Whole thing reads like somebody’s high school essay on how non-US countries are actually more racist, but you’re not allowed to cite sources.
Source if you also hate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Cuba
“Black Cubans still experienced employment discrimination, especially when their economy relied on tourism”
this claim also doesn’t have a citation but if the “especially” part is true, isn’t it because the tourists are racist?
isn’t it because the tourists are racist?
And worse, Italian.
I guess one good thing the Cubano Gusanos did was killing an Italian tourist
When was this? Sounds like some mob infighting.
I think that happens in The Godfather III.
I think it’s this
Isn’t this linked to the fact that most Cubans returning back their remittances are the white-Cuban American types?
Damn Wikipedia really at the point where people can just do opinion pieces in the articles lmao
A lot of time English language articles on Chinese cultural topics will just have paragraph long quotes from some no-name 18th cent. white racist whining about the topic at hand with no substance. Randomly inserted.
I’ve graded a lot of high school history essays, and this could be one of them
High school teachers should crack down on this passive voice more, even if it means people write in first person
you’re not allowed to cite sources
Go put some citation needed in this article if you see a claim that needs one. At least make them back their claims up.
I thought about that, but they block my VPN for editing and I didn’t feel like creating an account or letting them publicly log my IP for edits that would probably get reversed right away. I think some comrade started fixing it after I posted here, so t whoever that is:
You can add that kind of stuff without an account in most articles unless it’s something that’s blocked.
they block my VPN for editing … or letting them publicly log my IP
Yeah, but you missed their point. If you edit without an account, Wikipedia shows your IP address instead as the editor for all to see.
Reminder that we now know for a fact that the CIA is actively editing wikipedia as part of their psychological operations
I imagine that at least half of any article relating to Cuba has at least one fed contributor
Shit NATOpedia says
We got a new emote recently:
doesn’t this break the rule about nazi imagery in emotes?
Yeah, that’s probably a decent rule to have. I’ll ask the Lemmygrad admins about it.
That said, we already have
although the swastika is intentionally distorted.It does, but this is a Lemmygrad emote, not a Hexbear one. Hexbear has that rule, Lemmygrad does not.
Less rules?? Are we anarchists now??
Give in, embrace non-hierarchical thought
ah, ok. makes sense
Removed by mod
I think a Wikipedia-focused comm, “Genuises of Wikipedia” or “Shit Wikipedia Says”, could be really good, especially for deconstructing garbage in the comments.
I am inclined towards creating one, but am a little iffy as SRS does exist, and we recently had to merge a bunch of these subs anyway.
We still have the “Nonsense UA Takes” comm lying around, and I think it could have a similar educational purpose. I’d like that, since I like fact-checking Wikipedia sources already. Might be cool to check if that’d be alright with the admins.
Impossible to do, as the reason we merged all communities into one was to stop the proliferation of so many similar communities. Reintroducing them now would eventually lead us back to the original situation where we had dozens of SXS communities that are mostly dead.
As per the rules (decided collectively) no other “Shit X Say” communities can be created by users. The UA takes community actually originally slipped through the merger, and there was another discussion as for what to do with it, and we collectively decided that it could stay because it was about current events. Probably that after the war is over we’ll archive it as well.
Holy afro-pessimism Batman!
