Conservapedia, like the incel wiki, are windows into parallel universes and both are proof, that ours isn’t the worst timeline after all.
It almost looks like incredibly well done satire
Poe's law.
Damm, getting a sneak peak on what the enshitification o Wikipedia will be like.
Would wikipedia even meet the requirements for that?
Wikipedia is a volunteer run nonprofit with enough money to be stable. I donate from time to time, but it really isn’t susceptible to enshittification.
"Hitler was a socialist! It was in the name!"
"China is communist! It's in the name!"
"North korea is communist! It's in the name!"
"Kamala harris is a communist! She is with the democratic party, but that does not mean she is one. 🤡"
"Trumps wouldbe-assassin was not a republican. He might be registered as such, but that does not suit my agenda 🤡."
"Everything i read or hear, i see as fact or not based on what helps me most 🤡"
These people are absolute fucking clowns and it's impossible to talk or argue with them because they are not grounded in reality. It is exhausting.
"Cheesecake is cake! It's in the name!"
Cheesecake is not cake? Have i been living in a lie my entire life?
It's a pie and/or tart. I'm sorry to have to tell you this and strip more of your innocence away.
When my family puts candles on one, sings "Happy Birthday" to me, and slices it up for everyone, then it's a cake.
I think you'll find there's a lot of people who are happy getting birthday pies.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.
Oh yeah. Then why kamala be dum?
Stupid lib
Man, I had to check your post history to know you were messin' with me. Your conservative impression is spot on.
Could you imagine of Adolf Hitler named and said thjngs that were lies with the purpose of manipulating people and getting in power? Thankfully, we live in a timeline where he cant lie
I can't imagine being a voting-age adult and not immediately understanding that these people are full of shit? You don't even need to know what specific words mean to see what they're doing. It's so fucking dumb and childish.
I can’t imagine being a voting-age adult and not immediately understanding that these people are full of shit?
Try huffing leaded car fumes for 20 years first. Then immerse yourself in Reagan-Era propaganda for the next 20. Finally, miss out on the biggest bull market in history because you put all your retirement savings in canned tuna and collectible gold coins like all your very wealthy online friends told you to.
Now you're in your late 60s, your kids and grandkids never talk to you, you're scrapping by on Social Security after five years of killer inflation, and all you can do every day is sit in a dingy suburban ranch house watching "Mexican Muslims Have Caravaned The Border And Stolen Our Jobs" every waking hour.
There's a Trump rally in town. All your friends are going. And the booze is free. Who are you voting for in November?
There is a growing populace of people who actually believe the world is flat.
I mean, it's not really growing anymore as far as I know.
Always create an in group and an out group, these labels aren't meant to be accurate for them, they don't care, they just want to have a word for those people there who we don't like and dehumanize them, if they could they'd just use the N word for everyone
Infamous liberal
Adolf Hitler
So...half the conservative base agrees with a librul?
Their opinions on reality are not consistent. They will warp their minds into whatever twisted shape is required if they get to hurt the "other" (whoever that happens to be this cycle)
When it comes to their opinion of Hitler, their mind is shaped like an unbalanced dumbbell. He's a hero and a villain at the same time, but he's really only going to stay a villain to them for as long as it is necessary.
Their opinions on reality are not consistent.
I'm constantly reminded of that 90s (I think) country song. "You've Got to Stand for Something or You'll Fall for Anything."
Many of them just keep falling for the next lie, even while the previous lies are being corrected. They never stop for a minute and think the place they are getting their info from is bad.
No no no. This is Adolf Hitler [bad, because National Socialism Volkswagon Bailout Lost The War].
You're thinking of Adolf Hitler [good, because Based Chad Hates Immigrants Retvrn To Tradition].
Two totally different guys.
Personally i prefer the hitler that killed hitler.
Yes, but he also killed the guy who killed Hitler.
"everyone I don't like is a liberal"
I wonder why they put Hitler on the list then.
They love pretending loke Hitler, the universal symbol for evil, was a socialist. They fuckin’ love fascism and everything he did but they have to pretend like what they’re doing is different.
