The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001

Bruce Leroy posted:

Alt least in the North American colonies, indentured servitude was somewhat distinct from slavery, because there was generally a well-defined end date for an indentured servant's term of service and they were generally guaranteed certain financial benefits (generally a small plot of land that you own outright) upon successfully completing their "contracts." In many cases, indentured servitude was basically the way many colonists paid for their transatlantic trip from Europe, as they were unable to afford it outright.

One of the most fascinating things about Zinn's "A People's History of the US" to me was how indentured servants frequently became friends and allies with Black slaves to the point that they would escape together. It became so prevalent that many colonies enacted special laws and punishments to prevent this kind of fraternization and escape.

Indentures could vary wildly and ranged from "something along the lines of an adult apprenticeship" to "virtually indistinguishable from chattel slavery, save that it's somewhat more likely to end." Different colonies had different laws and levels of regulation as to what sort of terms an indentured servant could enter into, what they were entitled to after its completion, and what manner of restriction the master could enforce (sometimes including forfeiture of promised post-indenture land plots and/or extension of the indenture itself). This latter abuse grew quite bad in some places, which is why you saw white servants conspiring with black slaves in such things as Bacon's Rebellion, and one of the odd reasons the slaveholders were often among the voices calling for indenture reform.

# ? May 24, 2012 00:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 21:00

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Indentures could vary wildly and ranged from "something along the lines of an adult apprenticeship" to "virtually indistinguishable from chattel slavery, save that it's somewhat more likely to end." Different colonies had different laws and levels of regulation as to what sort of terms an indentured servant could enter into, what they were entitled to after its completion, and what manner of restriction the master could enforce (sometimes including forfeiture of promised post-indenture land plots and/or extension of the indenture itself). This latter abuse grew quite bad in some places, which is why you saw white servants conspiring with black slaves in such things as Bacon's Rebellion, and one of the odd reasons the slaveholders were often among the voices calling for indenture reform.

For instance, a lot of indentured servants in the Caribbean, particularly Irish emigrants that had been dispossessed of land,ended up in pretty horrific conditions on tobbaco plantations. Flogging Molly, a Celtic Punk band, even wrote a song about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8yEqco39T8

The moral of the story is the British really liked loving over the Irish.

# ? May 24, 2012 04:14

prefect: Sep 11, 2001; No one, Woodhouse.
No one.; Dead Man’s Band

Bruce Leroy posted:

One of the most fascinating things about Zinn's "A People's History of the US" to me was how indentured servants frequently became friends and allies with Black slaves to the point that they would escape together. It became so prevalent that many colonies enacted special laws and punishments to prevent this kind of fraternization and escape.

That's pretty great. :3:

(The part about people becoming friends and helping each other; not the laws-and-punishments part.)

# ? May 24, 2012 12:45

bobkatt013: Oct 8, 2006; Youâre telling me Peter Parker is ...... Spider-man!?

colonelslime posted:

The moral of the story is the British really liked loving people.

I fixed that for you since for a long time the English were the assholes of the world.

# ? May 24, 2012 14:51

Pesky Splinter: Feb 16, 2011; A worried pug.

bobkatt013 posted:

I fixed that for you since for a long time the English were the assholes of the world.

The invention of concentration camps, or at least the euphemism, some of the first slavers and instigators of the slave trade, the supression of various rebellions against people who didn't like British rule, child labour, and English tourists, to name but a few evils we've inflicted on the world.

[e]: Ah, okay. I see. We still used them though, and that's bad enough.

VVV

Pesky Splinter fucked around with this message at 15:43 on May 24, 2012

# ? May 24, 2012 15:20

Lobster God: Nov 5, 2008

Pesky Splinter posted:

The invention of concentration camps, or at least the euphemism

It's not a euphemism, it's a literal description of what the camps were supposed to do- concentrate the Boer civilian population in controlled camps so they couldn't assist/feed/shelter Boer forces and irregulars fighting against the British.

