|
Their take on Scott Walker is absolutely delusional:Conservapedia's Conservative of the Year list posted:though pro-life, Walker achieved nothing on the issue thus is vulnerable to a recall in 2012 
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Conservapedia in the News posted:Americans love Fox News, another solid year of ratings for FNC. Come January, Fox News will celebrate 10 straight years at number 1. FNC’s average viewership exceeded CNN and MSNBC combined, both in prime time and for the entire day. The top 13 programs in cable news all aired on Fox. [9] They proudly trumpet the fact that FNC has higher average ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined on their front page and then have the gall to claim the latter two are the mainstream/"lamestream" media. This is Conservapedia. Also back to Question Evolution! I'm surprised no one noticed that they nearly always deliberately use a lower case 'e' in evolution when they spell the proper title of the campaign. They probably think that delegitimizes it or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:Is Tebow even a conservative or is it just assumed he is because "Jesus"? I would assume that he is against abortion at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
Skeeter Green posted:They proudly trumpet the fact that FNC has higher average ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined on their front page and then have the gall to claim the latter two are the mainstream/"lamestream" media. This is Conservapedia. This is conservatism as a whole. This is a movement that simultaneously thinks that liberals are "effete, latte-sipping, out of touch, eggheaded human being babies who don't know how the real world works" yet also thinks that liberals are extremely cunning, dangerous, have complete control of society, are masters of manipulation, own the media, Hollywood, have made it practically illegal to be a Christian and are constantly a hairs-breadth away from throwing American society totally in the toilet. One of the central tenants of fascist, authoritarian thought is to portray your enemies as both incredibly weak, stupid, incompetent sub-humans as well as a constant aggressive, powerful, cunning "enemy at the gates" that will no doubt destroy all of society if not fought back against constantly and vigorously at the same time i.e. weak enough so as to portray their own culture/values as obviously superior, yet strong enough so as to be constantly threatened. This is how, despite the largest "news" company in America being a mouthpiece for GOP talking points and having a monopoly on talk radio (which basically only leaves the internet as a haven for liberals yet, obviously, for every MoveOn or KOS or whatever, there's a Townhall or Freep or Drudge report so it's hardly the stranglehold that conservatives have on, say, talk radio), they are able to claim that liberals dominate the "mainstream media". C.C.C.P. fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Dec 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:Is Tebow even a conservative or is it just assumed he is because "Jesus"? Tebow doesn't really seem comfortable talking politics as it is, so it's difficult to say for certain. JohnClark posted:Their take on Scott Walker is absolutely delusional: That's their way of spinning the issue. To Conservapedia (and many other conservatives in general) Walker isn't extremely vulnerable to recall because he has actually put conservative economic policies into practice by destroying unions and his state's economy (e.g. refusing free money for high-speed, light rail from the federal government), which caused the people of Wisconsin to loving hate him and his conservative policies, but rather that he has been conservative enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:This is conservatism as a whole. This is a movement that simultaneously thinks that liberals are "effete, latte-sipping, out of touch, eggheaded human being babies who don't know how the real world works" yet also thinks that liberals are extremely cunning, dangerous, have complete control of society, are masters of manipulation, own the media, Hollywood, have made it practically illegal to be a Christian and are constantly a hairs-breadth away from throwing American society totally in the toilet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
~~~~*Eco goons reprezent*~~~
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
I really hate that Umberto Eco quote, because it doesn't just apply to fascists, but to pretty much everyone who has an enemy or opponent at all. You can find similar contradictory incompetent/threatening statements absolutely anywhere you look. The Freeper thread here is a good example. It makes sense; if you portray an opponent as purely ridiculous, there is no need to fight them. If you portray them as purely threatening, they may seem too difficult to fight. An opponent that is simulataneously ridiculous and threatening needs to be fought and is beatable. Itious fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Jan 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 12:14
|
|
|