They also have no idea what “liberal” means, but that’s the case with most words exceeding six letters.
Similar to socialists being in denial over how antisemitism can get them to go along with fascists. People on the fringes of politics tend not to be able to see themselves for what they are. Communists and Fascists are both authoritarian just with a slightly different grift. But when the fascists play up the greedy capitalist jew angle, the socialists jump on board with fascism along it with the rest of the useful idiots.
Are we playing the "socialism and communism are different things" game today? Because that'snnever fun.
Authoritarians aren't communists. They're just appropriating the term.
Are we playing the anarchists and communists are the same thing game today? Communists absolutely can be authoritarian, anarchists can't anarcho-communists aren't but not all communists are true Scotsman anarcho-communists
Authoritarianism isn't something anyone should want so authoritarians need to make some kind of grift to convince people to go along with it. But it ultimately has the same result. Someone becomes dictator by promising to make a country stronger, while someone else becomes dictator by promising equal, it all ends the same.
I mean China is obviously a fascist government today (no matter what they call themselves) but where was the revolution that caused this massive shift from the "far left" to the "far right"? There wasn't one because it's just authoritarianism, the only change was which propaganda is used to justify authoritarian power.
He was a filthy painter, that's why. Now, if he had painted with a gun...
They just love saying Obama's middle name like it's some kind of gotcha. What they don't seem to get is it doesn't mean anything unless you're a racist piece of shit.
Barack Obama is clearly the cousin of Saddam Hussein, the 20th hijacker on 9/11.
Hahah - I thought this was a joke, I can’t believe it’s a real thing. It reads like an angry fundie 14yo wrote it.
Largely written by and for right wing angry fundie home schoolers. You're not wrong.
Every single republican is also a liberal. It's the dominant ideology of capitalism and its state.
The difference is that the liberalism of republicans is more "classic" in that it's heavily mixed with racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, classism, etc.
There's only two kinds of liberalism; economic, and social.
Why do we separate the two? Who does that serve?
Historically it used to be used like: "I'm socially liberal but a fiscal conservative"
The reality is that translated to: "I want to fund everything I want but never give money or resources to people that aren't like me".. good old institutional racism and bigotry with a nice facade
Conservativism as an ideological definition is a branch of liberalism.
Well, this is LeftyMemes, so there's a preference for the left here.
Free market Capitalists dislike the population being able to make/recognize the distinction. Because there's a certain kind of "Liberal" who are only Liberals when Liberalism economically benefits them, but become Conservatives (and even radically right wing Conservatives) when Socially Democratic policies, or talk of taxing wealth becomes popular.
Donald Trump, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and others have all worn the mask of a "Liberalism" that refuses to to make this distinction (between social and economic liberalism).
A Liberal who is an economic liberal but doesn't seek progressive improvements to society, isn't a liberal at all. They're a conservative in waiting for the moment things progress too far.
Thus leftists are served by keeping this distinction in mind. Learn it. Recognize who will kick up a fuss and change teams, and remember that they have a limited use, and will eventually go no further (or worse, become a major hindrance). You need an exit strategy for those people.
Otherwise progress gets maligned in the name of maintaining the 'status quo'.
Authoritarians, who want to paint anything "liberal" as the enemy.
When you say liberal, do you mean social liberalism or classical liberalism?
Modern socialism is made up of people that get hard over the thought of leading a worker's revolution while being completely incapable of having a conversation with anyone in the working class.
Like what's the goal in redefining terminology to be different from common usage? It's not enticing anyone in the working class to join your movement, that's for sure. Most people don't even understand what the hell the average socialist is even talking about at this point.
I agree we can get up our own asses with the terminology, but in this case just skimming the Wikipedia page will reveal that the concept of liberalism encompasses almost all dominant political parties' philosophies.
even they should know the difference between librul and commie, right?
They literally don't
No, liberal, commie, fascist, are all just interchangeable terms for "people I don't like"
The people who curate the site? Absolutely. The people who frequent the site...? ehhhh
The people who curate the site are out of their damn minds
I interacted with them a bit when the site was starting out. You're being quite generous. Bunch of nutters.
