|
Even though every other page on this site blasts liberals for smoking too much weed, the actual marijuana page isn't very damning at all. http://conservapedia.com/Marijuana I have no idea what their definition of "liberal" or "conservative" is, it's so inconsistent. Every once in a while I'll check the front page just to see their take on whatever big news story of the week. When Bin Laden as killed they were posting conspiracy theories about it.
|
#
¿
May 15, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
particle409 posted:It's time to play fill in the blanks! I love how they prefix everything with liberal. Liberal Mr Liberal went to a liberal place to do some liberal stuff with a liberal liberal liberal.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
Wow the list of "conservative movies" is great, especially the "debatable" section. Apparently the Passion of the Christ isn't conservative enough because it doesn't show what happened after the resurrection. High Noon was watched by Bill Clinton which automatically disqualifies it, plus its depiction of a lawless frontier might make people think that big government is good. It's a Wonderful Life may seem Christian at first, but it features an evil, greedy, antagonist, which doesn't send a pro-capitalist message. Forbidden Planet is good though because it depicts an evil professor (as professors should rightfully be depicted!). Edit: Also, aren't American Muslims pretty conservative for the most part? Their article on Islam oddly neglects to label them as either conservative or liberal, despite constantly using them as an example of liberalism in other articles. tankadillo fucked around with this message at 01:49 on May 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
G. Hosafat posted:* Having Christianity used as a means to control the people (Medieval: Total War and it's sequel, Medieval II: Total War) Sometimes I try to write a post describing just how absurd every aspect of Conservapedia is but I just can't do it. There's so much to say.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Just for shiggles, I totaled up the word count from these two articles: I keep waiting for someone as crazy as Schlafly to make a competing conservative wiki so I can watch them duke it out with each other, accusing each other side of being liberal or nazis or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:I very much disagree - given that a vast majority of self-identified Conservatives base their values on Christianity and openly call for it to be integrated into government, it says a lot that Reagan has a section that is 130 times larger than the foundational text of Christianity. When you consider how much this site attacks atheism, Islam, and any other world view that isn't overtly Christian, it's doubly insane. This isn't some group that advocates a division between religious and political doctrine - they just don't like that their politics most often don't gel with the scriptures they are supposedly based upon, and it shows.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:In the same vein as the Atheism and obesity page (but even worse): Mystery: Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims. Particularly fun is the talk page wherein Aschlafly tries to defend his nonsense. Stalingrad posted:I mean he removed the section of "he who is without sin" and "forgive them father, for they know not what they do", because Jesus was pro capital punishment or something.  Isn't Schlafly Catholic? Has he talked to his local pastor or anyone about his reasoning for rewriting the bible, especially extremely critical lines like this?
tankadillo fucked around with this message at 22:45 on May 17, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Wow you weren't kidding about half of these making no sense. I like the one demonstrating that anti-whaling advocates are idiots... as told from the whales' perspective? Edit: Also the one that just shows a hippie with the sign "hippies smell." I think Conservapedia is the only place in a long time that I've seen demonize, much less even care about, hippies. It's weird how that caricature seems to be one of their half a dozen stand-ins for liberals in general. tankadillo fucked around with this message at 03:11 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 03:05
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:These seem to suffer from the problem of a lot of conservative humor, namely that there's no punchline. It's almost as if each of these is missing a second panel where the joke is actually finished, as it is it's basically just conservative talking points with poor illustrations.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 03:58
|
|
|
mew force shoelace posted:For some reason this makes me laugh: http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Legend_of_Zelda_%28game%29 http://www.conservapedia.com/Donut I guess in their quest to make the site a complete replacement to Wikipedia they added a few random articles.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Have you guys seen their article on the Confederate States of America? tankadillo fucked around with this message at 00:07 on May 21, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
So Shalfly endorses IQ tests? I thought I remember him complaining about how they're liberally biased or something. (Not that IQ tests aren't an ineffective measure of intelligence that no one uses anymore anyway.)
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
How the hell do you assess a question like "Write about anything in the lecture?"
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
My IP's been blocked from editing (or at least registering an account to edit) since before I even discovered Conservapedia, but I've never had a problem viewing it.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
Scratch that last post, I was just able to create an account and just opened a page to edit with no problem. I'm 99% sure I tried this a few months ago and it was blocked though. They must have loosened up a bit.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:I wonder if they are going to start downplaying this, seing as jow Michelle Obama is trying to implement diabolical food communism under the guise of an anti-obesity campaign. quote:This focus on obesity, however, didn't stop the Obama family from going to a Mount Desert[26] ice cream parlor in North Carolina[27] (where a typical vanilla is very high in saturated fat and calories,[28] alongside any other premium ice cream)[29] ; nor did it stop Michelle Obama from enjoying cheeseburgers and fries on the campaign trail in Milwaukee[30]; nor did it prevent Barack Obama from loading up on two Philly cheesesteak sandwiches, washed down with a mint chocolate chip ice cream cone while in Pennsylvania[31] In addition, Barack Obama appointed Regina Benjamin, an obese woman, to be the US Surgeon General.[32] Regina Benjamin and the Obamas have yet to publicly discuss the significant obesity problem within the lesbian community. This is like a conservative helldump. tankadillo fucked around with this message at 02:42 on May 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:Does he say what his definition of humour is? Or does he evade it completely like what is the difference between the "Best of the Public" and an expert, or what criteria he uses for his "Best New Conservative Words? He does an absolutely horrible job at debating this, not to mention how ridiculous the entire argument is to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
I like how he files the humor issue under "mysteries or unresolved issues about World History" but defends his idea tooth and nail, constantly redefining the problem in order to suit his desired answer.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
I was just wondering, are there any living scientists that conservapedia admires? I'm genuinely curious. It seems there would be at least one scientist nutty enough to be approved by them. My quick 30 second search though didn't reveal anything.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
I remember checking their article on Kent Hovind once, even they don't like him. Their Michael Behe article seems pretty positive, but in a dry factual way. The whole thing is about how he's done a lot of anti-evolution work but it doesn't exactly shower him in praise. I found this though http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolutionists_who_have_had_problems_with_being_overweight_and/or_obese I love how these articles always just start with a really small list of examples, in this case six whole people, and in their picture they use of PZ Meyers he doesn't even look that fat. But this is enough evidence to directly link athiesm to obesity. Then there's also this longer article http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mental_and_Physical_Health I only skimmed it but the beginning section about suicide is pretty disgusting. Yeah so people who are depressed and suicidal tend to have lost their faith, that's common sense/knowledge and is really sad. Shlafly, however, doesn't feel bad for them and sees their suffering as an opportunity to discuss why people like that are evil.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
Listerine posted:I don't know, this looks like a pretty prestigious place. Haha I love the pictures in that article. It's like a mug shot.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
I think Conservapedia is the only site that I've been tempted to troll/vandalize. Just find any article and insert the word "liberal" into every other sentence. It's too easy. I never bothered actually do it though.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
Have the folks at rationalwiki or wherever compiled a chart showing the ratio of pro-conservative articles vs anti-liberal articles?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
Choronzons son posted:This is from their Cartoon page:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
Stalingrad posted:All this...and he's a Catholic. This is craziest thing for me. I was raised Catholic and the stuff he says definitely wouldn't fly in the Catholic church. I have to wonder, is his local pastor cool with him rewriting the Bible? tankadillo fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
Stalingrad posted:Remember Andy teaches children, and he teaches them things like this: This is actually kind of cute, in a "PSA from the 40s" kind of way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
Checking their news list sometimes brings up some weird stuff.quote:A faint but irritating noise is disrupting a small town, as it did in the 1970s elsewhere: "Tiny village is latest victim of the 'The hum.'" [14]Add this to the enormous list of things atheism cannot explain. And this sentence just doesn't make any sense whatsoever quote:When it comes to Sarah Palin, the majority of liberals are guilty of being Anti-American.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Stalingrad posted:Does Andy even know what global warming is, like, at all? Haha this is amazing. As far as he knows global warming is just a catchphrase and unless what he's reading explicitly uses that term the he has no idea what it's talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Slyph posted:loving Liberals calling the Wounded Knee Massacre a Massacre Add this to my list of "things I didn't know liberals did until Conservapedia told me."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
Roger Ebert's semi-review is also really good http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2011 13:49
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I love their premise that if evolution can't explain x, the whole theory would suddenly become void. And then they don't see that you can turn that reasoning on its head and claim that the bible is disproven because you can find at least one contradiction in it. (Edit: does "counterexamples to the bible" sound weird to anyone else? It's almost like saying "counterexamples to the US constitution." I know what they're trying to say, but I think they picked the wrong word.) tankadillo fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jun 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Yeah this is what I notice about Schlafly's rebuttals as well. When his rebuttals happen to contain facts, the facts given usually have nothing to do with the core of the original objection. Either he doesn't recognize he's just tossing out red herrings, or he's only in it to win arguments, not determine truth.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2011 15:22
|
|
|
Of course the Founders were anti-evolution, just like Jesus was anti-obamacare. It's all written clearly in the Constitution/Bible! 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:On their 2012 presidential election page, they have a table of potential candidates.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
Binowru posted:http://conservapedia.com/Worst_College_Majors I'd like to see their list of "best" or "most conservative" college majors, or is Schlafly just anti-college in general on the basis that they're all liberal?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2011 13:31
|
|
|
Dreamlogic posted:I love the talk pages because fairly often you find someone who sees through Schlafly's bullying, and then you get to watch him flail around for a bit. From the "worst college majors" talk page:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Pretty sure it couldn't. Selection process specifically forbids asking political ideologies and religion to stop that kind of biases doesnt it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2011 13:12
|
|