3 ms·

You're presenting a false set of alternatives here. Wikipedia doesn't represent "objective truth" in my view. Nor do I agree with everything Conservapedia has

You're presenting a false set of alternatives here. Wikipedia doesn't represent "objective truth" in my view. Nor do I agree with everything Conservapedia has to say. Do Wikipedia editors claim divine revelation as a source, or are they just omnipotent? As a point of fact, Wikipedia editors get into their own brand of legalese where they decide which establishment press sources are canon. So maybe the CNN reporters are omnipotent or acquire information via divine revelation? No, this is plainly false. Trivial research will reveal that both CNN reporters and online encyclopedia editors are fallible humans. Worth thinking about the premises involved here. If objective truth exists, is it accessible for humans? Some would go as far as saying it doesn't exist at all. Not my personal view. There are axiomatic propositions we can understand to be true independent of our fallible senses. Two parallel lines will never meet. A triangle has three sides. Men are fallible, imperfect observers and prone to corruption. I'd rank these much higher in precedence than anything Wikipedia has to say. YMMV, but starting from these premises I try to exercise a bit of tolerance when encountering different views.

mikeyouse 4y ago
Of course Wikipedia isn't "objective truth" but that doesn't mean you should give one moment's credence to garbage like Conservapedia, or the schizophrenic yelling at pigeons down by the river. You don't need a philosophical treatise on why to ignore dumb things, you can just call them dumb and ignore them recognizing that they add absolutely no value to the world, as evidenced by the halfwitted defenses seen here.
- aww_dang 4y ago
  I don't deride "schizophrenics down by the river" or equate them with terrorists. I disagree with their views and choices. Honestly haven't wasted much time looking at Conservipedia, nor am I a fan of Wikipedia. There's a contingent of online fact checkers, would be censors and their fellow travelers pushing a scientismic world view. I do take exception with this promotion. Invoking "objective truth" is symptomatic of this meme. Personally I find it more concerning than fringe views.

mikeyouse 4y ago

Of course Wikipedia isn't "objective truth" but that doesn't mean you should give one moment's credence to garbage like Conservapedia, or the schizophrenic yelling at pigeons down by the river. You don't need a philosophical treatise on why to ignore dumb things, you can just call them dumb and ignore them recognizing that they add absolutely no value to the world, as evidenced by the halfwitted defenses seen here.

aww_dang 4y ago
I don't deride "schizophrenics down by the river" or equate them with terrorists. I disagree with their views and choices. Honestly haven't wasted much time looking at Conservipedia, nor am I a fan of Wikipedia. There's a contingent of online fact checkers, would be censors and their fellow travelers pushing a scientismic world view. I do take exception with this promotion. Invoking "objective truth" is symptomatic of this meme. Personally I find it more concerning than fringe views.