Hitler was just really passionate about giving free healthcare to Jews, LGBT, intellectuals, Romani, slightly swarthy people, etc etc.
Free hair cuts, de-licing and showers too.
And they all got a unique free tatoo!
How very liberal of them.
If i didn't know any better I'd say that was sarcasm :o
Clearly I'm misinformed on Hitler tho and they're definitelyNOT labeling him with their no-no word in order to pretend they aren't fuckin Nazis themselves.
Gotta make sure to include the Hussein in Obama's name
Can't last let us forget that he's probably related to Saddam somehow.
Have they listened to Bill Maher lately? I don't think he's liberal anymore.
Liberals don’t run around scared and clutching their pearls all the time, you get more views if you sell rage and fear. Conservatives love to be angry and scared all the time.
I think he is, unfortunately. he's just mask-off about it.
Is...liberal? Or do you mean neoliberal?
I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the terms of use for that wiki that they clarify that they are not liable for any trust users put in the articles and the tagline "trustworthy encyclopedia" cannot be enforced
How is this list organized? It seems like they randomly wrote names down as it came to them.
It's a Wiki, so you can just pop in and add a bullet point however you like, assuming you have an account.
This probably was crafted by a small pool of die-hards who dropped a name on the list any time they found out someone existed who made them mad.
It's specifically Conservapedia. They once tried to make their own translation of the Bible because they thought existing ones were too liberal.
Edit: almost forgot. The guy who runs it is the son of anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly.
Talk about a fall from grace.
That was a fun fucking read. Amazing.
I clicked through to their article on Conservapedia because I was curious what they had to say about it and
Conservapedia, also known as "The Trusworthy [sic] Encyclopedia", is essentially an American-exceptionalist and dominionist group blog, disguised as a half-functioning wiki. The website was created by God-King Andrew Schlafly in 2006 because of his belief that Wikipedia is deceitfully riddled with "liberal bias" and “atheist bias,”[note 1] because apparently the best way to solve real or imagined bias is to create a website that is biased in an opposite way. The vast majority of articles go out of their way to blame pretty much everything negative on "liberals" (which they use as a catch-all snarl term for anyone and everyone who disagrees with them on just about any given issue — which happens to be everyone),
I have to say I find it kind of funny that a site calling itself "RationalWiki" would use language like this. I have my doubts that it is possible to violate Wikipedia's "encyclopedic tone" guideline any harder.
Not PZ Myers! D:
I can't believe they spelled his name right for once.
Was not expecting the abrupt pivot into barely relevant bible study.
It's an internet encyclopedia built for and by conservatives. Literally everything on there abruptly pivots to barely relevant Bible study.
I'm used to UK conservatives. They don't like poor people, I think religion is really a minor issue for most of them though (after all it does generally preach kindness to the poor).
Yeah I suppose I should have prefaced it with American conservatives. Because American conservatism is thoroughly wrapped up in Christian authoritarianism.
In order to understand it you have to understand its creator: Andrew Schlafly: he’s an electrical engineer and lawyer and his mother is Phyllis Schlafly, a lawyer famous for her militant opposition to feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed amendment to the constitution that reads:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Phyllis wasn’t just some opponent of that amendment, no she was probably the primary reason it failed.
In short: there’s no reason why that website should be in any way sane just as there’s no reason its founder should be in any way sane. He really likes to critique physics theories that he doesn’t understand by citing philosophy and theology.
He tried to edit Wikipedia to insert his ideology. Wikipedia editors delivered the "science not nonsense" and "WP:NPOV" smackdown. Conservapedia is the result, written by and for ultra right wing home school students.
Several parables in the Bible foreshadow the insight of quantum entanglement about paired photons having opposite spin
Interesting, I wonder what their evidence is for that-
by contrasting two men in their relationship with God. The Prodigal Son contrasts two brothers, two churchgoers are contrasted in Luke 18:9–14 , and two brothers are further contrasted in Luke 21:28-31
Just... 2 people being compared?
