• 2 Posts
  • 89 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 30th, 2023
  • Mudface@lemmy.worldtoShowerthoughts@lemmy.world•They use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust.
    612·
    1 year ago

    A lot of the political entries are written with a bent towards being sympathetic with leftists.

    The Kyle Rittenhouse article spends a lot of time on how Rittenhouse ‘appeared in conservative media’ or ‘appeared with conservative personalities’ which is a pretty weird thing to say, if you don’t already understand the political undertones of the Kenosha riot.

    When you click the article for the Kenosha riot, it’s titled ‘civil unrest in Kenosha’ and focusses a lot on what a reader would perceive as positive aims of the riot. Protesting racism and police brutality, and doesn’t focus at all on the crime, danger, guns, vandalism, arson, etc

    That article mentions BLM and when you read that article it makes sure to state that BLM protests were ‘largely peaceful’ and totally misses the amount of deaths and destruction that had happened at them.

    The BLM article, if written like the Rittenhouse article, should focus a fair amount in the organizations ties to Marxism, the overthrowing of capitalism and colonialism, but doesn’t.

    Wikipedia articles are written and edited and maintained to push a narrative.

    If you agree with the narrative, you probably like that it does this. If you disagree, you probably don’t bother reading Wikipedia very much.

    The issue with sources, is that a lot of ‘sources’ for stuff like this are already heavily curated to paint a picture the editors want to put on front street.

    And anything that would combat that narrative is just outright banned from the site.

    A lot of citations with politically charged topics are just opinions anyway. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer or sources on the war between Palestine and isreal, for example. But if Wikipedia editors want to push propaganda for either side over the other, all they have to do is only cite pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli sources.

    This is easily exploitable by editors for whatever narrative they choose to push.

    Wikipedia is not an exhaustive gathering of all relevant information, it is a carefully curated propaganda machine for the editors.

  • Mudface@lemmy.worldtoSteam Deck@sopuli.xyz•[Game] Diablo 4 is coming to SteamEnglish
    8·
    1 year ago

    I’ve never played deep rock galactic. It very well could be the exception that proves the rule.

    Feeling punished for not playing, and feeling like a company is trying to manipulate me with psychological tricks to make me play their game is why I don’t play games with battlepasses.

    I didn’t mind Diablo iii’s seasons journey at all, and that had rewards that were missable. But Diablo iv has like 90 levels, it costs money and you have to do stupid shit like kill world bosses 15 times with them being on a timer.

    I’m not going to set a fucking alarm to log into a video game. I play games on my schedule, not the developers.

    It sounds like deep rock has a much more sane system. Maybe I’ll give it a try.

  • Mudface@lemmy.worldtoSteam Deck@sopuli.xyz•[Game] Diablo 4 is coming to SteamEnglish
    251·
    1 year ago

    I hate battlepasses

    Nothing demotivates me more than a game with a battlepass. Really disappointed, I played and somewhat enjoyed the campaign, then totally lost interest at around level 20 in the first season.

    Haven’t picked up the game in a long time, and it’s all because having a battlepass just kills the game for me.

    It turns the game into completing the battlepass instead of just playing the game as I normally would. Ignoring the battlepass doesn’t work for me, because I know it’s there.

    It triggers FOMO, but instead of making me want to play to not miss out, it makes me not want to play at all because I know completing battlepasses for me is highly unlikely