Similar camps were used by the Spanish in Cuba and by the US against Native Americans during the 19th Century, so the concept had been around a bit.

# ? May 24, 2012 15:39

evilmiera: Dec 14, 2009; Status: Ravenously Rambunctious

NGL posted:

Isn't that basically a useless tautology, though? It's a law that essentially amounts to "killing is bad except when it's all right". You may as well say, "don't eat pork unless it's kosher."

Yep. It's just adding onto it the effect of "Well, not only is this unlawful, but God totally hates it!" Like it just being wrong wasn't enough. So it's just repeating the law again for an added effect except thinking about the logic behind it sort of ruins the purpose.

# ? Jun 1, 2012 09:04

jojoinnit: Dec 13, 2010; Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

Check this out.

quote:

Two presidents were born having a father who was not a citizen.

Chester Arthur was born in the US (though rumored to have been born in Canada), but his father was at that time a citizen of the UK.
Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. His father was a British national from Kenya who was at that time attended a university on a student visa.

Two potential candidates in the Presidential Election 2012 were born having a father who was not a citizen.

Marco Rubio was born in the US, but his parents were Cuban exiles who were not US citizens at the time.
Bobby Jindal was born in the US, but his parents were Indian nationals at the time of his birth.

From http://conservapedia.com/Natural_born_citizen#U.S._Constitution

# ? Jun 7, 2012 03:11

Parahexavoctal: Oct 10, 2004; I AM NOT BEING PAID TO CORRECT OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS! DONKEY!!

jojoinnit posted:

From http://conservapedia.com/Natural_born_citizen#U.S._Constitution

Anyone have a sacrificial Conservapedia account with which to play up the fact that this article admits Obama is Hawaii-born?

# ? Jun 7, 2012 17:54

SixPabst: Oct 24, 2006

This is pure gold. Conservative gets called out for having conversations with himself or his other personalities. From the main page talk section, which I could have bolded the entirety of:

quote:

"An atheist declares..."

I saw this item on your news section about an atheist saying "Seems like we just can't get ahead no matter what we try", added by user:Conservative. I decided to investigate and followed the link provided, which took me to the 'Question Evolution! campaign' page. From there, a link took me to the source of the quote. The source was a Yahoo! answers page, with a user called 'Theatheist' linking to ShockofGods website and saying, quote "Video showing the decline because of birth rates in secular countries dropping while religious birthrates are increasing. What can we as atheists do to stop this. Seems like we just can't get ahead no matter what we try". (The link to ShockofGods website does not actually link to a demographics study or a statistic on the decline of atheism, so the source of this statement cannot be found.)

The strange thing is what the same user, 'Theatheist', later put on the same page: "I think you are right wheatley atheism is an epic fail. This just in!! Richard Dawkins has left atheism and now admits he is agnostic see the news article here above". This quote, full of grammatical errors and random irrelevant points, feels rather similar to the style of user:Conservative, the very person who put this up on the CP news section.

Call me picky, but is allowing a news article where a user quotes himself as a source with no apparant data, under the guise of the opposition 1) Deceitful, and 2) Harmful to the sites credibility? AdamG 13:55, 2 June 2012 (GMT)

I could feel Conservative's sphincter pucker and then,

Conservative posted:

Adam, like nearly all atheist allegations about Christians, the one thing you are missing is convincing proof. In short, you have no convincing proof concerning your claim that I am "Theatheist" at Yahoo answers. The devil is called the "accuser of the brethren" due to his many false accusations against Christians. It looks like you are a chip off the old block!

