fascist bias. That's because fascism is inherently anti-truth

I love it when this comes up in internet arguments. The mob often agrees with an individual's statement that Wikipedia is bad, and then when asked for an example it's always 100% something absolutely insane. The logical conclusion is that we're all wrong in different ways, but some people simply refuse to accept it and argue with the encyclopedia.

Now seems like a good time to do a backup.

For local use: https://www.howtogeek.com/260023/how-to-download-wikipedia-for-offline-at-your-fingertips-reading/

If you have a server: https://blog.stefan-koch.name/2024/11/14/self-hosting-wikipedia

(Kiwix-serve is what you're looking for)

Unfortunately I can't vouch for either of these instructions as I followed instructions from a now defunct privacy podcast.

“Systemic issues are real when they affect the conservative agenda, and DEI is good when it requires including conservative propaganda.” Got it.

Reality does not have a right-wing bias. Reality does not have a left-wing bias. But when the right has festered into such an anti-scientific culture as to be at war with truth and reality itself to the point at putting us all at an accelerated risk of a new dark age - then reality is maybe just a little more biased in favor of literally everyone else.

To fascists like Cruz, "left wing bias" means "they are reporting unbiased data instead of compliantly rewriting everything to align with our centralized propaganda machine."