Lisa Lawler had no reason to suspect Const. Boris Borissov but now her opinion of police has changed — she’s convinced other grieving families have been victims of similar thefts
Lisa Lawler had no reason to suspect Const. Boris Borissov but now her opinion of police has changed — she’s convinced other grieving families have been victims of similar thefts
It’s always nice when someone shows you their level of intellect in great detail.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police
Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source for political factoids. As I explained earlier, if ones does any sort of search you’ll find that there isn’t a definition that everyone agrees with.
Yes, but it’s a great starting point for people who have no idea what they are talking about (you).
Once you have a basic understanding it’s possible to have more constructive conversations about a topic and branch out into more detailed explanations.
But if you don’t have the basics down it’s hard to have any real conversation with you (I often describe it as trying to have a conversation with someone who never watched star wars when they are insistent that star wars is a medieval fantasy, so you can converse with them, but if they are unwilling to grasp the basics, the conversation will never go anywhere)
https://defundthepolice.org/about/ They wish to disarm the police. https://defundthepolice.org/disarmament-demilitarization/ Some of it I agree with <ie> Predictive Policing and the use of Plantir software. But it’s a lost cause I’m afraid.
A single website source like that is even worse of a source than Wikipedia…
Not really, it’s as representative as anything else out there, which reinforces my point. There is no common meaning for ‘Defund the Police’. You are just pissing in the wind.
I’ll go back to my earlier point. Wikipedia is a fine place to start to get a summary of all the different aspects of defunding the police, you’re focused on a single source when there isn’t a single definition of the movement overall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_editing_incidents_on_Wikipedia
Absolutely not for anything political related. It’s a well-known fact that the deep state authors many of that type of article. It’s great for official propaganda. BTW, I gave 2 sources indicating the same meaning, so I’m not focusing on a single entity, plus my experience talking to on the ground black activists in Toronto as to the meaning.
Yep, being aware of that is part of being able to read anything objectively. Every single thing you read has a political slant.
Wikipedia is great because it does reference out to sources, so you can easily find multiple sources and using critical thinking skills you can distill common themes across multiple different sources.
If you’re savvy, you can even look at the page edit history and the “talk” happening behind the article to get a better idea of what parts are disputed and which are generally accepted.
So tell me, what is an authoritative source of factoids?
Actually, this is strictly an American definition. In original English, (Cambridge Dictionary) it means what I used it for: FACTOID | English meaning—Cambridge Dictionary I’m Canadian, and we use/follow the King’s English! July 19, 2023 — FACTOID definition: 1. an interesting piece of information, 2. an interesting piece of information. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/factoid
I like Quora. Encyclopedia’s on print stock used to be the gold standard due to professional fact-checkers, Wikipedia is NOT an alternative to that medium IMHO. BTW, I did not know of the definition of Factoid — Had thought it was slang for Fact.