A new medium for the spread of Right-Wing Ignorance

[TheGonz]

So, I'm at work today, sitting here in my tiny cubicle waiting around for my next smoke break, just sort of clicking around on the net aimlessly. For some reason I started looking into the theory of Intelligent Design, partly because I find it humorous, partly because it's so incredibly ridiculous and offensive (that, however, is a topic for another thread, I'm sure), and I happened across a website called "Conservapedia.com: the Trustworthy Encyclopedia." I nearly spat the coffee I was drinking all over my coworker out of sheer shock, and it took me a minute--staring, dumbstruck, in a kind of offended awe I have never before attained--before I regained my composure and got to reading a bit about the site.

Apparently, it's some kind of feeble counter to wikipedia, which--according to the site--is becoming "increasingly more anti-christian, and anti-american." Let me tell you what I find wrong with this, and I'll see if anyone responds, but before I do, PLEASE check out this site!

As every revolutionary knows, one of the first and most crucial steps to attaining social change is to enlighten the people of not only the reasons for some kind of drastic upheaval, but also to enlighten them of the truths and possibilities that their oppressors have previously hidden under a guise of lies and purposeful ignorance. To attack a database like Wikipedia is utterly outrageous, as this site serves as nothing more than what it claims to be: an online encyclopedia. That word, encyclopedia, is supposed to equate to a neutral source of information that is accessible by those who choose to read it, and the moderators of the site--as we all know from their constant headlines that say, "The neutrality of this page is in question" or whatever--are constantly trying to keep that balance in order. These fucking pompous, right-wing pigs are up-in-arms about a source of knowledge because it is just that: a means by which it might be possible for some individual or group to find out that OH MY GOD, the fucking idiotic governement lied to us, religion might not be all it's cracked up to be, and--worst of all--that the current administration's public opinion ain't all that high right now.

Secondly, this idiotic claim that Conservapedia.com is the "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is an absolute fallacy from every angle you look at it. Trustworthy? Type in just about any hot issue in wiki, then take it to conserva, and you'll see the discrepency. Apparently, the word "Trustworthy" equates directly to "Slanted." I don't see this website as a matter of opinion. I see it as an attempt to counteract the damage to the (HA) pristine image of the Right Wing and the Bush Administration that might have been done by some "Leftist Wackjob" finding a few facts out on his computer. It is a way to silence any process of thought that might in any slight way contradict the not-so-subtle agenda of the idiot fascists we see in power right now. I do not see this as an alternative to knowledge, but instead a direct attack upon the most valued piece of equipment that is included in any change: the mind.

And to call this slight against mankind an encyclopedia is something far, far worse. Bullshit. Fucking absolute bullshit. This isn't an encyclopedia, it's so clear that this site is jaded by a wholly malacious and ignorant agenda, that the fact that it is a .COM and not a .ORG (like, oh say.. wikipedia) need not even be pointed out. It is shit like this that silences change long before it can take place. I'm pretty pissed, but let me know what you all think.

[Demogorgon]

It is an amusing website. The article on kangaroos is priceless. That being said, it has to a large extent been taken over by trolls, so you keep seeing things on it, that even the idiots there wouldn't write.

[Plagueround]

It's frustrating to combat this kind of ignorance because many people will simply rationalize that "because its published it must be true". It's like debating someone who reads Ann Coulter and believes everything she says. They don't need citations for anything she talks about, they can just use her as their citation. Hopefully not many people will be so willfully ignorant that they would take "Conservapedia" as truth.


It is an amusing website. The article on kangaroos is priceless. That being said, it has to a large extent been taken over by trolls, so you keep seeing things on it, that even the idiots there wouldn't write.

Often times that's the only way to combat things as ridiculous as Conservapedia. The rise of the trollatariat.

[GPDP]

It's funny, because Wikipedia itself is pretty slanted towards the right as it is (albeit in a libertarian fashion). Conservatives just twist their panties at any amount of rational thought, it seems, even if it comes from a website that is nowhere near favorable to the left as it is.

[forward]

lol look up the article on "communism"

[politics student]

lol look up the article on "communism"

Pure class. hahaha

Seriously I feel sorry for anyone who comes across conservapedia by mistake.

[Jazzratt]

It is an amusing website. The article on kangaroos is priceless. That being said, it has to a large extent been taken over by trolls, so you keep seeing things on it, that even the idiots there wouldn't write.

You'd be extremely lucky to see a troll article on there, or indeed an article written by anyone other than the admins - they tend to lock out editing and are very free with the banhammer. So unless one of the admins is a troll (which would be praiseworthy epic trolling) it's pretty much 100% pure fundy-conservative shit.

[Killfacer]

it is pretty funny really. I know its "evil" and it spreads evil right wing propaganda. But it is pretty fucking funny. It called Obama a marxist or something. Funny stuff.

[Bud Struggle]

I kind of like it. A different format, of course, but it does to Conservatism what RevLeft does for Communism. Some stuff makes sense, some stuff is written by loons but most of it is just an interesting perspective on the world written by people with a different outlook on things than one's own.

[Bright Banana Beard]

lol it said communism killed people, I thought it people killed people?

[More Fire for the People]

I suspect Poe's Law.

[Trystan]

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism. They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist". Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.



Communism is a political (http://www.conservapedia.com/Political) system based on Karl Marx (http://www.conservapedia.com/Karl_Marx)'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating private property (http://www.conservapedia.com/Private_property). However, no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal of creating a classless society

Way to do our work for us. :lol:

[mykittyhasaboner]

fucking pathetic.

[Winter]

Way to do our work for us. :lol:

LOL, funny, I was going to post this exact contradiction but you beat me to it. What the hell is wrong with these people!?

[534634634265]

so, if i make an account there and try and work my way into their hierarchy, am i a bad person?;)

[Hexen]

Why not create a RevLeftapedia or their already is one?

[Killfacer]

because we dont want to partake in there crappy match of seeing who can bullshit more.

[PigmerikanMao]

There are far worse websites than Conservapedia. If something this mild left you "staring, dumbstruck, in a kind of offended awe [you] have never before attained," then I'm worried you haven't been on the internet too much.
;)

[534634634265]

There are far worse websites than Conservapedia. If something this mild left you "staring, dumbstruck, in a kind of offended awe [you] have never before attained," then I'm worried you haven't been on the internet too much.
;)
they obviously missed out on the various -chans. terrible bummer 4chan is gone or i could provide a link.:laugh:

so really tho, i made an account on their site, and i'm creating pages they don't have. i recommend others do this as well, and PM me if your serious about doing it right.
do it for teh lulz, brothers.

[Bud Struggle]

so, if i make an account there and try and work my way into their hierarchy, am i a bad person?;)

Hey, I have an account here at RevLeft, am I a bad person? :lol:

[PigmerikanMao]

Hey, I have an account here at RevLeft, am I a bad person? :lol:
You're restricted, so you must be. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

You're restricted, so you must be. :rolleyes:

I'm not bad--just naughty. ;)

[Chapter 24]

Wow.... this site simply reeks of Coulterism, O'Reillyism, Hannityism, and every other coservative commentator with "-ism" at the end of their ladt name, stirred in with a big bucket of bullshit. The Ronald Reagan article makes me want to cry. :crying:

[pusher robot]

I fail to see what gives you the vapors so badly. Wikipedia does indeed attempt to provide a neutral point of view. Of course, surprise surprise, actual people do not have a "neutral point of view." If they want to present their biased, non-neutral point of view, I cannot see any reason why they shouldn't, nor why you would be so shocked and horrified, other than an authoritarian impulse to control the opinions of others. It's not as though they are presenting their site as being free of bias. It's admittedly biased. What's the problem?

[TheGonz]

I fail to see what gives you the vapors so badly. Wikipedia does indeed attempt to provide a neutral point of view. Of course, surprise surprise, actual people do not have a "neutral point of view." If they want to present their biased, non-neutral point of view, I cannot see any reason why they shouldn't, nor why you would be so shocked and horrified, other than an authoritarian impulse to control the opinions of others. It's not as though they are presenting their site as being free of bias. It's admittedly biased. What's the problem?

I'm not saying they shouldn't have their site, I'm just saying it's ridiculous and it's a new way to spread lies over the internet. I find it a little appalling, that's all. I have as much right to feel as I do as they do to post a bunch of biased bullshit on the internet. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't use the ruse of calling it an encyclopedia, when all it really is is a front. It's just like haha Intelligent Design, a trojan horse to get people rallied behind Christianity, and it's nothing, sheerly nothing, but religion trying to pose as its antithesis, just so that those in charge of that religion don't have to be 100% wrong. Just bothersome, and more than that, I think that at least to some degree it is a way of counteracting what's being done on revleft and sites like it, beit intentional or not.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The real question is, why don't we have a website like that?

[Bud Struggle]

The real question is, why don't we have a website like that?

It would require two or more Communist to actually AGREE on something. :lol:

[PigmerikanMao]

Hmm...
Regan = Bad
Can I get an "amen" to that? :D

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position[3] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#cite_note-2)[4] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#cite_note-3), creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos. Rebecca Driver writes:"Consistent with their view" indeed. Consistent with the fairytale rehearsed at church: we did not evolved from monkies (sp). We came from dust - then God breathed into our lungs!

The article on communism is hysterical. "Apologists for communism." Apparently in conservative circles pseudo-biblical notch jobs correspond to truth.

How convenient that the article on MLK neglects to mention his political affiliation with socialism.

[RHIZOMES]

they obviously missed out on the various -chans. terrible bummer 4chan is gone or i could provide a link.:laugh:

so really tho, i made an account on their site, and i'm creating pages they don't have. i recommend others do this as well, and PM me if your serious about doing it right.
do it for teh lulz, brothers.

4chan is fucking atrocious. I am ashamed I ever called myself a /b/tard.

[Bud Struggle]

I realize hat that site is kind or silly at times--but hey, you guys keep going on and on about the rebvilution and ass wiping robots and everybody wearing big smilie faces and getting free food and housing--so you have your share of the absurd, too.

But more importantly such sites (and the people that love them) provide a nice anti-thesis to the RevLeft socialist thesis. One counteracts the other and influences the other and the world we have is the synthesis of both--which isn't too bad.

It's the Dialetic operating in the real world. :thumbup:

[Catbus]

Look up liberal and check the picture of the "Socialist Brain of a Liberal Democrat," priceless. Absolutely priceless.