The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

It's kind of weird, Conservative/Shockofgod is a Kyoon-like bubble where all of his references are himself. I can never tell how seriously he believes in projects like QE or Conservapedia beyond their ability to be used as soapboxes.

Well okay, soapboxes and places to obfuscate his identity.

Actually, the QE stuff is especially weird. Pretty much all of the content he posts related to it is stuff he posted himself on a fan blog, which is incredibly disconnected from anything Creation Ministries is actually doing at the time (which is very little).

It's like he's trying to manufacture his Internet superstardom out of whole cloth.

OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Sep 17, 2012

# ? Sep 17, 2012 18:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 08:43

SixPabst: Oct 24, 2006

OneEightHundred posted:

It's kind of weird, Conservative/Shockofgod is a Kyoon-like bubble where all of his references are himself. I can never tell how seriously he believes in projects like QE or Conservapedia beyond their ability to be used as soapboxes.

Well okay, soapboxes and places to obfuscate his identity.

Actually, the QE stuff is especially weird. Pretty much all of the content he posts related to it is stuff he posted himself on a fan blog, which is incredibly disconnected from anything Creation Ministries is actually doing at the time (which is very little).

It's like he's trying to manufacture his Internet superstardom out of whole cloth.

Not only that but if you actually read his main page posts or any of the articles on the QE! blog, he never really says anything. Most sentences are combinations of "What/why/how does ______ do/mean for evolution?" or some other non-statement.

Example:

quote:

1. What was reported in 2011 which signals a big upcoming loss in the world's atheist population?

2. Is it the start of a trend which will accelerate?

3. How big could the losses be to the global atheist population?

4. How can the Question Evolution! Campaign and 15 questions for evolutionists serve as a catalyst for this change to take place?

5. How will this affect evolutionary belief in the world?

I also really like his use of vague statements like "a very famous and wealthy supporter of QE! has expressed interest in meeting about ways to promote QE! through ways evolutionists will never expect to see that may be translated into at least 7 languages and distributed through the night before a certain time"

He really has a big thing for web traffic statistics too, like it's the golden standard of measuring interest in a subject. A lot of his charts are comparing generic creationist sites to richarddawkins.net

# ? Sep 17, 2012 18:57

Binowru: Feb 15, 2007; I never set out to be weird. It was always other people who called me weird.

mintskoal posted:

Not only that but if you actually read his main page posts or any of the articles on the QE! blog, he never really says anything. Most sentences are combinations of "What/why/how does ______ do/mean for evolution?" or some other non-statement.

Example:

I also really like his use of vague statements like "a very famous and wealthy supporter of QE! has expressed interest in meeting about ways to promote QE! through ways evolutionists will never expect to see that may be translated into at least 7 languages and distributed through the night before a certain time"

He really has a big thing for web traffic statistics too, like it's the golden standard of measuring interest in a subject. A lot of his charts are comparing generic creationist sites to richarddawkins.net

His writing style really reminds me of Amway pitch speeches, where they all emphasize hard work, perseverance and motivation, without actually telling you what an effective business strategy is.

# ? Sep 17, 2012 19:03

Bushmaori: Mar 8, 2009

Lassitude posted:

They're lovely terms and not so well-defined, so when you use them you're virtually guaranteed that the other person will get the wrong idea. Some people assume "atheist" means you're certain there's no god (somehow), with agnostic being 50/50 about god existing. Others use agnostic/gnostic as modifiers for atheist/theist. So these days if you don't believe in god but don't pretend like you're certain there isn't a god, you are probably an "agnostic atheist".

In the end, partly thanks to guys like Dawkins, it's probably best to avoid using those terms at all. As Tyson there pointed out, if you call yourself an atheist people will assign to you all these ideas they have about what it means to be an atheist. Labels like that don't really help. At best the other person will require you to elaborate on your beliefs because they won't really understand. At worst, they'll assume you're virulently opposed to religious believers of all types and therefore an rear end in a top hat.

e: And, besides, giving non-belief in something a name seems a bit pointless anyway, and only encourages people like those on Conservapedia to assume that there's anything like a unifying philosophy backing the label "atheist".

e2: VVV Yeah, negative/positive, weak/strong, agnostic/gnostic are all seemingly interchangeable modifiers to being theistic/atheistic. Dawkins himself prefers to use a number scale, not unlike Kinsey's sexuality spectrum. Either way nobody will know what you are talking about and it's probably better to explain without terms like those at all if you can help it.

I agree with all of this, my personal position being that since there is no evidence for god I will not believe, but since saying I know there is no god is a position of faith I can't technically take that, thus agnostic atheist.