LOL
You just gotta love how Richard Dawkins comes before Hitler, Stalin, and Mao...
"Yeah the guy brings facts to the table, can't have that, that's the worst, that's like worse than Hitler, man!"
I thought Dawkins was a weird one put up there. He's a genius. Not even political.
Richard Dawkins disagrees with their little coloring book.
well, just as bad as. these guys definitely hate sanger and mao worse than hitler, and they're both lower.
fuck Dawkins too
Because? You're one of those guys who use the pinnacle of science in their hands to tell people about their dislike of actual scientists?
fucker's been busy spreading transphobia
... How? Seriously,
im not going to go into his Twitter account and look for it. he likened trans people to Rachel dolezal (or whatever the fuck her name was) and said people would be criticized for denying that trans people are what they identify as. "discuss" he said.
when people rightfully shit on him for implying that trans people are frauds like her, he weaseled out like every coward Schrodinger's bigot saying "i said 'discuss' academically" or some stupid shit as if that undoes his equation in the tweet.
he also said in another tweet that being trans is a choice with something like "some men choose to identify as women" and vice versa. he's stuck on chromosomes defining gender, which is unscientific.
then he wrote a column or some shit about it with chromosomes defining women, which is unscientific, and on his podcast he platformed a transphobe, didn't challenge her and even agreed with her.
like all transphobes he's lost the plot and has completely rejected the science on it.
Stalin was totally a lib tho
"We can't do communism, we have to keep the state and enact a series of slow reforms. Also jail all the gays"
Eh, I dunno that I'd actually characterize him as a liberal so much as him being an authoritarian that just pushed whatever happened to serve him at any point. Kinda in the same vein of fascists not having any economic ideology, just whatever serves their ideal of the state at any given moment. So yeah, I certainly agree with your sentiment that Stalin certainly was not a communist, but more because he only cared about gaining/maintaining power rather than actually subscribing to any economic theory.
Stalin was by most accounts a true believer in Marxism-Leninism. There are simply too many unforced ideological-caused errors for it to be anything else, like Lysenkoism rejecting Mendelian genetics because the fascists loved it and it raised questions of eugenics.
The Stalinist economic plans were thoroughly Marxist. The problem there (as far as Stalin's true believer status is concerned) was not ideological.
He was just a drunk, paranoid, murderous asshole. Socialists simply don't like admitting that they're as vulnerable to hypocrisy and corruption as anyone else.
Marxism-Leninism is a form of liberalism.
That's technically an opinion.
Richard Dawkins... Ahahahaha!
Dude is BFF of conservative right winger Ayaan Hirsi Ali!
Don't forget: Satan is a Leftist
If you call yourself a "conservative" you're either a fascist or a liberal that just isn't quite there yet.
Why do they list Hitler as their enemy, when their own selected Führer obviously idols him?
Can you really ever trust one? All of them have an agenda to push, no exceptions. If that agenda aligns with your's, you've found an echo chamber for reinforcement. If not, perhaps you can learn of alternative viewpoints to an identical issue and maybe agree with some but not all of them. Things like wikis are supposed to be open to all opinions on a subject, but like everything good, someone will take it to corrupt.
No exceptions you say? Ah yes, the wiki agendas. I sure love the propaganda of the stardew valley wiki. Super echo chambery and clearly deep state politics
Glad to help heh
You're describing literally every discourse community and mode of communication. What you said applies to every book, newspaper, journal, website, forum, wiki, etc. There always some bias in some way. It's how it works. Humans will be humans. It's up to the individual to process information and discern what to think
Yep
"Never trust other people," they say. I'm not sure I shpypd believe them, though.
So, don't trust the entire internet, then?
Pretty much. Take it all with a grain of salt
You're not using that phrase correctly. "Take it with a grain of salt" means not to commit to the knowledge until it's verified else where or at least applying basic skepticism to it.
Wikipedia is a fairly safe place to start with research, but I would never really believe it for current event politics or adjacent topics.
Conservapedia is an engineered echo chamber that exists because Wikipedia kicked their founders out for vandalism. It only gives credibility to Wikipedia.
