Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hagbard_c 822 days ago
> I'm asking you.

No ad-hominems, or rather you are looking at this as a 'liberal' would while I described a scenario in which a 'conservative' looks at the mentioned article and concept. In the "conservative's" opinion what is written there is just as implausible as what is written in the Conservapedia article on the 'truth' of the flood story. Both Wikipedia as well as Conservapedia are biased which is what this was about, not about whether the flood or someone feeling non-binary is true.
2 comments
mckn1ght 822 days ago
> Both Wikipedia as well as Conservapedia are biased

Both-sidesing this when you have already been presented with indefensible nonsense such as “e=mc^2 is liberal claptrap” is shameful. That page hasn’t been edited since mid-2022. There’s an entire article called “liberal claptrap” linked to from that statement that has remained unedited for 7 months. It shouldn’t even exist.

That garbage is not constructive and has no place in respectable discourse.

link
lolc 822 days ago
If I called you a fringe US conservative, that would be ad-hominem. We haven't gotten there because we're stuck at the question you are deflecting.

In my view, Conservapedia is an encyclopedia only by medieval standards. It is not useful to me except for entertainment and maybe if I wanted to write US cable news ad copy. What is it to you? Do you refer to it when you want to know about historical floods?

link