Itious posted:I really hate that Umberto Eco quote, because it doesn't just apply to fascists, but to pretty much everyone who has an enemy or opponent at all. You can find similar contradictory incompetent/threatening statements absolutely anywhere you look. The Freeper thread here is a good example. How about you find an example that is starkly NOT otherwise comparable to fascists?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:How about you find an example that is starkly NOT otherwise comparable to fascists? The website Democratic Underground is a goldmine of this sort of thing. The people there aren't fascists, they are generally milquetoast democrats, but during the Bush years you found a ton of threads saying stuff about Bush building concentration camps or cancelling elections, as well as a ton of threads about how Bush was dumb as a chimp. eg: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1008961 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3811847 There are examples everywhere you look; during the war for instance the Allies and Soviets portrayed Hitler as a a one-balled maniac who flew into carpet chewing rages and liked being pooed on but who also had the capability and desire to conquer the entire world. You really can find it anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:How about you find an example that is starkly NOT otherwise comparable to fascists? The right as seen by the left and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 13:08
|
|
|
Itious posted:The website Democratic Underground is a goldmine of this sort of thing. The people there aren't fascists, they are generally milquetoast democrats, but during the Bush years you found a ton of threads saying stuff about Bush building concentration camps or cancelling elections, as well as a ton of threads about how Bush was dumb as a chimp. Fair enough, but only if that still stands after you filter out the "Bush as figurehead" folks. It also focuses on one guy...who was claiming Cheney or Rove were idiots? quote:There are examples everywhere you look; during the war for instance the Allies and Soviets portrayed Hitler as a a one-balled maniac who flew into carpet chewing rages and liked being pooed on but who also had the capability and desire to conquer the entire world. You really can find it anywhere. These things aren't the least bit mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 13:52
|
|
|
Itious posted:I really hate that Umberto Eco quote, because it doesn't just apply to fascists, Just because others are guilty of it at times, doesn't mean it isn't a key component of fascism. Fascism also promotes class collaboration and it can be argued that any ideology that doesn't explicitly promote class struggle implicitly promotes class collaboration - that, too, doesn't mean that class collaboration isn't a central tenant of Fascism. Same, too, with corporatism. This stems from Fascism being a weird mish-mash of ideologies that is hard to pin down, save for things that all flavors of Fascism tend to share: authoritarianism, promotion of class collaboration, the way they view enemies, corporatism, generally some sort of racism, etc. It's really hard to say "Fascism is this" or "Fascism is that" since German Fascism didn't look much like Italian Fascism. The best we can do is try to look for things all fascist movements have in common, generally, and go from there. quote:There are examples everywhere you look; during the war for instance the Allies and Soviets portrayed Hitler as a a one-balled maniac who flew into carpet chewing rages and liked being pooed on but who also had the capability and desire to conquer the entire world. You really can find it anywhere. The specific phenomenon I'm talking about is the simultaneous portrayal of one's enemies as unfathomably strong and pathetically weak. The instance you mention portrays Hitler as power hungry yet crazy, not strong yet weak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
Itious posted:The website Democratic Underground is a goldmine of this sort of thing. The people there aren't fascists, they are generally milquetoast democrats, but during the Bush years you found a ton of threads saying stuff about Bush building concentration camps or cancelling elections, as well as a ton of threads about how Bush was dumb as a chimp. This example is closer, but still misses the mark I think. "Building concentration camps" hyperbole doesn't imply strength or weakness. A better example that DU was guilty of would be saying that Bush was dumb as a chimp YET smart enough to rig the 2000 election. Which is it? Is he a nincompoop who can't even eat pretzels without choking to death or a criminal mastermind that undermined the electoral process of an entire nation? I don't recall any widespread "cancelling elections" thing, unless it was some kind of backlash paranoia about PATRIOT I or the leaked PATRIOT 2? However, I stand by my assessment that just because other, non-Fascist types have done it doesn't discount that it factors into almost all actual fascist movements in a big way. Hitler and the Jews, Mussolini and the communists... both portrayed as bumbling, illegitimate adversaries, yet also as ruthless, cunning enemies who, lest everyone line up and support Der Fuhrer/Il Duce, would topple German/Italian society as they know it. C.C.C.P. fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jan 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:However, I stand by my assessment that just because other, non-Fascist types have done it doesn't discount that it factors into almost all actual fascist movements in a big way. Hitler and the Jews, Mussolini and the communists... both portrayed as bumbling, illegitimate adversaries, yet also as ruthless, cunning