›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Conservapedia makes me rage and lol at the same time

Nine BoomerNine Boomer
edited December 2008 in Flamewars
I don't think I've ever seen such a conservative site in my whole life, and it worries me to think some people actually think like this. The worst part is that this is a wiki, which means that the content produced is from the every day conservative man. There are some great quotes all over the place, and it's fun to look up random articles like abstinence and evolution and just see what strange views people have. Although I know I'll offend some of the conservative people here, some of this stuff is just so biased and wrong that I don't even see how people can think this way. Here are some of my favorite quotes:

"[Sarah Palin] participated in a debate with the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008, ending up being declared the winner by most credible news sources that are not influenced by liberal bias."

"Since, then, though, [George Bush's popularity rating] declined as some of his policies have become unpopular (largely due to the media's persistently negative -- and biased -- reporting on the Iraq War and misrepresentation of his policies)"

Benefits of Abstinence

* Clear conscience with God through the absence of sin.

* Peace of mind in your life and future relationships, and marriage.

* More self-respect and more respect for each others and respected by other people.

"Homosexuality is death, and I choose life. - Ex-Homosexual and ex-"gay rights" leader Michael Glatze" (emphasis on the quotes around the word gay rights).

Phew, it's pretty hot in here, did someone start a fire?
«13

Comments

  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Are you sure it's not a joke site?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Conservapedia is real. Jason started a thread about it a long time ago. It's what those people actually think.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    edited December 2008
    "Since, then, though, [George Bush's popularity rating] declined as some of his policies have become unpopular (largely due to the media's persistently negative -- and biased -- reporting on the Iraq War and misrepresentation of his policies)"
    Media was very very hard on Bush. Did he deserve some of it, yes, but I don't think he deserved the level of hate and venom that was directed at him. Anywho......


    Joe, you're lobing the easy questions. You've got to ask the questions that make conservatives feel uncomfortable to get the true hilarity. I present to you, Sexual Intercourse.
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • BronzdragonBronzdragon
    I would like to point out the number of words on the talk page of previous mentiond sexual intercourse page.
  • Nine BoomerNine Boomer

    Joe, you lobing the easy questions. You've got to ask the questions that make conservatives feel uncomfortable to get the true hilarity. I present to you,Sexual Intercourse.
    I didn't want to visit that site at school, so I wasn't able to present anything from there. I can't wait to read about it at home!
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    I'd also like to say, considering how much they love God and talk about it, the page is surprisingly short. What, no list of accomplishments? Where's the parting of the Red Sea? The ten commandments? What has he done lately that I should worship?

    They seem to have this thing backwards, the things they truly believe have short pages and the things they hate have huge pages. Like the Atheism page, it's five miles. I wanna join and liter the pages with [citation needed]. :P
  • AnastiusAnastius
    First thing that I noticed on the Atheism page:
    The perverse and cruel atheist...
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    First thing that I noticed on the Atheism page:
    The perverse and cruel atheist...
    We should start an argument on the talk page about the need for non-POV statements. It'll be fun!
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    non-POV
    POV?
  • Nine BoomerNine Boomer
    non-POV
    POV?
    Neutral point of view. It essentially means that it can't be biased if you havn't figured it out from the words.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    Not sure conservapeadia are interested in having a neutral point of view.
  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    Not sure conservapeadia are interested in having a neutral point of view.
    Yeah, considering that they call themselves the "trustworthy encyclopedia," I wouldn't expect any sort of neutrality. I definitely wouldn't call what they spew forth truth, truthiness maybe, but not truth.
  • Your MomYour Mom
    First thing that I noticed on the Atheism page:
    The perverse and cruel atheist...
    I would honestly care--if they weren't talking about the Marquis de Sade. There is a completely justified reason that the term sadism is derived from him.
  • NeitoNeito
    edited December 2008
    Are you sure it's not a joke site?
    It's impossible to create a parody of a belief so insane that it cannot be mistaken for a real belief.
    Post edited by Neito on
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited December 2008
    My favorite "Talk:Sexual intercourse" line of questioning.

    While I understand that the project is desirous of a family-friendly encyclopedia, this article is patently ridiculous. And locked. Please add something benign, perhaps along the lines of:

    Sexual intercourse is the mechanism by which human beings mate and produce offspring. The Penis enters the Vagina, the male's sperm fertilises the female's egg, and the child forms in the womb.

    There can hardly be the slightest objection to something as simple as that, a matter-of-fact description for children of how we all came to be. EngelUmpocker 16:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

    I anticipate plenty of objection. For a start, tell a child or young teenager how, and they might want to try it. It also means we have to make articles on mate, penis and virgina, tripling the contriversy. Here's an idea: Disappear the lot. Delete the page, prevent it ever being created again. Do the same for everything that deals with human sexuality. It's just easier than spending years bickering over what we can say, and we are very unlikely to reach any agreement. - NewCrusader
    I am bubbling over with rage. This man obvious has absolutely no respect for competence of teenagers who are likely far more well-informed than he, and is also sponsoring the repression of information of core biologic functions? At its most basic level, this psychotic line of thought is akin to "Telling kids about the functions of bodily excretion might lead them to be vulgar. Therefore, we should never potty train another child, lest we corrupt the youth."
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • JonathanDP81JonathanDP81
    Skeptoid, one of my very favorite podcasts, posted an episode about Conservapedia not long ago. You can find a transcript of it here.
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    Found this image there:

    image

    Irony at it's best.
  • AnastiusAnastius
    Not sure conservapeadia are interested in having a neutral point of view.
    Apparently, they do. They just fail at it.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    Not sure conservapeadia are interested in having a neutral point of view.
    Apparently,they do. They just fail at it.
    I meant they aren't interested in their own wiki having a NPOV. See the rules:
    1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia[1] or elsewhere unless it was your original work.[2]
    2. Always cite[3] and give credit to your sources,[4] even if in the public domain.[5]
    3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
    4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
    5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.
    6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.[6]
    7. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account.[7] See the Guidelines for more detail.
    I'd post the same kind of page from Wikipedia but it would run to novel length.
  • AnastiusAnastius
    I'd post the same kind of page from Wikipedia but it would run to novel length.
    You can always link it.

    But yeah, that's what I meant with failing. There's basically no NPOV in Conservapedia outside that page and the talk pages.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    There's basically no NPOV in Conservapedia outside that page and the talk pages.
    My point was that even in the guidelines to conserapedia editing there is no push for a neutral point of view. See point four. Using CE and BCE is a denial of the historical basis of Jesus? What a load of crap! Most people who use CE probably do think Jesus was a real person, and use CE for other reasons. To think otherwise is to force your own opinions of other peoples' actions as the truth, in other words pushing a non-neutral point of view.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    This sounds more like chrisitanapedia than conservapedia.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    Make that young-earth-creationist-fundamentalist-american-christian-conservapedia.
  • DiddgeryDiddgery
    First thing that I noticed on the Atheism page:
    The perverse and cruel atheist...
    I would honestly care--if they weren't talking about the Marquis de Sade. There is a completely justified reason that the term sadism is derived from him.
    The fact that they're using Marquis de Sade as an example of an atheist is enough reason to care. They're giving the message that most- if not all- atheists are perverse and cruel like Marquis de Sade.

    Of course, not like there's anything that could be done to change their minds...
  • Nine BoomerNine Boomer
    I read this little gem in the news sections on the right:

    "More evidence that liberalism is a mental disorder: leftist, Bush-hating granny is suing the military for the cost of her plane ticket to Kuwait and other expenses, despite the fact that after she was told her embeded position was cancelled, she went on the trip anyway, hoping the military would change their minds."
  • kumarhkkumarhk
    Make that young-earth-creationist-fundamentalist-american-christian-conservapedia.
    Wow. That just makes it the perfect recipient of my hate!

    This website just shocks me. "Trustworthy" my arse - they claimed Barack Obama was a Muslim and would take oath on the Koran based on a news article that didn't even mention his name!
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    This sounds more like chrisitanapedia than conservapedia.
    This is something conservatives love to do. They can't win in debates, so they'll say that the person purporting to espouse the conservative side wasn't really conservative. They lost big in the last two national elections, but they say that it was because their candidates weren't conservative enough. Some of them are now saying that GWB wasn't conservative.

    No, Conservapedia is conservative. It is a fair representation of what those people actually think.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    Would it be fair to label American conservatives as reactionary, rather than simply conservative? I think that would help, if we were trying to compare them to any other country (where their conservatives would be considered liberals here).
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited December 2008
    Or fascists. Some of them are just straight-up fascists. See: Flag-burning amendments.

    Also, get ready to laugh. Hard. Evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski kicks Andy Schafly's ass:

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • Nine BoomerNine Boomer
    Or fascists. Some of them are just straight-up fascists. See: Flag-burning amendments.

    Also, get ready to laugh. Hard. Evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski kicks Andy Schafly's ass:

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog
    "And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion[link to allusion]."
    That's my favorite bit out of those series of letters, it really shows how much respect he has towards conservapedia.
Sign In or Register to comment.