Exactly, Wikipedia has all sorts of processes and policies around making articles high quality. That includes trying to remove as much ideologically driven material as possible. This would be deleted in seconds (maybe literally).
Conservapedia, like the incel wiki, are windows into parallel universes and both are proof, that ours isn’t the worst timeline after all.
It almost looks like incredibly well done satire
Poe's law.
Damm, getting a sneak peak on what the enshitification o Wikipedia will be like.
Would wikipedia even meet the requirements for that?
Wikipedia is a volunteer run nonprofit with enough money to be stable. I donate from time to time, but it really isn’t susceptible to enshittification.
"Hitler was a socialist! It was in the name!" "China is communist! It's in the name!" "North korea is communist! It's in the name!"
"Kamala harris is a communist! She is with the democratic party, but that does not mean she is one. 🤡" "Trumps wouldbe-assassin was not a republican. He might be registered as such, but that does not suit my agenda 🤡." "Everything i read or hear, i see as fact or not based on what helps me most 🤡"
These people are absolute fucking clowns and it's impossible to talk or argue with them because they are not grounded in reality. It is exhausting.
"Cheesecake is cake! It's in the name!"
Cheesecake is not cake? Have i been living in a lie my entire life?
It's a pie and/or tart. I'm sorry to have to tell you this and strip more of your innocence away.
When my family puts candles on one, sings "Happy Birthday" to me, and slices it up for everyone, then it's a cake.
I think you'll find there's a lot of people who are happy getting birthday pies.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.
Oh yeah. Then why kamala be dum?
Stupid lib
Man, I had to check your post history to know you were messin' with me. Your conservative impression is spot on.
Could you imagine of Adolf Hitler named and said thjngs that were lies with the purpose of manipulating people and getting in power? Thankfully, we live in a timeline where he cant lie
I can't imagine being a voting-age adult and not immediately understanding that these people are full of shit? You don't even need to know what specific words mean to see what they're doing. It's so fucking dumb and childish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis
Try huffing leaded car fumes for 20 years first. Then immerse yourself in Reagan-Era propaganda for the next 20. Finally, miss out on the biggest bull market in history because you put all your retirement savings in canned tuna and collectible gold coins like all your very wealthy online friends told you to.
Now you're in your late 60s, your kids and grandkids never talk to you, you're scrapping by on Social Security after five years of killer inflation, and all you can do every day is sit in a dingy suburban ranch house watching "Mexican Muslims Have Caravaned The Border And Stolen Our Jobs" every waking hour.
There's a Trump rally in town. All your friends are going. And the booze is free. Who are you voting for in November?
There is a growing populace of people who actually believe the world is flat.
I mean, it's not really growing anymore as far as I know.
Always create an in group and an out group, these labels aren't meant to be accurate for them, they don't care, they just want to have a word for those people there who we don't like and dehumanize them, if they could they'd just use the N word for everyone
So...half the conservative base agrees with a librul?
Their opinions on reality are not consistent. They will warp their minds into whatever twisted shape is required if they get to hurt the "other" (whoever that happens to be this cycle)
When it comes to their opinion of Hitler, their mind is shaped like an unbalanced dumbbell. He's a hero and a villain at the same time, but he's really only going to stay a villain to them for as long as it is necessary.
I'm constantly reminded of that 90s (I think) country song. "You've Got to Stand for Something or You'll Fall for Anything."
Many of them just keep falling for the next lie, even while the previous lies are being corrected. They never stop for a minute and think the place they are getting their info from is bad.
No no no. This is Adolf Hitler [bad, because National Socialism Volkswagon Bailout Lost The War].
You're thinking of Adolf Hitler [good, because Based Chad Hates Immigrants Retvrn To Tradition].
Two totally different guys.
Personally i prefer the hitler that killed hitler.
Yes, but he also killed the guy who killed Hitler.
"everyone I don't like is a liberal"
I wonder why they put Hitler on the list then.
They love pretending loke Hitler, the universal symbol for evil, was a socialist. They fuckin’ love fascism and everything he did but they have to pretend like what they’re doing is different.