enemies who, lest everyone line up and support Der Fuhrer/Il Duce, would topple German/Italian society as they know it. The way I always put it is that elements of ur-Fascism can turn up in non-Fascist movements and are sort of warning signs that the movement might turn ugly. In order to be considered truly fascist, a political movement, group, or ideology has to display strongly and in a coordinated way most or all of the elements of ur-Fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:This example is closer, but still misses the mark I think. "Building concentration camps" hyperbole doesn't imply strength or weakness. A better example that DU was guilty of would be saying that Bush was dumb as a chimp YET smart enough to rig the 2000 election. Which is it? Is he a nincompoop who can't even eat pretzels without choking to death or a criminal mastermind that undermined the electoral process of an entire nation? Dumb but a figurehead for a shadowy cabal of evil. Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:Dumb but a figurehead for a shadowy cabal of evil. Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. To be fair, "shadowy cabal of evil" is a pretty accurate term for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
There is an element of the same fundamental flaw of thinking in most conspiracy theorizing really, in that they believe that conspiracies are both vast networks with far-reaching influence over the world and yet also are easily unraveled by the conspiracy theorist (who, in another similarity, is an ordinary person elevated to the role of Hero by their ability to understand what the 'pathetic sheeple' around them do not). This doesn't mean that conspiracy theorists are fascists inherently, but it does suggest that widespread conspiratorial thinking could be a very dangerous sort of 'foot in the door' for authoritarian leaders. The best example of this at the moment (though obviously all sorts of antique conspiracy theories are still rattling around their echo chambers) is the birther movement, which certainly does at least harbor a lot of fascists given the frequency with which adherents to the conspiracy call for the violent overthrow of the US government. They believe that Obama's 'shadowy masters' that put him into power are somehow able to rig up vast fraud across the US in order to get him elected, yet are too stupid to accurately forge a birth certificate (I'd imagine if cornered a lot of them would fall back to 'well, they ordered ODUMBO to get it done and you know THOSE people can't do nothin' right!'). There was another good discussion of this sort of thinking I was reminded of earlier in the week at slactivist (of Left Behind dissection fame) a while back that goes over the vast scope of who would have to be in on a conspiracy to prop up climate change if it was all lies. And just to not seem like I'm making GBS threads all over crazy politically right-wing conspiracy theories, things like 'Bush did 9/11' and 'they're going to suspend the elections and put all liberals in FEMA camps!' are just as crazy and dangerous and the main difference between the sorts of people who believe them and the sorts of people who believe we are ruled by Evil Kenyan Muslim Barry Soetero and his Grim Overlord George Soros are what they'd want to hear from some authoritarian leader before they started goose-stepping away behind him against all those 'bad people'. It's really the inescapable end result of conspiratorial thinking, because if you really seriously believe that the President blew up buildings and killed thousands of American citizens or has stolen the election at the behest of shadowy international interests or that said shadowy interests are working to gain control over the entire world by creating a fake crisis then what means WOULDN'T be justified in your efforts against that person/persons? While fortunately for the most part these beliefs are not held with enough conviction to propel even the small handful of really vocal supporters to any really dangerous actions, all it would really take is enough cultural saturation and the right spark for something really dangerous to come of it. TLDR version: It might not be obvious how people theoretically on the opposite of the political spectrum of fascism as we have seen it thus far in history displaying elements of fascism is just as dangerous as the same from those more obviously aligned to it but if some leftist leader had convinced enough of a core of supporters that Bush REALLY did 9/11 and that they needed to something real about it NOW and with support from the military they took over the country and then used propaganda to convince people that it was all justified by Bush's bad acts but now everything was going to be better because they were going to sweep away all the rot that Bush had caused to our great country they'd still have the essence of fascism despite not necessarily being much like the fascist movements of the past. Feinne fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Jan 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:i.e. we caught him posting on RationalWiki. Speaking of which, do we have a thread for RW? I haven't seen one but i don't have search. It's not quite as insane as Conservapedia but any wiki that unironically claims that pro-lifers are inherently racist and was created exclusively because a guy raged pretty hard at getting banned from Conservapedia (a wiki named after a political ideology has a political bias!?) deserves a good mocking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2012 11:33