The amount of stigma and presumptuous bullshit that comes along with saying you're an atheist, a single position on a single question is what really gets to me. But then both sides are guilty of this sort of thing.

# ? Sep 18, 2012 03:45

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

mintskoal posted:

Not only that but if you actually read his main page posts or any of the articles on the QE! blog, he never really says anything. Most sentences are combinations of "What/why/how does ______ do/mean for evolution?" or some other non-statement.

Example:

I also really like his use of vague statements like "a very famous and wealthy supporter of QE! has expressed interest in meeting about ways to promote QE! through ways evolutionists will never expect to see that may be translated into at least 7 languages and distributed through the night before a certain time"

He really has a big thing for web traffic statistics too, like it's the golden standard of measuring interest in a subject. A lot of his charts are comparing generic creationist sites to richarddawkins.net

It's really amazing how he still believes Atheism is a prerequisite to believing in Evolution when the goddamn Catholic Church, the largest Christian faith (and the largest individual religion in the world) the one he's supposedly a part of, supports it.

RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Sep 18, 2012

# ? Sep 18, 2012 08:51

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

You're all dodging the main issue, which is that women (who are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote btw) prefer ponies to atheists.

# ? Sep 18, 2012 14:50

Lassitude: Oct 21, 2003

Ponies are nature's most religious animal.

# ? Sep 18, 2012 15:59

Blade_of_tyshalle: Jul 12, 2009; If you think that, along the way, you're not going to fail... you're blind.

There's no one I've ever met, no matter how successful they are, who hasn't said they had their failures along the way.

Essay: Does Pinkie Pie Lack Machismo?

# ? Sep 18, 2012 18:08

jojoinnit: Dec 13, 2010; Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

Essay: Does Pinkie Pie Lack Machismo?

*Picture of giraffe with the subtitle: Even Giraffes Can "See Past" Pinkie Pies Girly Atheism*

# ? Sep 19, 2012 02:08

nsaP: May 4, 2004; alright?

I'm on my phone so i cant really format and I've been ignoring this thread for a while, but people are calling out conservative pretty good on the main talk page now. They've been getting progressively bolder in calling his bullshit but he's plowing forward strong, blinders on.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 02:14

SixPabst: Oct 24, 2006

nsaP posted:

I'm on my phone so i cant really format and I've been ignoring this thread for a while, but people are calling out conservative pretty good on the main talk page now. They've been getting progressively bolder in calling his bullshit but he's plowing forward strong, blinders on.

Oh is he ever:

quote:

Are you claiming that Elijah sinned when he mocked the prophets of Baal? Could it be that you are a prisoner of your age when it comes to setting moral standards? As far me, I am going to use the timeless Word of God, the Bible, as my guide. Also, subsequent to the Atheism and obesity article, atheists charging Bible believers with hypocrisy has lost its sting. We know how much atheists purport to love science and rationality and we know what medical science says about obesity (and being overweight) and its health risks. Checkmate atheists! You've lost the hypocrisy front! Another ideological battle front that Jesus won and the atheist population has lost! An ex-carpenter who used hand tools who was a godly itinerant preacher/prophet in the first century did not have problems with obesity! Conservative 20:22, 18 September 2012 (EDT)

Check and mate, atheists :smug:

# ? Sep 19, 2012 03:05

Chexoid: Nov 5, 2009; Now that I have this dating robot I can take it easy.

A literal "checkmate atheists" post. It's so beautiful.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 03:54

Solus: May 31, 2011; Drongos.

http://conservapedia.com/Special_rights

quote:

Special rights, also called special privileges, are privileges extended to a particular special-interest group but denied to the majority. Indeed, special rights come at the expense of the rights of the majority. Examples of special rights include same-sex "marriage"[1] and the repeal of Don't ask, don't tell[2].

That is the whole page.

I can't fathom the logic but someone might be able to explain :psypop:

# ? Sep 19, 2012 08:35

ungulateman: Apr 18, 2012; pretentious fuckwit who isn't half as literate or insightful or clever as he thinks he is

Solus posted:

http://conservapedia.com/Special_rights

That is the whole page.

I can't fathom the logic but someone might be able to explain

This is what Australians call the Pauline Hanson approach to equality.

Disregard the fact that people are different, have different needs and wants. Everyone gets equal treatment.

Now consider what this means for blind, deaf or otherwise disabled people. Consider what it means for people who have different emotional or ideological thoughts to those in power.

It's an abhorrent form of 'equality' which should be combated at all costs.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 08:51

Kugyou no Tenshi: Nov 8, 2005; We can't keep the crowd waiting, can we?

ungulateman posted:

Disregard the fact that people are different, have different needs and wants. Everyone gets equal treatment.

