|
Fried Chicken posted:Ron Paul! (Kill ur parents) Thats a troll, a really good one though.
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
I just realized that I never saw the Conservapedia page for Occupy Wall Street, and I don't think it's been discussed in here. I think the first sentence really says it all:Conservapedia posted:Leftist protest Occupy Wall Street is an ongoing anti-capitalism rally and rapists' and murderers' playground, beginning as an astroturfing campaign funded by a George Soros group called Adbusters, with the ultimate goal of replacing the United States Constitution with a form of government akin to communist totalitarianism. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 12:21
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:Thats a troll, a really good one though. And it got me perfectly. The idea that you can tell which atoms of gold were the first to come into existence was just crazy enough for me to believe that libertarians believed it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
The page on Dogsquote:Liberals often use dogs to their political advantage - Barack Hussein Obama keeps a dog in the White House. This is clearly a liberal ploy to win over dog owners in crucial swing states. In reality no true dog would voluntarily be a part of the liberal propaganda machine, especially given how many liberals are atheist and the proven link between atheism and bestiality. NO TRUE DOG REPUBLICAN
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Now that's how you troll.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
I've seen the Adbusters as puppeteer behind OWS thing before and I have to say really? Adbusters?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Ying Par posted:I've seen the Adbusters as puppeteer behind OWS thing before and I have to say really? Adbusters? Well, it actually was Adbusters who originally suggested occupying Wall Street, but the occupiers basically just agreed that was a good idea and did so; it's not as if Adbusters controlled it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
Daktar posted:And it got me perfectly. The idea that you can tell which atoms of gold were the first to come into existence was just crazy enough for me to believe that libertarians believed it. The market will decide which gold atoms came first 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
sass menagerie posted:Well, it actually was Adbusters who originally suggested occupying Wall Street, but the occupiers basically just agreed that was a good idea and did so; it's not as if Adbusters controlled it. It's not as if Rick Santelli controlled the Tea Party, either!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2012 11:04
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:It's not as if Rick Santelli controlled the Tea Party, either! But don't Freedomworks and other organizations funded by wealthy individuals and corporations directly fund, if not explicitly control, tea party organizations like the Tea Party Express?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:But don't Freedomworks and other organizations funded by wealthy individuals and corporations directly fund, if not explicitly control, tea party organizations like the Tea Party Express? NO! ALL TEA PARTY ORGANIZATIONS ARE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT INDEPENDENT AND SPONTANEOUS WITH NO INVOLVEMENT FROM THE WEALTHY!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Conservapedia doesn't have a page on Diablo  I'm hoping they'll at least put up some inane blurb about how fat liberals play Diablo 3 when it releases. Their Baal page does mention that he was a boss in Diablo 2, but thats all the coverage they have.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
Their coverage of video games is pretty much surface level. http://conservapedia.com/Video_games This and the related articles at the bottom are pretty much the extent of it, they dont really talk about any games in particular The Video Game Industry Article is pretty funny though: quote:The video game industry has a long history of unintentionally spreading liberal values and extremist ideals to children. Even then it says this stuff is unintentional. Edit: This list used to be longer I think, included stuff like calling dieties deceitful in God of War and cracks about God in Starcraft.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
What, no mention of Postal 2? For shame. It promotes blowing up celebrities with rocket launchers, napalming both Catholic priests and jihadists, using cats as silencers, and pissing on people. But, they referenced Black and White, another favorite of mine, so, hurrah, I suppose?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Their coverage of video games is pretty much surface level. My favorite part about the list is how specific they are, especially in the GTA (after Flight school!) ones. So you know they play video games, but they just can't stop from noticing how unGodly they are.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
I'm surprised they don't ding GTA:SA for letting you re-enact 9/11.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
Their article on Jack Thompson (lovely and now disbarred lawyer, as well as an anti-video game person):quote:John Bruce "Jack" Thompson is a former lawyer and an outspoken and effective critic of video games and their role in inciting violence by children. Liberals have vilified him because he has exposed the harm done by video games. He has frequently sought justice against videogame companies, such as Take Two Interactive, who have insisted on publishing violent, sexually explicit and/or obscene games. He was disbarred in July 2008.[1] And the talk page: quote:Should we bring up Penny Arcade? That's where the vilification has been coming from, although Mr. Thompson is rather stubborn. Obviously that need not be in the article since that doesn't support your point of view. That said, this is a contentious topic that you would do well to build on (I've only fixed a spelling mistake, since I know that if I wrote the article I would end up banned because I support the video gaming industry and video gaming culture). DanieleGiusto 21:53, 15 December 2009 (EST) Oh that poor Mr Jack Thompson, cruelly disbarred for standing up to the people who let vidya games get away with being fun  Not being disbarred for his bizzare and numerous contempts of court and Wikipedia posted:"cumulative misconduct, a repeated pattern of behavior relentlessly forced upon numerous unconnected individuals, a total lack of remorse or even slight acknowledgment of inappropriate conduct, and continued behavior consistent with the previous public reprimand...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Binowru posted:I'm surprised they don't ding GTA:SA for letting you re-enact 9/11.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Or Just Cause 2 which lets you re-enact 9/11 and the BP oil spill at the same time. Pffft, it's not a true recreation if you parachute out at the last second That said, I do like the innocuous music in that video.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