Second, I certainly have better things to do with my time that post hundreds of answers and questions as "TheAtheist" at Yahoo answers. Son, I have bigger fish to fry! I am quite jealous of his 1,135 points Yahoo answers points though. If he gets 1,365 more points, he moves to the next level! [37]

When you actually have proof and evidence of your claim that I am "Theatheist" get back to me. But not before then! Conservative 10:06, 2 June 2012 (EDT)Conservative 10:06, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Edit: I put this on the front page: "Update: It was probably a kid riling up atheists about global atheism shrinking as part of a prank." Conservative 11:35, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

"Suck it, libs, you have no proof! Also I know exactly how many Yahoo! Answers points I "TheAtheist" needs to level up!

PS I posted an update about those silly kids"

AdamG is on a roll:

quote:

Sorry for the late reply. The library is closed on bank holidays.

I already said that he has the same style of writing, and the strange need to add irrelevant points to the posts he makes, which is something that you seem to do. These are some more questions by Theatheist: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

Notice how, like your own posts, most, if not all of them mention ShockofGod. And since no one else besides you is this obsessed with him, I find it strange that Theatheist talks about him as much as you do.

Also, quotes like these... "As you know Shockofgod has been defeating atheists left and right in debate.", "Shockofgod has defeated 54 atheists in a row and is looking for atheists with a spine to debate him.", "Atheism is dumb as h*ll" and "SO my question is, since atheism contradicts itself how do we as atheists address this problem of the contradiction of atheism? Are we doomed?", "ROFL wow you atheists seem terrified of shockofgod lol"... Make it quite obvious that this person is NOT an atheist. I could find more, but I think that's enough.

Need more? He links to CP a lot ([47]), praises ShockofGod as if he were the second coming (much like you do) and links to him at every opportunity, and he has the ability to put up several posts saying exactly the same thing (much like you do).

I am not the only one that is suspicious. One user posted: ""Conservapedia" is your source. Why would an atheist go there for information? Unless you`re a christian trying to see what we atheists "have up our sleeves". Christian posing as an atheist has been outted. You would suck at the CIA." ([48])

I see that before I even gave you this post, you changed the headline to say that it probably wasn't an atheist. Soon after, you got rid of it entirely. Perhaps you should find some machismo and tell us why you first backtracked, then removed it completely. AdamG 15:28, 6 June 2012 (GMT)

And for the finale, a completely predictable response:

Conservative posted:

AdamG, Shockofgod has about 20,000 subscribers and many of them are young people and kids. It is certainly plausible that one of his young fans is yanking the chains of atheists using the Yahoo Answers username of the "theatheist". Secondly, liberals/atheists have on several occasions spuriously asserted various things about "writing styles" and document authorship even then the evidence did not warrant it. For example, Documentary Hypothesis proponents claimed at one time that Moses did not write the Pentateuch because writing did not exist at that time. We now know that writing did exist at that time. Bottom line: Your little fishing expedition failed! Conservative 11:21, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Suck it, libs :smug:

# ? Jun 7, 2012 18:24

Unzip and Attack: Mar 3, 2008; USPOL May

Bruce Leroy posted:

It reminds me of the disconnect between conservatives and liberals over labor rights and civil rights. With many of the conservatives I know, their solution to abhorrent working conditions (e.g. extremely low pay, dangerous work environments, no health benefits, no maternity/paternity leave, etc.), as well abrogations of civil rights (e.g. anti-sodomy laws, gay marriage bans, redlining against minorities, etc.), is not to make those things illegal, but rather that the people suffering those things should just get up and move somewhere else where things are better for them. They either don't realize or just don't loving care (especially after I tell them) that the people suffering in these cases are those least able to get up and move and/or not regulating these things allows them to spread to those areas in which it is feasible for the suffering to move. So, it becomes another coercive relationship where the choice is abuse or starvation.

......

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is here, maybe a lapse in empathy or that, if they do mentally put themselves in these people's shoes, they aren't really getting what it's like and are totally underestimating what it is to suffer as they do.

This is a really revealing facet of the "conservative" mindset in the US - its embracing of the Just World Theory. If you haven't read up on it I suggest everyone do so. I've come to hold the opinion that most of what we know as modern American Conservatism is built on this foundation and once you understand it, so many of its quirks make more sense (i.e. they don't make sense because the Just World Theory is complete garbage).