I see what you mean here, since the majority idea is that everyone has the right to be straight and have a hetero marriage. The biggest problem I have here is the fact that somehow these people have the idea that same-sex marriage and gays serving in the military somehow denies them a right. The only "right" that's being denied the majority in this case is the "right" to deny a right to the minority.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 09:08

Tartarus Sauce: Jan 16, 2006; friendship is magic
in a pony paradise
don't you judge me

ungulateman posted:

Disregard the fact that people are different, have different needs and wants. Everyone gets equal treatment.

Well, and the irony is that this is what liberals are commonly accused of, if I'm following correctly. Conservatives laugh at liberals when liberals get mad about, for example, the race and sex ratios for various careers and fields not being 1:1, because what liberals ought to aim for is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

So, am I not following the train of thought here, or are crazy conservatives getting into the equality-of-outcome game, too? I mean, it wouldn't surprise me, given how Andy and Co love to have their cake and eat it, too.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 15:01

Wheeze: Jul 31, 2007

mintskoal posted:

Oh is he ever:

Check and mate, atheists

I think he's invented a whole new kind of fallacy. Argument from obesity: You're fat, therefore God exists.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 15:28

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

mintskoal posted:

Oh is he ever:

Check and mate, atheists

How hard does he pound it to Christ?

Yea, Jesus was ripped and worked with his hands, in the hot sun, maybe with his shirt off!

# ? Sep 19, 2012 15:49

Mr. Belpit: Nov 11, 2008

RagnarokAngel posted:

...the goddamn Catholic Church, the largest Christian faith (and the largest individual religion in the world) the one he's supposedly a part of, supports it.

Wait, I know Schlafly is Catholic, but is conservative/ShockofGod Catholic as well?

# ? Sep 19, 2012 16:17

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

Chexoid posted:

A literal "checkmate atheists" post. It's so beautiful.

Not only that, but one that swiftly pivots from the morality of a biblical fable to atheists being fatties, followed by "OWNED BITCH."

I'm still not sure he's a troll after those editathons, but I could be convinced that he's a robot.

ungulateman posted:

Disregard the fact that people are different, have different needs and wants. Everyone gets equal treatment.

More than that, I want to know what he means by "denied to the majority."

I mean maybe if he was talking about affirmative action or something I could at least parse it, but what in the gently caress is denied to the majority by repealing DADT and allowing gay marriage to exist?

OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Sep 19, 2012

# ? Sep 19, 2012 18:08

kissekatt: Apr 20, 2005; I have tasted the fruit.

Mr. Belpit posted:

Wait, I know Schlafly is Catholic, but is conservative/ShockofGod Catholic as well?

I'm pretty sure that he isn't. In fact, Catholics are probably somewhat overweight:

Nate, we have had exchanges before. You became angry because you lost them. For example, you took issue with my statement that conservative Protestants read the Bible more than typical Roman Catholics. I then provided statistics showing American Roman Catholics read their Bibles less than American evangelicals and other Protestants as a whole. But it was talking to a brick wall and you did not acknowledge my legitimate points such as these. I can do it again: "...I stumbled on a Rasmussen poll that had to do with Bible-reading in the United States, I couldn�t help but feel that my pessimism is well grounded. According to the poll, 25 percent of Evangelical Protestants read the Bible daily, as do 20 percent of other Protestants, while daily Bible-reading is done by only 7 percent of Catholics."[82] If memory serves I also said that many Roman Catholic scholars have a low opinion on the Bible and you took issue with that. I then showed leading Roman Catholic websites like NewAdvent.org and Roman Catholic scholars expressing doubt about the historicity of various New Testament passages.

You can alleged all you want about me supposedly not understanding hermeneutics, but you provided no evidence of that.

I don't see the point of me winning debate after debate exchange with you at this point. It is not challenging and you are an unreasonable hard head. Make it worth my while. Again, consider asking members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to participate in the debate. They clearly could use some help in getting out their message - especially in America.[83][84] You definitely need to make some kind of substantial counter offer to get me interested at this point.

Nate, we are no longer in the Middle Ages. We live in an era where conservative Protestants are getting out their message in a big way.[85]Conservative 18:17, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

# ? Sep 19, 2012 19:15

AtraMorS: Feb 29, 2004; If at the end of a war story you feel that some tiny bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie

OneEightHundred posted:

I'm still not sure he's a troll after those editathons, but I could be convinced that he's a robot.