I don't know if this has been posted about, but one of my friends point out a helpful box at the bottom of this page: http://conservapedia.com/Stolen_concept. There's no way that's not a troll, right? Here's the text if you don't want to click on the link: conservapedia posted:This page is proudly free from citations
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Amusing find. Looking at the editors of the actual template page and a short discussion about it, it is not a troll. However, to their credit, the nohearsay template does not actually appear in the list of templates and it is only used in the stolen concepts article.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
Dumb article posted:Pretending he was serious -- or perhaps not realizing he was joking -- some independent developers pushed out shovelware which barely met his terms in a failed attempt to publically embarrass him. However, no major developers dared to meet his challenge I like the double whammy of "Indie developers actually thought he was serious, the morons!" and "Major developers obviously wussed out, the cowards!" If I had to describe the Conservapedia mindset as concisely as possible, I would use this quote.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
I was listening to Skeptoid and one of the episodes talks about Conservapedia. One of the things Dunning talks about is the charges that CP levels at Wikipedia, stuff like it bans users if they say bad things about wikipedia or even if they just exposing conservative ideals. The charge of supporting pedophilia and other nasty things I know comes from the fact they post somewhat unbiased articles about them, but is there any truth to them, even a grain? Or is just the very common internet conservative thing where they just make poo poo up and because they know their audience won't look to any other sources so they'll just believe it at face value.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I was listening to Skeptoid and one of the episodes talks about Conservapedia. One of the things Dunning talks about is the charges that CP levels at Wikipedia, stuff like it bans users if they say bad things about wikipedia or even if they just exposing conservative ideals. As a Wikipedia admin, I can tell you: that's bullshit. Wikipedia is full of people who criticize Wikipedia. And people don't get banned for "espousing conservative ideals" -- although some of the people who were loudest about doing so, got banned for other reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
I would imagine "criticizing Wikipedia" in this context means accusing it of being full of liberal-commifacists who support the destruction of Israel and its replacement by a Muslimatheist Socialist State.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 07:40
|
|
|
It's them projecting onto wikipedia their behavior on Conservapedia. Basically a lesson in human psychology, and if it doesn't have you doubting your own premises you're as broken as them. Luckily we're right...of course they think that too...
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
Conservapedia's front page posted:Boxing superstar and politician, Manny Pacquiao, has been banned from the upscale shopping mall, The Grove, in California due to his views on homosexuality. [16] Of course, the ban doesn't really matter to Pacquiao since real men aren't into shopping anyways. Plus there's an anime "crybaby" cartoon, meant to symbolize atheists. Plus this. Such a brainfuck.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:[...] Nice. Most of that "test" is basically, "Do you have an absolute 100% certain opinion on something that is not 100% provable? No? Then we're right, cause we do have 100% certain opinions!". It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how logic works. The rest are bizarre fever dreams of a crazy person. Conservapedia posted:16. Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics? "Could harm"? "Could"? Sure. Changing the font used in McDonald's ads "could harm" our Olympic chances, too. So what? They also redefine the word "impossible" to mean "very improbable": Conservapedia posted:By impossible we do not mean mathematically impossible, but so unlikely as to be considered absurd. real edit: Using their definition of "impossible" I would agree with them. I think their test is broken. fake edit: This lead me to their page on capital-G God, which was a quarter of the size of the Wikipedia article and gave this explanation for how we know God exists, or as they put it, "How we know about God": Conservapedia posted:Other than creation itself, God is revealed in several ways, including conscience and special revelation (the bible, and prophets). Most importantly though, God is revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. Welp, good enough for me, I guess. Their definition of skepticism is also shockingly brief and links to a paper on the subject from a crackpot journal. Read the abstract and see if you can see all the logical fallacies! Malachi Constant fucked around with this message at 01:11 on May 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:Plus there's an anime "crybaby" cartoon, meant to symbolize atheists. Basically this test is just "Do you think my conservative position could possibly be correct?" If yes, then I'm right. If no, then you're close minded.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Malachi Constant posted:Their definition of skepticism is also shockingly brief and links to a paper on the subject from a crackpot journal. Read the abstract and see if you can see all the logical fallacies! If you disagree with their definition of skepticism, then you're definitely a macro-skeptic.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
The best thing about their "open-mindedness" test is how easily it can be turned around. 1. Do you deny that all extant lifeforms could be the result of natural selection? 2. Do you deny that humankind could have possibly had some influence on global climate change? etc.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Close-minded article posted:13. Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r^2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r^2.00000001? This one is my favorite because of how ridiculous it is.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
I don't know, this one is pretty nuts:quote:16. Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics? I can see it now. Michael Phelps gives up because of gay marriage...