# ? Jun 7, 2012 18:48

Binowru: Feb 15, 2007; I never set out to be weird. It was always other people who called me weird.

mintskoal posted:

about Conservative/Shockofgod

Oh wow. I can't wait for the inevitable breakdown and reveal. It'll make TobleroneTriangular look perfectly normal by comparison.

# ? Jun 7, 2012 19:04

Stalingrad: Feb 5, 2011

Binowru posted:

Oh wow. I can't wait for the inevitable breakdown and reveal. It'll make TobleroneTriangular look perfectly normal by comparison.

TobleroneTriangular was normal, he was a troll.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2876582&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=559#post346096696

# ? Jun 7, 2012 19:23

Binowru: Feb 15, 2007; I never set out to be weird. It was always other people who called me weird.

Stalingrad posted:

TobleroneTriangular was normal, he was a troll.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2876582&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=559#post346096696

I know, it wasn't a perfect analogy. I just know "Conservative" is playing a character and sooner or later he's gonna cop to it.

# ? Jun 7, 2012 19:28

Daktar: Aug 19, 2008; I done turned 'er head into a slug an' now she's a-stucked!

Unzip and Attack posted:

This is a really revealing facet of the "conservative" mindset in the US - its embracing of the Just World Theory. If you haven't read up on it I suggest everyone do so. I've come to hold the opinion that most of what we know as modern American Conservatism is built on this foundation and once you understand it, so many of its quirks make more sense (i.e. they don't make sense because the Just World Theory is complete garbage).

The Just World Theory doesn't even really deserve the name theory, since it's based on absolutely no evidence. It's more of a world view. Not even that really, it's a reassuring fantasy built up to support a world view. What's the psychology word for that?

# ? Jun 7, 2012 19:36

Timmy Age 6: Jul 23, 2011; Lobster says "mrow?"; Ramrod XTreme

Binowru posted:

I know, it wasn't a perfect analogy. I just know "Conservative" is playing a character and sooner or later he's gonna cop to it.

I'm pretty sure that even the most devoted character actors can't so effectively fake mental disorders as to go on 20-hour online encyclopedia editing binges, changing one word with each edit over and over.
Dude sure seems legitimately nuts from where I'm sitting.

# ? Jun 7, 2012 19:46

myron cope: Apr 21, 2009

Daktar posted:

The Just World Theory doesn't even really deserve the name theory, since it's based on absolutely no evidence. It's more of a world view. Not even that really, it's a reassuring fantasy built up to support a world view. What's the psychology word for that?

Delusion, maybe?

# ? Jun 7, 2012 19:52

FoiledAgain: May 6, 2007

Daktar posted:

The Just World Theory doesn't even really deserve the name theory, since it's based on absolutely no evidence. It's more of a world view. Not even that really, it's a reassuring fantasy built up to support a world view. What's the psychology word for that?

The wikipedia page calls it a "cognitive bias". It also goes into some of the psych research done on it.

# ? Jun 7, 2012 20:09

Stalingrad: Feb 5, 2011

Yeah Conservative is insane, he's been doing this for years, with multiple accounts.

# ? Jun 7, 2012 20:16

SixPabst: Oct 24, 2006

Stalingrad posted:

Yeah Conservative is insane, he's been doing this for years, with multiple accounts.

It's just amazing how far he goes. Guy has legitimate psych issues and I kind of wonder what a dinner conversation is like with him.

# ? Jun 7, 2012 21:02

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

mintskoal posted:

It's just amazing how far he goes. Guy has legitimate psych issues and I kind of wonder what a dinner conversation is like with him.

You know that horror movie trope where a dude is alone in the dining room with skeletons dressed as a family and him doing the voices? Imagine that but they're all agreeing that Atheists are sissy baby men.

