27 ms·
Are you seriously suggesting an encyclopedia should be packed with crackpot conspiracy theories, academic charlatanry, quackery, and agitprop? Or does that not
by netbioserror 4mo ago
Are you seriously suggesting an encyclopedia should be packed with crackpot conspiracy theories, academic charlatanry, quackery, and agitprop? Or does that not defeat the point? Keep the author's biography, but his "theories" are best left for a footnote in the biography, or websites that explicitly serve as a museum for failed ideas.
- weakfish 4mo agoA) that’s a very biased view of it that you clearly are emotionally invested in B) an encyclopedia should describe all things factually. It’d be one thing if it described it as truth, but describing it truthfully is far different
- netbioserror 4mo agoA) Non-argument. B) Repositories of knowledge should not contain anti-knowledge.
- weakfish 4mo agoSince you can just counter anything I say with calling it “anti-knowledge,” I’ll leave you with a profound quote: “That’s just like, your opinion, man”
- netbioserror 4mo agoAgitprop like "aesthetics are fascist" is pretty blatant opinion. Live up to your own standards.
- weakfish 4mo ago? I never said I agreed with the theories presented in the article. I just believe in free speech :)
- netbioserror 4mo agoThe entire Internet can bear the burden of free speech. I hold encyclopedias to a much higher, gatekept standard.