Just think, all this time we've been trying to pass the Turing Test by making a better Turing Machine, and all we really needed to do was make dumber people.

edit: Er, I just realized that statement's a little ambiguous. Just to be clear, I'm not insulting you OEH.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 21:43

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

Any sufficiently advanced demonstration of the Turing Test on Conservapedia is indistinguishable from a demonstration of Poe's Law.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 21:56

FoiledAgain: May 6, 2007

OneEightHundred posted:

I'm still not sure he's a troll after those editathons, but I could be convinced that he's a robot.

He posts YouTube videos of himself riding around on a motorcycle repeating "show me proof and evidence that atheism is accurate" (or whatever that dumb-rear end catch phrase of his is). So somewhere, there is a real person. Still doesn't rule out a consortium of trolls working on this one persona though.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 22:36

constantIllusion: Feb 16, 2010

Kugyou no Tenshi posted:

I see what you mean here, since the majority idea is that everyone has the right to be straight and have a hetero marriage. The biggest problem I have here is the fact that somehow these people have the idea that same-sex marriage and gays serving in the military somehow denies them a right. The only "right" that's being denied the majority in this case is the "right" to deny a right to the minority.

But if gays get the right to marry, then what can I lord over their heads?! I need to have a symbol of my status!"

*This has to be the underlying belief behind most of modern conservatism's dogma.

# ? Sep 20, 2012 00:42

sicarius: Dec 12, 2002; In brightest day,
In blackest night,
My smugface makes,
women wet....

That's how it goes, right?

I think I have asked close to 70 people I personally know - I'm disregarding the internet here to rule out Poes - to provide me with a single, secular, substantiated reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to answer. These people range from casual protestant friends who are only opposed to it because, "God said so!" to the minister/preacher/whatever of the largest megachurch in my city of around 110,000 people - at least 90% of whom are nominally Christian.

The majority of people are clueless as to what I mean by secular, substantiated answer. They just give up. Some are clearly educated on the issue and parrot out the myth that there are studies that show being around homosexuals damages children. When presented with contra-indicative information, they fold. Some riddle off that crap about how it devalues marriage or some such nonsense. I tell them marriage isn't a commodity or a medium of exchange - marriage is, essentially, worthless. They fold. I have yet to get a single answer for this question. Over half of them don't even try because, and here's the humdinger, there is absolutely no reason you are opposed to homosexuality except for xenophobia and you're relying on the Bible to tell you bigotry is "okay so long as they're different enough."

It's sickening and if I were a homosexual person I'd probably be on a drat crusade.

# ? Sep 20, 2012 04:08

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

Chexoid posted:

A literal "checkmate atheists" post. It's so beautiful.

I'm excited because this is a perfect excuse to use :beck:

sicarius posted:

I think I have asked close to 70 people I personally know - I'm disregarding the internet here to rule out Poes - to provide me with a single, secular, substantiated reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to answer. These people range from casual protestant friends who are only opposed to it because, "God said so!" to the minister/preacher/whatever of the largest megachurch in my city of around 110,000 people - at least 90% of whom are nominally Christian.

The majority of people are clueless as to what I mean by secular, substantiated answer. They just give up. Some are clearly educated on the issue and parrot out the myth that there are studies that show being around homosexuals damages children. When presented with contra-indicative information, they fold. Some riddle off that crap about how it devalues marriage or some such nonsense. I tell them marriage isn't a commodity or a medium of exchange - marriage is, essentially, worthless. They fold. I have yet to get a single answer for this question. Over half of them don't even try because, and here's the humdinger, there is absolutely no reason you are opposed to homosexuality except for xenophobia and you're relying on the Bible to tell you bigotry is "okay so long as they're different enough."

It's sickening and if I were a homosexual person I'd probably be on a drat crusade.

Probably because there really is no reason.

# ? Sep 20, 2012 07:04

twistedmentat: Nov 21, 2003; Its my party
and I'll die if
I want to

cheese posted:

Probably because there really is no reason.

Well, there's always the "ewww! gays! Gross!" argument, which is probably the underlining reason, just wrapped up in "The bible sez so!"

# ? Sep 20, 2012 17:58

Krinkle: Feb 9, 2003; Ah do believe Ah've got the vapors...
Ah mean the farts

I heard the TMBG song "Science is Real" and expected there to be some kind of "no well gently caress you, science" rebuttal on conservapedia but nope
http://conservapedia.com/They_Might_Be_Giants
nope, just a one line mention that they wrote some songs twenty years go.

# ? Sep 24, 2012 20:42

Parahexavoctal: Oct 10, 2004; I AM NOT BEING PAID TO CORRECT OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS! DONKEY!!

