> 1. You don't deport millions of undocumented people, you find a way integrate those who are willing to work (most of them) into your society.
How is that currently working out for all of Europe? Hint: not well at all.
> 2. Obama and Biden didn't get the same level of attention because they weren't being publicly antagonistic and racist, or using deliberately cruel tactics to accomplish their goals. Or breaking the law / violating the constitution to meet their ends.
You've made a lot of ambiguous accusations right here. Can you please give specific examples?
Likely because it mentions JD Vance and the current US administration in a positive light, since they have rightly shone a bright light on the active decline of free speech in Europe.
> Why can't we classify a level or something? For example "Autistic level 1" for Asperger's, "Autistic level 2" for barely verbal, "Autistic level 3" for non-verbel... Something like that
Congratulations, the DSM-5 must have heard you talking :) It does have levels for autism, and classifies the levels in terms of support required:
- Level 1: Requiring support
- Level 2: Requiring substantial support
- Level 3: Requiring very substantial support
> To lump both those together is insane.
I'm diagnosed with ADHD and also clearly on the spectrum. This life has been decades of confusion and--finally--answers & discovery. My time with my son--diagnosed as Level 1 autistic--and my time observing people in Level 2 and level 3 makes me realize that what you say about lumping everything together is spot on. I always feel like our diagnoses make life oh so difficult, but then I see what parents and guardians of Level 3 autistic people go through and have nothing but endless empathy.
> At least Grokipedia tries to look like it was written with the intent to inform, not spoonfeed an opinion.
In addition, Grokipedia isn't encumbered by a Perennial Sources List[0] whose "generally reliable" section consists entirely of center and/or center-left media sources, and seems to be entirely purposed for gatekeeping.
The web site of the US television news network with by far the most viewership (Fox) was moved from "generally reliable" to "marginally reliable" for scientific and political claims, while MSNBC and CNN remain "generally reliable". This fact is laughable, considering MSNBC and CNN's mutual refusal to report on things like the Arctic Frost[1] (currently) and Hunter Biden laptop[2] (historically) conspiracies initiated under the Biden administration. Fox reported on both, but is not allowed as a source despite being the only major news network to not suppress the stories.
When an "encyclopedia" only allows unrestricted use of sources that fail to report information on notable news (such as conspiracies that are more far-reaching than Watergate), the encyclopedia will become less used by people because they no longer trust its new organizational and editorial biases.
Some folks, including myself, rarely reference Wikipedia anymore, because it often doesn't have the information being researched, and even if it does, we can't be sure we're getting very much (or any!) of the full story. This is broadly demonstrated by Wikipedia's constant decline in traffic from 2022 (~165M visits/day) through the present (~128M visits/day)[3].
As a counterpoint, I found wikipedia's "perennial_sources_list" to be a pretty reasonable efficiency measure. Additionally whats the problem with wikipedia's entry about "artic frost"? (your [1] did not link to anything regarding that entry)
>This is broadly demonstrated by Wikipedia's constant decline in traffic from 2022 (~165M visits/day) through the present (~128M visits/day)[3].
This demonstrates only the decrease in web traffic, and there are plenty of discussions about the reasons why and I suspect that conservatives didn't all of a sudden decide to hate wikipedia starting in 2022 as you seem to imply.
This predictable response to people doing what they think is best is so incredibly demeaning, infantilizing, and small-minded. Just because _you_ think somebody is voting against their own interest does not mean they are actually voting against their own interest.
The most virtuous of us do not vote their own interest first, but rather the interest of justice and morality. The assumption that people should or will vote their own interest first & always is what the kids these days seem to call "mid" and "basic".
They dont do what they think is best. They want to harm people not like them, they are attracted to fraud and want affirmation of hierarchy that they think is advantage to them.
The infantilizing thing is constantly project positive motivations on people who do the opposite.
They were literally looking forward to cause harm, they just thought it will harm only liberals, trans, stupid feminists and well ... anyone not them.
> Voter ID laws disproportionately affect a very specific subset of the population
Can you prove that? I've never read about a single case of somebody being unable to obtain a government photo ID who was legitimately eligible to vote. People need their photo IDs for pretty much everything these days. That's why voter ID is a requirement in most countries. Because it's reasonable, it makes sense, and it benefits society more than any theoretical, unproven harm.
> I've never read about a single case of somebody being unable to obtain a government photo ID who was legitimately eligible to vote
That doesn't mean your opinion is true. I don't know how much or how widely you read, nor do I know how varied your sources are. That you have never read an anecdote describing my assertion does not mean my assertion is false.
You can read more about the effects of voter ID laws (according to research) here:
Nobody broke in. Most people charged were outside the entire time. The few that went inside were literally waved in by smiling police officers and escorted around the building by police. Please learn more about what happened that day. The people that endured this persecution of a witch hunt deserve sainthood. They were abused in jail in unimaginable ways.
I would encourage you to learn more about that day. Most people that were charged did not go into the building. And the few that did were literally waved in by police, including many being escorted around inside by police.
It’s a way of saying “following the letter of a poorly drafted law while being aware of, and not following, its intended spirit”. Just because the law accidentally technically allows you to do something doesn’t mean you should, or that it should be considered morally acceptable to do so.
How is that currently working out for all of Europe? Hint: not well at all.
> 2. Obama and Biden didn't get the same level of attention because they weren't being publicly antagonistic and racist, or using deliberately cruel tactics to accomplish their goals. Or breaking the law / violating the constitution to meet their ends.
You've made a lot of ambiguous accusations right here. Can you please give specific examples?