153
Ted Cruz thinks we should stop attacking pedophiles
Anything he does from now on is an attempt to distract us from that uncharacteristically candid statement
Cruz alleged that "bias is particularly evident in Wikipedia's reliable sources/perennial sources list" because it describes "MSNBC and CNN as 'generally reliable' sources, while listing Fox News as a 'generally unreliable' source for politics and science. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center gets a top rating, but the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, is a 'blacklisted' and 'deprecated' source that Wikipedia's editors have determined 'promotes disinformation.'"
It's kind of funny how when your goal becomes to present factual information, there aren't many especially right-leaning sources. I wonder why that might be.
Can you think of why that might be the case, Ted?
I'm not sure ol' Rafael is capable of thought.
He is very capable of thought. He's an intelligent and well educated man who puts on a persona to further his own agenda. He is lacking empathy and morals, not thought.
He’s an intelligent and well educated man...
I have yet to see any evidence of that. Everything I've heard from him has always been utterly moronic.
He probably took on the mantra of the SubGenius, but for dark purposes: "Act like a dumbshit, and they'll treat you like an equal".
I've seen Ted Cruz eat his own boogers.
Little Raffy doesn't even deserve a cute irreverent nickname. Just another asshole trying to ruin the world
Also, these ding-a-lings keep confusing rather mid corporate news outlets as "liberal". Also, it's awfully interesting how butthurt the right is about SPLC, I have to say. They've been howling about that one for years. Gosh, I wonder what it is about SPLC that makes them so angry?
Reminds me of how they used to howl about ACORN until they had that little weasel O'Keefe make up a bunch of bullshit about it. Of course, a lot of these little shits have been whining about Wikipedia ever since its inception, since people constantly use it as a way to refute their LIES.
The point of him making this dumb comparison is to quietly sell the idea to The Stupids that Heritage, Fox and other propaganda places deserve equal consideration as reality.
They need to make their own site. Magapedia? Wokepedia? Pedopedia?
https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page if you wish to suffer brain rot
Oh, wow. That’s pretty wild.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
It gets really wild when you see what motivated its creation. These people are unbelievably stupid snowflakes.
Schlafly also claimed that Wikipedia's allowance of both Common Era and Anno Domini notation was anti-Christian bias.
OMG! Using CE for dates!?
/clutches pearls
Also, apparently they don't teach very goodly at the Eagle Forum University. This guy seemingly has not even had a 101-level course in ethics...
However, some users may object to certain entries, such as that for 'Atheism': "Since atheists have no God, as a philosophical framework atheism simply provides no logical basis for any moral standard.
"They live their lives according to the rule that 'anything goes'. In recent years, this has led to a large rise in crime, drug use, pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancy, pedophilia and bestiality."
This is the kind of argumentation you'll hear from complete dumbasses in junior high: "You guyz don't even believe in my god, so coming from a framework that bears no relevancy outside of accepting that framework on faith, I declare that you have no morals!"
Er, okay then.
I’ve never diddled a child. I’m such a terrible person!!!
/s
It's worse than that, it's always such a self-report: "the only thing stopping me from doing evil is fear of punishment, so everybody else must be inherently terrible shitheads too!"
The Ted Cruz entry isn't very flattering.
Came here to say this. Brought to you by the son of that witch Phyllis Schlafly.
"Wahhhh! They don't let us lie to you and treat us as reliable sources!"
I can't stand these scum...
Reality has a left wing bias
Apparently things like truth and reality are left wing now. Good luck with that, psychotic ultra right wingers.
Attacking Wikipedia can not be normalized, we must protect it.
How long has Wikipedia been around? Looks like since 2001. I think their stupid attacks go back that far. I'm sure they'd love to use the battering ram of a compliant moron like Taco + the force of government to shut them down, though.
Just like they are attacking universities, law firms, science, the media, comedy....
Repeat after me, Die Mad About It. The sooner the better.
If reality is left of you, maybe your position is far too right?
while listing Fox News as a 'generally unreliable' source for politics and science.
You mean that Fox News that argued it’s an entertainment show that no reasonable person would take seriously?
Is this the same Fox News that had to pay out a $800,000,000 settlement for lying about the 2020 election?
Did they ever pay that? Where’d the money end up?
Is there a way to just download a straight copy of Wikipedia?
Def not asking because I expect every possible thing to go awry and we end up with Big Brother’s version of wiki
https://kiwix.org/en/applications/
Kiwix is an offline browser for wikis.
There's a library they have as well. I have a snapshot of Wikipedia from 2024 before the fascists took over. Also grabbed a couple others.
I think it was like 120GB for all of Wikipedia with pictures.
Excellent work. Share, copy, mail clusters of sd drives to all corners of the earth.
Neat. I will be maybe be dedicating a TB of storage to this for no particular reason
Glad I could help. Enjoy!
I know Wikipedia is localized for many languages; I’ve never heard of a Straight Wikipedia though.
These people are such little babies. The whole reason Conservapedia exists is because they had a meltdown over using CE and BCE for dates. You know, as is the standard. But little whiny conservatives need to have their little book club centered at all times.
“Systemic issues are real when they affect the conservative agenda, and DEI is good when it requires including conservative propaganda.” Got it.
You mean Rafael Cruz, who uses the chosen first name of Ted?
"Dear sir or madam. I hope the day finds you well. I'm writing to let you know:
- You are how you are
- I don't like it
- as a private entity, you are well within your rights to tell me to fuck right off
- in which case I will cry and rub my hurting bottom
Thank you for your attention to this matter."
Unfortunately, the truth often has a left-leaning bias. If right-wingers aren't ok with that, they need to demand better from their sources.
Ted Cruz picks a fight with mirror, accusing it of falsely making him look like Grandpa Munster grew a beard.
Any publisher of truth exhibits strong anti-fascist bias. That's because fascism is inherently anti-truth
Cruz alleged that “bias is particularly evident in Wikipedia’s reliable sources/perennial sources list” because it describes “MSNBC and CNN as ‘generally reliable’ sources, while listing Fox News as a ‘generally unreliable’ source for politics and science.
Fox News, the one that successfully argued in court they they were for entertainment purposes only and not actual news? That Fox News?
Left wing bias = says objectively true things about me I don’t like.
This is literally where we are right now.
My MAGA parents told me that they consume news "from both sides". When pressed to name a single source that they consider on the left, they could not. They didn't even try to say "CNN" or some shit, they simply could not come up with a single source.
So thankfully, they recognized their irrationality, and are no longer MAGA.
Lol jk 🥲
Both sides = Fox News vs Newsmax
You're forgetting the center: OAN.
Do not treat this as just a tantrum. It's the right's playbook of moving the overton window to the right by taking extreme positions and invoking the golden mean fallacy. It certainly has worked on MSM.
golden mean fallacy
Ooh that’s a new one for me.
Asserting that given any two positions, there exists a compromise between them that must be correct.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-to-Moderation
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
153 points (98.7% liked)
politics
29296 readers
923 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS