|
Mind Loving Owl posted:Isn't something sensitive a bunch of guys who got pissed that the site being called Something Awful wasn't an invitation to be a rude shithead all the time? That's how it started, yes. Some dudes thought their bans were unfair because apparently the internet is "no rules, ever or I'm taking my ball and going home." I guess there are a lot of people that want to hang out with goons but don't want to spend  that also latched onto it?
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Banned from Stormfront? I didn't know that happened. Do you not be racist or create some reality shattering super racism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:Banned from Stormfront? I didn't know that happened. Do you not be racist or create some reality shattering super racism? Maybe they were too misogynistic?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
IIRC Stormfront bans people who are too violent or unable to restrain themselves from using certain slurs. They like to think of themselves as respectable, and people who give the game away too freely interfere with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
poo poo the freep thread was right, they really are worse than Stormfront.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Stormfront bans for excessive racism, calls to violence, misogyny (towards all/white women) and some religious poo poo. They don't ban people for not being white as long as they advocate racial segregation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
Also Stormfront bans people for stalking people as hard as SS does. Yes, even if they're Jews/race traitors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
When Stormfront seems like the reasonable and moderate forum in comparison to yours, maybe it's time to reevaluate your own standards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Three citations, huh? Perhaps I can get different views on thi- Oh psh, all the creationists are holding that up now. One, the guy in question has no background in palentology, biology or anything relevant to that. Two, he wrote a paper that says "goddidit" and instead of allowing others to see it and defend his character, he's charging 35.95 to read it. Three, all his degrees in his fields came from the Creation Research Institute or Liberty University. Four, no one seems to understand what soft tissue is or how it isn't some sort of dino meat. The dude's a scammer and the dopes are buying it hook, line, and sinker
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, is there a wiki that is basically the opposite of Conservapedia? Like something called liberalpedia or something? It might help me to recover after staring down the bottomless pit that is Conservapedia. Edit: I actually bothered to look up "Liberalpedia" and I found one. Sorry for having a pointless post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:Out of curiosity, is there a wiki that is basically the opposite of Conservapedia? Like something called liberalpedia or something? It might help me to recover after staring down the bottomless pit that is Conservapedia. Rationalwiki is the closest analog I can think of, and I believe conservapedians have taken shots at it before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:Out of curiosity, is there a wiki that is basically the opposite of Conservapedia? Like something called liberalpedia or something? It might help me to recover after staring down the bottomless pit that is Conservapedia. There's rationalwiki, I'd say its the polar opposite. A little too smug at times, but it's alright.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:Out of curiosity, is there a wiki that is basically the opposite of Conservapedia? Like something called liberalpedia or something? It might help me to recover after staring down the bottomless pit that is Conservapedia. Wouldn't the left-wing Conservapedia be like Pravda under Stalin or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Wouldn't the left-wing Conservapedia be like Pravda under Stalin or something? Soviet Russia literally prevented schools from teaching anything related to probability because it conflicted with the deterministic philosophy of Marx.  So yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Rationalwiki was originally created to be the opposite to conservapedia by a dude who thought it was ridiculous. It's moved on since but a huge focus of the site used to be conservapedia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:Soviet Russia literally prevented schools from teaching anything related to probability because it conflicted with the deterministic philosophy of Marx. Hm yes, it's not like Soviet Russia had any great mathematicians doing probability. C'mon, Kolmogorov got several orders from the Russian state, and he invented modern probability theory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Elswyyr posted:Hm yes, it's not like Soviet Russia had any great mathematicians doing probability. C'mon, Kolmogorov got several orders from the Russian state, and he invented modern probability theory. Kolmogorov–Smirnov testing is a great euphemism for getting drunk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:Out of curiosity, is there a wiki that is basically the opposite of Conservapedia? Like something called liberalpedia or something? It might help me to recover after staring down the bottomless pit that is Conservapedia. The liberal Conservapedia is called Wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:The liberal Conservapedia is called Wikipedia. I think you meant to link, http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia EDIT: Fixed URL RoyKeen fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Jul 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
I just dug through my little book of names and passwords, and my Conservapedia account that I made years ago survived all the purges!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Karl Rove posted:I just dug through my little book of names and passwords, and my Conservapedia account that I made years ago survived all the purges! make a page about conservative versus liberal butts
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Afraid of Audio posted:make a page about conservative versus liberal butts Slim indian women have no butts, so big butts are liberal and vulgar
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
quote:Conservative states have the lowest unemployment rates, while liberal states dominate those with the highest unemployment. [9] Why are we not surprised? You printed this one already. It was income equality then, but, the point remains. You keep printing this. quote:How much energy did it take to launch the materials that changed the natural calendar of the earth and the moon? Find out here: [4][5][6] I'm getting a little tired of this examiner.com/conservativenewsandviews.com/creationsciencehalloffame.com triple citation bullshit. The other two are just reprints of the examiner article! Are you making it look like it has a lot more support than it does? Are you trying to be deceitful? Nuclear-based hydroplate theory whatever. It relies on the presupposition of the subcrustal ocean. I'm desperately trying to find the guy's evidence that this existed and failing repeatedly. Let's not get into how heavy water and natural nuclear explosions somehow naturally produced effects equal to several trillion nuclear bombs (???) and all that it did more or less was make water fly (?????).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