They also have no idea what “liberal” means, but that’s the case with most words exceeding six letters.
Similar to socialists being in denial over how antisemitism can get them to go along with fascists. People on the fringes of politics tend not to be able to see themselves for what they are. Communists and Fascists are both authoritarian just with a slightly different grift. But when the fascists play up the greedy capitalist jew angle, the socialists jump on board with fascism along it with the rest of the useful idiots.
Are we playing the "socialism and communism are different things" game today? Because that'snnever fun.
Authoritarians aren't communists. They're just appropriating the term.
Are we playing the anarchists and communists are the same thing game today? Communists absolutely can be authoritarian, anarchists can't anarcho-communists aren't but not all communists are
true Scotsmananarcho-communistsAuthoritarianism isn't something anyone should want so authoritarians need to make some kind of grift to convince people to go along with it. But it ultimately has the same result. Someone becomes dictator by promising to make a country stronger, while someone else becomes dictator by promising equal, it all ends the same.
I mean China is obviously a fascist government today (no matter what they call themselves) but where was the revolution that caused this massive shift from the "far left" to the "far right"? There wasn't one because it's just authoritarianism, the only change was which propaganda is used to justify authoritarian power.
He was a filthy painter, that's why. Now, if he had painted with a gun...
Liberal arts?
#COMMUNIST
Or a communist!
Hussein. 😪
They just love saying Obama's middle name like it's some kind of gotcha. What they don't seem to get is it doesn't mean anything unless you're a racist piece of shit.
Barack Obama is clearly the cousin of Saddam Hussein, the 20th hijacker on 9/11.
Hahah - I thought this was a joke, I can’t believe it’s a real thing. It reads like an angry fundie 14yo wrote it.
Largely written by and for right wing angry fundie home schoolers. You're not wrong.
Every single republican is also a liberal. It's the dominant ideology of capitalism and its state.
The difference is that the liberalism of republicans is more "classic" in that it's heavily mixed with racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, classism, etc.
There's only two kinds of liberalism; economic, and social.
Why do we separate the two? Who does that serve?
Historically it used to be used like: "I'm socially liberal but a fiscal conservative"
The reality is that translated to: "I want to fund everything I want but never give money or resources to people that aren't like me".. good old institutional racism and bigotry with a nice facade
Conservativism as an ideological definition is a branch of liberalism.
Well, this is LeftyMemes, so there's a preference for the left here.
Free market Capitalists dislike the population being able to make/recognize the distinction. Because there's a certain kind of "Liberal" who are only Liberals when Liberalism economically benefits them, but become Conservatives (and even radically right wing Conservatives) when Socially Democratic policies, or talk of taxing wealth becomes popular.
Donald Trump, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and others have all worn the mask of a "Liberalism" that refuses to to make this distinction (between social and economic liberalism).
A Liberal who is an economic liberal but doesn't seek progressive improvements to society, isn't a liberal at all. They're a conservative in waiting for the moment things progress too far.
Thus leftists are served by keeping this distinction in mind. Learn it. Recognize who will kick up a fuss and change teams, and remember that they have a limited use, and will eventually go no further (or worse, become a major hindrance). You need an exit strategy for those people.
Otherwise progress gets maligned in the name of maintaining the 'status quo'.
Authoritarians, who want to paint anything "liberal" as the enemy.
When you say liberal, do you mean social liberalism or classical liberalism?
Modern socialism is made up of people that get hard over the thought of leading a worker's revolution while being completely incapable of having a conversation with anyone in the working class.
Like what's the goal in redefining terminology to be different from common usage? It's not enticing anyone in the working class to join your movement, that's for sure. Most people don't even understand what the hell the average socialist is even talking about at this point.
I agree we can get up our own asses with the terminology, but in this case just skimming the Wikipedia page will reveal that the concept of liberalism encompasses almost all dominant political parties' philosophies.
even they should know the difference between librul and commie, right?
They literally don't
No, liberal, commie, fascist, are all just interchangeable terms for "people I don't like"
The people who curate the site? Absolutely. The people who frequent the site...? ehhhh
The people who curate the site are out of their damn minds
I interacted with them a bit when the site was starting out. You're being quite generous. Bunch of nutters.