# ? Jun 7, 2012 21:13

Yngwie Mangosteen: Aug 23, 2007

mintskoal posted:

It's just amazing how far he goes. Guy has legitimate psych issues and I kind of wonder what a dinner conversation is like with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR17pcMoh2k

Pretty much exactly like that I think. Except raging against Atheists.

# ? Jun 7, 2012 21:15

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

I've always preferred the term Just-World Fallacy.

# ? Jun 7, 2012 23:52

AtraMorS: Feb 29, 2004; If at the end of a war story you feel that some tiny bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie

Daktar posted:

The Just World Theory doesn't even really deserve the name theory, since it's based on absolutely no evidence. It's more of a world view. Not even that really, it's a reassuring fantasy built up to support a world view. What's the psychology word for that?

A defense mechanism?

# ? Jun 8, 2012 01:05

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

If we must play internet shrink, I'd say his biggest flaw is the delusions of grandeur. He seems to legit believe he's some puckish spirit who vexes every liberal he passes, and around the internet everyone is pulling their hair out going "WHO IS THIS CONSERVATIVE?!"

# ? Jun 8, 2012 08:04

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Stalingrad posted:

TobleroneTriangular was normal, he was a troll.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2876582&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=559#post346096696

Well, at the least, he didn't have the problems he presented with. Maintaining such a fa�ade for so long, for no real reason, might still preclude the term 'normal.'

# ? Jun 8, 2012 08:11

andrew smash: Jun 26, 2006; smooth soul

Strudel Man posted:

Well, at the least, he didn't have the problems he presented with. Maintaining such a façade for so long, for no real reason, might still preclude the term 'normal.'

there's a quote from TT somewhere claiming that he gave up the troll because forcing himself to think like that for so long was driving him crazy in the literal sense.

# ? Jun 8, 2012 11:32

SixPabst: Oct 24, 2006

Glitterbomber posted:

If we must play internet shrink, I'd say his biggest flaw is the delusions of grandeur. He seems to legit believe he's some puckish spirit who vexes every liberal he passes, and around the internet everyone is pulling their hair out going "WHO IS THIS CONSERVATIVE?!"

I think it's more than that. Here's an example of what he posts as "TheAtheist" on Yahoo Answers:

quote:

Christians are saying ShockofGod destroyed this atheist in debate what do you think?

I was listening to this debate where shockofgod debated the atheist president of Florida assocation.

The atheist admitted on live radio that he didn't have a purpose in life. The atheist also admitted that there is no such thing as good or evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FwjyITqa%85 <- debate here

Yet the atheist was saying atheistic humanism was good. Shockofgod pointed out the atheist contradiction. What do you think? Did the atheist blow it? As an atheist I was quite peeved by how poorly the atheist did in this debate at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FwjyITqa%85

or this one

quote:

Why is Thethinkingatheist and theamazingatheist terrified to debate shockofgod?

I recently contacted thethinkingatheist and theamazingatheist and they said they don't want to debate shockofgod. Yet I contacted shockofgod and he said he is willing and ready to debate them any time. Why are the atheists afraid to debate but shockofgod a Christian theist is not afraid to debate? Doesn't this make atheists look a bit cowardly? Why is thethinkingatheist and theamazingatheist afraid to debate shockofgod? I think it would be a highly interesting debate since shockofgod is an ex-atheist now Christian and thethinkingatheist has left Jesus Christ for atheism and theamazingatheist loves bananas. What do you think?

Additional Details
I assure you that thethinkingatheist and themazingatheist and shockofgod are 3 different youtube channels not the same person.

I love the "ps we're not all the same people don't even think that duh"

He goes out of his way to argue with himself outside of Conservapedia. A real psychologist would probably love to have him on the couch.

# ? Jun 8, 2012 15:41

andrew smash: Jun 26, 2006; smooth soul

Gotta love that he dropped the banana reference.