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
The funny part is that pouring shitloads of money into the Olympics and into athletes is why rich countries overwhelming win the most medals. In Australia the government got heavily involved in the Olympics after an 'embarassment' where no medals were won at all. You'd be amazed at how much more you win when you get a massive cash injection. I find this sort of stuff really lovely because left-wingers seem to be under a constant demand to acknowledge that they could be incorrect. I notice it's reasonably common that if they bring a left-wing activist on TV they'll ask them whether they could, abstractly, be incorrect (it's never specific, just a 'could you be wrong'). It's like those people who respond to a thread consensus against some piece of media they like by demanding people constantly tag their statements with 'in my opinion,' as though their opinion had to be softened by the concession that, yes, their opinion really is an opinion and not (like Conservapedia) the received wisdom of a divine being.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:This one is my favorite because of how ridiculous it is. This would require a partial spatial dimension right? It's squared because of the inverse square law? Manny Pacquiao being a giant pussy because he spends his money is my favorite.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:This would require a partial spatial dimension right? It's squared because of the inverse square law? I'm not sure what it would require to make sense physically, but I'm pretty sure that every single known proportionality relation has a rational exponent, and the alternative makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
The exponent ties into their inconsistent hatred of relativity, since it fixes one of the problems with Newtonian mechanics (at the cost of loving up so many others).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
I posted this in the Political Cartoons thread, but I think it may be more appropriate to post here: So I spent half the day in Newsbusters' comment section arguing with dozens of fire breathing right wingers. It went about as well as you'd expect but there was one little noteworthy thing about it. The vast majority of the commenters simply insulted me for being a "government educated" brainwashed stupid, college going liebrul. But there was one guy that actually bothered attempting to respond to my arguments with actual data from legitimate websites and such. The topic we were discussing was tax rates throughout the past several decades and that Obama's are historically low. So here was the kicker. This dude, didn't dispute that Obama's tax rates weren't low. Nor did he dispute that previous presidents, including Reagan had much higher rates. But his problem seemed to be that deep in Obama's heart, he wants to go deeper than any previous president ever went to bring about his socialist utopia. How he would go about this? No clue, except that it would most likely be illegally. What proof does he have? Not a thing, which if you think about it, makes it seem even MORE likely he'd do what this guy claims he's gonna do! This absolutely blew my mind. It's one thing to encounter right wingers that have no clue about the country's history, or it's economic history or a vast amount of things. But here we have an absolutely fascinating situation where someone who has the proper data, the proper information, and understanding, yet somehow comes to some amazingly bizarre, utterly deluded conclusions. The dude even said he liked JFK and thought it would be great if Obama was more like him, DESPITE THE FACT THAT JFK ADVOCATED FOR A MILLION THINGS THAT YOU ASSHOLES WOULD DESPISE. Reminded me astonishingly of my ex-roommate, who was an atheist (and only Baal knows what he is now), who I thought was a liberal but turns out he was a super rabid right winger (who also for Odin knows what reason, was a fan of FDR, Clinton and Jon Stewart!). It was the same thing with him. Oddly enough, whenever we argued about this stuff, he never disputed my facts, but after years of reading chain e-mails about Obama's brownshirt union thugs coming to steal guns, he was just absolutely convinced Obama was this nefarious dictator just waiting for an opportunity. I mean, how the hell is it possible for someone's mind to process things like that? To acknowledge something is true while simultaneously ignoring it? So many cartoons posted here of such mind boggling weird things like Obama some how showing deference to Al Qaeda, despite killing their top guy. Cartoons about homeless people riding the subway being considered "elitist". Obama being simultaneously an atheist and a muslim (and at times, a radical Christian). I mean, holy poo poo. My god!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
For all Conservative fans out there I am just going to link the talk page for Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists. As a sample, the very first message written on it is: AugustO [the user who restored the article after Conservative deleted it], I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia homosexuality article? Conservative 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:The dude even said he liked JFK and thought it would be great if Obama was more like him, DESPITE THE FACT THAT JFK ADVOCATED FOR A MILLION THINGS THAT YOU ASSHOLES WOULD DESPISE. My parents are hardcore republicans and they love JFK too. What is with that? They're convinced he was a "centrist" (Talking about American politics here not worldwide) who made real concessions for both sides. While I know JFK wasn't the most liberal president we've had I always assumed he was just enough left of center to make conservatives mad, am I misunderstanding?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 10:41
|
|