nsaP posted:Rationalwiki was originally created to be the opposite to conservapedia by a dude who thought it was ridiculous. It's moved on since but a huge focus of the site used to be conservapedia. They still have a whole category about it, complete with rebuttals to particular pages: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Conservapedia For content, here's a screenshot I submitted to the PalaeoFail tumblr a while ago: http://palaeofail.tumblr.com/post/69824812592/ladies-and-gentlemen-conservapedia
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
This is funny. You'd expect the subject of Death, the knowledge of our own mortality, the myriad religious and secular expectations, how the liberal arts have dealt with it...etc would elicit a fairly thorough article in any encyclopedia, no matter how round the bend the editors are. Well, think again....  You see, at Conservapedia the real work is reserved for more important matters. Such as mediocre 80's cold-war techno-boiler Firefox!   Best line in the article.... quote:True enough, the Soviets could never have built anything like Firefox in the year of the film's release, let alone the novel's release. But that does not mean that the Soviets would not be capable of building an aircraft like Firefox today, did the Soviet Union still exist. The world perhaps has Ronald Reagan to thank that no such project as Project Firefox ever began, much less came to fruition. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Man the wikipedia article on that movie is like half the length. I guess liberals can't appreciate quality cinema.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Kilmers Elbow posted:Best line in the article.... Sometimes I wonder how many of them get a boner over reanimating Reagan's corpse so they can lick his rear end. Surely it couldn't have anything to do with government collapse or the state of Soviet Russia's financial issues and the facade of a super power they managed to stand up crumbling from a flawed political system. No, of course not, it was Reagan because he said something once that sounded bold but was more like punching a dead body and claiming victory
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
I'm convinced a few of them seriously think Reagan was the Second Coming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
To be fair, you can do that same kind of "hilariously important article has absurdly shorter page than hilariously unimportant article" thing on Wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:To be fair, you can do that same kind of "hilariously important article has absurdly shorter page than hilariously unimportant article" thing on Wikipedia. This is true http://www.somethingawful.com/news/wikigroaning/
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:To be fair, you can do that same kind of "hilariously important article has absurdly shorter page than hilariously unimportant article" thing on Wikipedia. Also  which I believe is one of its main criticisms. poo poo like MLP and Doctor Who has pages and pages and pages dedicated to it while stuff like Shakespeare, Thoreau, and Austen has only a fraction that much information.(I like Doctor Who but basing one's life around something one finds entertaining seems extremely maladjusted to me, regardless of what it is or whether I happen to find it entertaining or not.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:Also Don't forget the fanfic, some of which seems to exist only in trope-page form: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/DaringDo
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Yeah, but the thing about wikigroaning is that normally the actually important thing will have a decent article with about the level of thoroughness you'd expect from an encyclopedia, and the nerd-bullshit articles will be much longer because they're crammed full of every bit of sperglord minutiae possible, whereas on Conservapedia the stupid bullshit article will be sort of medium-length and the actually important thing will have an article that's like two or three sentences if it even exists at all. In other words, at least on Wikipedia someone will have bothered to write a decently thorough article on the important thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
This is Conservapedia.quote:My Little Pony is a popular franchise of little girls' toys. It is most famous for the recent show entitled My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. So it ignores things like the nature of the toys, the multiple incarnations of the franchise, everything but how it relates to your ideology? Yep, Conservapedia. This is the talk page on Conservapedia. quote:Editors seem to be looking into this too deeply. The connection between Feeling Pinkie Keen and theism has been strongly denied by the creator, Lauren Faust, herself. DynaboyJ 01:48, 16 December 2011 (EST) The article wouldn't go through for me. I feel vaguely blessed. EDIT: Oh poo poo instead of a blank page, Chrome is telling me about Malware. Thanks Shelly the Republican! 
Orange Fluffy Sheep fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:So it ignores things like the nature of the toys, the multiple incarnations of the franchise, everything but how it relates to your ideology? Yep, Conservapedia. I'm 75% sure that's a troll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:I'm 75% sure that's a troll. The text was originally added by Conservative. Karajou and Ed Poor have protected the guy's screeds. quote:An activist discusses how many people agreed to the lie about Obama's birth certificate, and why. [6]  This conspiracy keeps getting more and more outlandish. I love it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Will they keep harping on about Obama's birth certificate once he's out of office? Once he's really old and he's out of politics? Once he's dead?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:Will they keep harping on about Obama's birth certificate once he's out of office? Once he's really old and he's out of politics? Once he's dead? I have one word that will answer your question better than any other: "Chappaquiddick."
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:Will they keep harping on about Obama's birth certificate once he's out of office? Once he's really old and he's out of politics? Once he's dead? 30 minutes after he stops being black.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
toanoradian posted:Will they keep harping on about Obama's birth certificate once he's out of office? Once he's really old and he's out of politics? Once he's dead? Wheres the real death certificate, nobama??
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:28
|
|