|
|
|
If you think there'd be enough content to do it, then do it. The thing is though, Conservapedia doesn't just have a conservative bias (as is its intent), but labels the world completely in terms of what is "liberal" and "conservative" (which are meaningless terms in the way the website uses them), so its fun to watch the insainity of a man who sincerly believes that the world can be compartmentalised into those (and only those) two groups. As for the racism bit: quote:Our drive-by troll highlighted this section and I'm inclined to agree. With no citation, it merely looks at somebody's opinion and playing the race card against pro-lifers. Either we can back this statement up, or we delete it. --Ø GremlinSnakk! 11:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC) 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2012 13:26
|
|
|
Kalos posted:Speaking of which, do we have a thread for RW? I haven't seen one but i don't have search. I don't spend a lot of time on Rationalwiki but I had gotten the impression that it had been taken over by mostly unremarkable people. Its article on the lenski affair and its series on quack science and medicine are both pretty good, actually. Edit: I read the pro-life article and the racism section isn't particularly well written and the specific claims it makes are odd, but there is definitely a racial component in anti-abortion protests sometimes. I live in missouri in a highly segregated city right near an inner-city planned parenthood and the anti-abortion protesters are nearly all middle-class to rich white people from the suburbs who just love telling the people who use the clinic (mostly african-american) that they are participating in a racial genocide against black babies. If that's not specifically racist it is DEFINITELY racially troublesome. I haven't heard that rhetoric from within the african-american community here or anywhere, though, so I'm not really sure where that part of the article comes from. As for the fear of being outbred, I've heard people here talk about that with regard to immigration, not abortion. Doesn't mean it never happens though, I guess. andrew smash fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Jan 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
Depending on where you live there may be a strong correlation between racism and opposition to abortion but I just don't see any reason to argue causation between the two in either direction. If you're in the sort of place where being white and highly religious is also strongly correlated with being a racist fucker than chances are a large portion of the pro-life community there will be racist and make dumb poo poo arguments with racist justifications. And yes that whole black genocide argument is highly racist, it's White Man's Burden to help those Poor Savages who Don't Know Any Better as gently caress. Which is still no excuse to blanket claim that being pro-life is inherently racist, again there's no really good argument to causation between the two things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
That article doesn't claim a causal relationship between the two and neither did I so I'm not really sure why you're making that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:That article doesn't claim a causal relationship between the two and neither did I so I'm not really sure why you're making that point. I wasn't suggesting you were making that claim at all, but I think they're tacitly making that claim by even having that section in the article (and by they I mean the person who actually wrote that section, who as you note from the change in writing is likely not the same as the author of other sections). It's the same sort of dishonesty as Conservative's infinite panoply of 'Atheists and <insert bad thing here>' articles, where you try to associate something you personally dislike with something bad. It's 'I'm not saying all pro-lifers are racists, but...' Which isn't to say that the racism of the argument made against abortion in question shouldn't be mentioned at all, just that it should be discussed with other pro-life arguments and not in some special section.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
Feinne posted:I wasn't suggesting you were making that claim at all, but I think they're tacitly making that claim by even having that section in the article (and by they I mean the person who actually wrote that section, who as you note from the change in writing is likely not the same as the author of other sections). It's the same sort of dishonesty as Conservative's infinite panoply of 'Atheists and <insert bad thing here>' articles, where you try to associate something you personally dislike with something bad. It's 'I'm not saying all pro-lifers are racists, but...' There is an implied causation there, just not the one you're seeing. The point of including racism in an article about the anti-abortion movement is that there may be dual causation in that they may be caused by the same thing(s), i.e. social conservatism and authoritarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
So we're all aware that it's Tim Tebow week on the Main Page? Edit: Shoulda scrolled down. Looks like I almost missed more vital Tim Tebow news about how God literally drops everything to focus on American Football games. 