I think it’s hard to overstate how insane they are but this should be a good starting point: Biased but amusing source they can’t edit And here’s them directly arguing against the theory of relativity
There is clearly only one response to those excerpts
Hitler was just really passionate about giving free healthcare to Jews, LGBT, intellectuals, Romani, slightly swarthy people, etc etc.
Free hair cuts, de-licing and showers too.
And they all got a unique free tatoo!
How very liberal of them.
If i didn't know any better I'd say that was sarcasm :o
Clearly I'm misinformed on Hitler tho and they're definitelyNOT labeling him with their no-no word in order to pretend they aren't fuckin Nazis themselves.
Gotta make sure to include the Hussein in Obama's name
Can't last let us forget that he's probably related to Saddam somehow.
Have they listened to Bill Maher lately? I don't think he's liberal anymore.
Liberals don’t run around scared and clutching their pearls all the time, you get more views if you sell rage and fear. Conservatives love to be angry and scared all the time.
I think he is, unfortunately. he's just mask-off about it.
Is...liberal? Or do you mean neoliberal?
I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the terms of use for that wiki that they clarify that they are not liable for any trust users put in the articles and the tagline "trustworthy encyclopedia" cannot be enforced
How is this list organized? It seems like they randomly wrote names down as it came to them.
It's a Wiki, so you can just pop in and add a bullet point however you like, assuming you have an account.
This probably was crafted by a small pool of die-hards who dropped a name on the list any time they found out someone existed who made them mad.
It's specifically Conservapedia. They once tried to make their own translation of the Bible because they thought existing ones were too liberal.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:The_Conservative_Bible_Project
Edit: almost forgot. The guy who runs it is the son of anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly.
Talk about a fall from grace.
That was a fun fucking read. Amazing.
I clicked through to their article on Conservapedia because I was curious what they had to say about it and
I have to say I find it kind of funny that a site calling itself "RationalWiki" would use language like this. I have my doubts that it is possible to violate Wikipedia's "encyclopedic tone" guideline any harder.
Not PZ Myers! D:
I can't believe they spelled his name right for once.
They have an article on quantum mechanics
Was not expecting the abrupt pivot into barely relevant bible study.
It's an internet encyclopedia built for and by conservatives. Literally everything on there abruptly pivots to barely relevant Bible study.
I'm used to UK conservatives. They don't like poor people, I think religion is really a minor issue for most of them though (after all it does generally preach kindness to the poor).
Yeah I suppose I should have prefaced it with American conservatives. Because American conservatism is thoroughly wrapped up in Christian authoritarianism.
In order to understand it you have to understand its creator: Andrew Schlafly: he’s an electrical engineer and lawyer and his mother is Phyllis Schlafly, a lawyer famous for her militant opposition to feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed amendment to the constitution that reads:
Phyllis wasn’t just some opponent of that amendment, no she was probably the primary reason it failed.
In short: there’s no reason why that website should be in any way sane just as there’s no reason its founder should be in any way sane. He really likes to critique physics theories that he doesn’t understand by citing philosophy and theology.
He tried to edit Wikipedia to insert his ideology. Wikipedia editors delivered the "science not nonsense" and "WP:NPOV" smackdown. Conservapedia is the result, written by and for ultra right wing home school students.
The whole family is conservative shitbags with an axe to grind. A rich brewing family that makes second-rate beer and has shitty politics. They're the rich that people talk about when they say "eat the rich."
Interesting, I wonder what their evidence is for that-
Just... 2 people being compared?
LOL
You just gotta love how Richard Dawkins comes before Hitler, Stalin, and Mao...
"Yeah the guy brings facts to the table, can't have that, that's the worst, that's like worse than Hitler, man!"
I thought Dawkins was a weird one put up there. He's a genius. Not even political.