# ? Jun 8, 2012 17:42

Androc: Dec 26, 2008

Now I kind of want to see what would happen if conservative debated the amazing atheist, though I'm pretty sure my neurons would spontaneously fry rather than be forced to bear witness.

I'm imagining them sitting around a table, getting caught in some sort of endless loop. The villagers brick up the building and warn their children away from it for generations.

# ? Jun 8, 2012 18:29

Stalingrad: Feb 5, 2011

Nah The amazing atheist would just threaten to rape conservative, because thats super funny or whatever that fat poo poo thinks.

# ? Jun 8, 2012 18:45

jojoinnit: Dec 13, 2010; Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

I want to see yahoo answers user TheAtheist debate ShockOfGod.

# ? Jun 8, 2012 20:09

Binowru: Feb 15, 2007; I never set out to be weird. It was always other people who called me weird.

jojoinnit posted:

I want to see yahoo answers user TheAtheist debate ShockOfGod.

I'm imagining something like this, but less funny (and both parts played by the same actor).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

# ? Jun 8, 2012 20:14

FoiledAgain: May 6, 2007

Are those debate links just broken, or does Conservative give out bad links on purpose because he's never actually debated anybody?

# ? Jun 8, 2012 20:26

SixPabst: Oct 24, 2006

FoiledAgain posted:

Are those debate links just broken, or does Conservative give out bad links on purpose because he's never actually debated anybody?

They're broken. I just copy pasted from Yahoo Answers.

If you really want to see the "debate",

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FwjyITqaRQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FwjyITqaRQ

# ? Jun 8, 2012 20:28

FoiledAgain: May 6, 2007

mintskoal posted:

They're broken. I just copy pasted from Yahoo Answers.

If you really want to see the "debate",

I love the credentials the host gives. Representing the side of atheism is the past-president of a humanist association and current president of a freethinker society, and he holds a degree in sociology of religion. Representing the side of Christianity is a man from California, who owns a YouTube channel. Also, Shockofgod is introduced on the air by that name, and the host calls him Shock. That's so weird.

# ? Jun 8, 2012 21:27

spiritual bypass: Feb 19, 2008; Grimey Drawer

FoiledAgain posted:

Representing the side of atheism is the past-president of a humanist association and current president of a freethinker society, and he holds a degree in sociology of religion

These people are crackpots too, though.

# ? Jun 8, 2012 21:35

FoiledAgain: May 6, 2007

rt4 posted:

These people are crackpots too, though.

Absolutely agree, they can be nuts to. I didn't even listen to the rest of the debate, so I don't know how crazy the atheist turns out to be. What I meant is that it speaks volumes about the sophistication of Conservative's philosophy, when even a biased local radio show can't pump him up with any better credentials than "he's a man from California".

# ? Jun 8, 2012 22:19

Zellyn: Sep 27, 2000; The way he truly is.

Daktar posted:

The Just World Theory doesn't even really deserve the name theory, since it's based on absolutely no evidence. It's more of a world view. Not even that really, it's a reassuring fantasy built up to support a world view. What's the psychology word for that?

It's most likely based on the fact that a theory in scientific parlance refers to an idea that can at anytime be overturned but has still been tested and has evolved from a hypothesis into a theory, backed by study and peer-review. See: the theory of evolution, relativity, hell, even gravity is a theory. If we find a better explanation for gravity tomorrow, Newton and his apple would be thrown out the door.

When conservatives refer to a theory they often take it to mean that it is not based in fact and that it can thus be mocked as "just an idea," which completely misses the meaning of the word in scientific terminology.

# ? Jun 9, 2012 08:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 21:00

baw: Nov 5, 2008; RESIDENT: LAISSEZ FAIR-SNEZHNEVSKY INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY

It really gets them rustled when you point out that evolution is both a fact and a theory.

# ? Jun 9, 2012 12:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

«‹›441 »