jojoinnit fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Jan 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 08:18
|
|
|
If only Tebow were playing for the Saints in '05
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
Hey I keep asking this but I'll never understand it, do these people actually...watch football? Like, if you did you'd realize 'oh Tim is a decent at best QB and the real success story is his defensive line and the team's running game, and if anything their biggest issue is a lack of passing skill, which is a major aspect of the QB's job!' Do these guys seriously not even watch the games they believe God Himself is blessing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 09:38
|
|
|
Then how do you explain him throwing 316 yards huh lieberals? Even Obamas scared and the Lions are losing. I'm convinced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 09:52
|
|
|
I think the worst part is, they believe in a god who would rather intervene in local football matches than help/end starvation. Thats the god they willfully worship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 12:07
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm sure Obama is shaking in his shoes just thinking about Tim Teabow.  I'm not exactly clued in about American football; is a 316 yard throw particularly uncommon or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 12:42
|
|
|
Pandemic Diagram posted:Yeah, I'm sure Obama is shaking in his shoes just thinking about Tim Teabow. yes? the field is only a 120 yards long, so it doesn't make any sense  They must mean feet or something
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
Pandemic Diagram posted:Yeah, I'm sure Obama is shaking in his shoes just thinking about Tim Teabow. A 300+ yard game is a good game for a quarterback. It's not rare or anything--in any given week, probably half of NFL quarterbacks hit that mark--but it's a good total in most circumstances. A 400 yard day would be considered outstanding in most cases. But there's nothing special about 316 yards; it's an above-average passing total that doesn't really mean much on its own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 13:14
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:316 yards on a single throw would be crazy, yes, considering that it's impossible due to the rules of the game. They're talking about his 316 yard game though, as in he threw for 316 yards over the course of the game (iirc, he had 10 completions on 21 attempts; I could be a little off on that though). Oh, right.  Here in Australia we get taught the metric system (devised by the "anti-religious Cult of Reason"!  ).Pretty strange that they're spinning an above average game as having million to one odds of occurring. I mean surely conservatives understand it's nothing special, even if it does coincide with a Bible verse?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
A yard and a meter are almost the same length if that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
There's ~10% difference, which is fairly significant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
I wouldn't use it for anything scientific no, but it's fine if you're just eyeballing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Pandemic Diagram posted:Oh, right. NO BUT SEE HE PRAYS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD LIKE A BIG OBSTRUCTING JACKASS SO THAT MEANS GOD LOVES HIS TEAM! But yea, low 300's are average for any good QB, and one who's apparently THE GREATEST QB EVER IN THE NFL it'd be a bit on the lower side of 'yep did pretty good this game', so no it's not a special number aside from matching his facepaint for that one period of his life (God waited what, two years, three years to make the connection?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
Pandemic Diagram posted:Tim Teabow. Hahaha awesome
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Blacknose posted:There's ~10% difference, which is fairly significant. For estimating purposes, not really. I doubt you could consistently estimate 300 yards to plus or minus a similar margin of error. IRT Tebow's game, keep in mind that he put up 316 yards, including overtime. If a game goes into overtime, it's not uncommon for players to put up gaudy numbers that look nice but have little relevance to how well they played but rather the fact that they got extra minutes to play. In this case, Tebow got an extra 80 yard pass, which was less about his arm and more about the route running his receiver made before and after the catch. Without those extra 80 yards, he had a very pedestrian 236 yards passing in regulation. einTier fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jan 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 16:33
|
|