Richard Dawkins disagrees with their little coloring book.
well, just as bad as. these guys definitely hate sanger and mao worse than hitler, and they're both lower.
fuck Dawkins too
Because? You're one of those guys who use the pinnacle of science in their hands to tell people about their dislike of actual scientists?
fucker's been busy spreading transphobia
... How? Seriously,
im not going to go into his Twitter account and look for it. he likened trans people to Rachel dolezal (or whatever the fuck her name was) and said people would be criticized for denying that trans people are what they identify as. "discuss" he said.
when people rightfully shit on him for implying that trans people are frauds like her, he weaseled out like every coward Schrodinger's bigot saying "i said 'discuss' academically" or some stupid shit as if that undoes his equation in the tweet.
he also said in another tweet that being trans is a choice with something like "some men choose to identify as women" and vice versa. he's stuck on chromosomes defining gender, which is unscientific.
then he wrote a column or some shit about it with chromosomes defining women, which is unscientific, and on his podcast he platformed a transphobe, didn't challenge her and even agreed with her.
like all transphobes he's lost the plot and has completely rejected the science on it.
Stalin was totally a lib tho
"We can't do communism, we have to keep the state and enact a series of slow reforms. Also jail all the gays"
Eh, I dunno that I'd actually characterize him as a liberal so much as him being an authoritarian that just pushed whatever happened to serve him at any point. Kinda in the same vein of fascists not having any economic ideology, just whatever serves their ideal of the state at any given moment. So yeah, I certainly agree with your sentiment that Stalin certainly was not a communist, but more because he only cared about gaining/maintaining power rather than actually subscribing to any economic theory.
Stalin was by most accounts a true believer in Marxism-Leninism. There are simply too many unforced ideological-caused errors for it to be anything else, like Lysenkoism rejecting Mendelian genetics because the fascists loved it and it raised questions of eugenics.
The Stalinist economic plans were thoroughly Marxist. The problem there (as far as Stalin's true believer status is concerned) was not ideological.
He was just a drunk, paranoid, murderous asshole. Socialists simply don't like admitting that they're as vulnerable to hypocrisy and corruption as anyone else.
Marxism-Leninism is a form of liberalism.
That's technically an opinion.
Richard Dawkins... Ahahahaha! Dude is BFF of conservative right winger Ayaan Hirsi Ali!
Don't forget: Satan is a Leftist
If you call yourself a "conservative" you're either a fascist or a liberal that just isn't quite there yet.
Why do they list Hitler as their enemy, when their own selected Führer obviously idols him?
Thisis why you never trust wikipedia
It's from conservapedia!
still a wiki
Might as well say "never trust a website"
Can you really ever trust one? All of them have an agenda to push, no exceptions. If that agenda aligns with your's, you've found an echo chamber for reinforcement. If not, perhaps you can learn of alternative viewpoints to an identical issue and maybe agree with some but not all of them. Things like wikis are supposed to be open to all opinions on a subject, but like everything good, someone will take it to corrupt.
No exceptions you say? Ah yes, the wiki agendas. I sure love the propaganda of the stardew valley wiki. Super echo chambery and clearly deep state politics
Glad to help heh
You're describing literally every discourse community and mode of communication. What you said applies to every book, newspaper, journal, website, forum, wiki, etc. There always some bias in some way. It's how it works. Humans will be humans. It's up to the individual to process information and discern what to think
Yep
"Never trust other people," they say. I'm not sure I shpypd believe them, though.
So, don't trust the entire internet, then?
Pretty much. Take it all with a grain of salt
You're not using that phrase correctly. "Take it with a grain of salt" means not to commit to the knowledge until it's verified else where or at least applying basic skepticism to it.
Wikipedia is a fairly safe place to start with research, but I would never really believe it for current event politics or adjacent topics.
Conservapedia is an engineered echo chamber that exists because Wikipedia kicked their founders out for vandalism. It only gives credibility to Wikipedia.
Exactly, Wikipedia has all sorts of processes and policies around making articles high quality. That includes trying to remove as much ideologically driven material as possible. This would be deleted in seconds (maybe literally).
But it's Conservapedia. And it says it's "Trustworthy" under the logo.
You know it's bad when they need to try to convince you they're legit.