Krinkle posted:

I heard the TMBG song "Science is Real" and expected there to be some kind of "no well gently caress you, science" rebuttal on conservapedia but nope
http://conservapedia.com/They_Might_Be_Giants
nope, just a one line mention that they wrote some songs twenty years go.

I like their article on Kurt Cobain.

Conservapedia's 'Kurt Cobain' article posted:

Kurt Cobain (1967-1994) was the lead singer of the influential grunge band Nirvana, and the husband of Courtney Love, the lead singer of the band Hole. Cobain was born in Aberdeen, Washington. He was found dead on April 8, 1994 at his home from a shotgun wound, after he had been missing for several days. His death was officially ruled a suicide, although there is some dispute about the circumstances; some have asserted that Cobain was murdered[1].

Moral Depravity

Kurt Cobain was a horribly liberal and immoral man. For example, he openly supported homosexuality as the norm. He himself had strong homosexual tendencies. He and Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic once made out on Saturday night Live for the sole purpose of disrupting the moral fabric of American family values. He was also a strong advocate of radical feminism. Cobain is quoted as saying many anti-Christian statements as well. In his song Stay Away, he uses the phrase, "God is Gay." He was also a well-known vandal (he spray painted "God is gay", "Abort Christ", and "Homo sex rules" on several pickup trucks) and drug user throughout his life. He also supported abortion. Cobain was also an anarchist because he grew up listening to underground anarchist punk bands. Other evidence can be seen in the Smells like Teen Spirit video, which has cheerleaders with Anarchy signs on their shirts.

# ? Sep 24, 2012 20:55

bpower: Feb 19, 2011

Parahexavoctal posted:

I like their article on Kurt Cobain.

It sounds like a 7 year old snitching on a friend through coughing tears.

# ? Sep 25, 2012 00:21

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Parahexavoctal posted:

I like their article on Kurt Cobain.

So, what they're telling me is that Kurt Cobain was even more awesome than I remember?

Seriously, anyone who reads that and doesn't have a positive opinion of Kurt Cobain, even if they aren't necessarily a fan of his music, is a piece of poo poo.

# ? Sep 25, 2012 02:57

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

I dunno vandalizing people's property unprovoked is kind of a dick move.

# ? Sep 25, 2012 03:06

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

RagnarokAngel posted:

I dunno vandalizing people's property unprovoked is kind of a dick move.

Ok, that's kind of dick move, but they don't mention how old he was when that happened, he could have done that as a stupid teenager. I saw a bit of a documentary about him on Current TV and he didn't exactly have a great family life when he was a teenager, which caused him to have to live at a friend's house for quite a while, and the friend's parents recounted how nice he was and how he tried to help out with chores and stuff. Basically, Kurt Cobain was Hyde from "That 70s Show."

# ? Sep 25, 2012 03:50

sicarius: Dec 12, 2002; In brightest day,
In blackest night,
My smugface makes,
women wet....

That's how it goes, right?

Parahexavoctal posted:

I like their article on Kurt Cobain.

I like the part where he was an anarchist because there were "anarchy symbols" in one of his videos. On costumes he probably didn't design or approve. At a time when that "anarchy symbol" was put on literally everything because kids thought it was cool to talk about but horrifically uncool to actually understand.

Conservapedia is literally the opposite of logical thought.

# ? Sep 25, 2012 04:14

Ron Paul Atreides: Apr 19, 2012; Uyghurs situation in Xinjiang? Just a police action, do not fret. Not ongoing genocide like in EVIL Canada.

I am definitely not a tankie.

Parahexavoctal posted:

I like their article on Kurt Cobain.

There are so many facts just presented as self-evidently bad in this. Like 'supported abortion' and 'supported homosexuality'. These people don't give to shits about persuading others to their side, they are just 100% of what is right and wrong and everyone else will see it their way.

It's depressing that some people actually do, but the fact that they in general make such poo poo cases for their opinions speaks volumes about the intelligence of those who take this poo poo seriously.

# ? Sep 25, 2012 05:59

Rand alPaul: Feb 3, 2010; by Nyc_Tattoo

This could be the best one I've read so far: http://www.conservapedia.com/LMFAO

"The name of the group, in just five letters, manages to combine casual profanity with the reductive inanity that encapsulates the worst of the internet generation." :ironicat:

# ? Sep 25, 2012 06:28

FoiledAgain: May 6, 2007

RagnarokAngel posted:

I dunno vandalizing people's property unprovoked is kind of a dick move.

This made me look up "graffiti", which lead me to Liberal Vandalism. It's the same tired old bullshit. There's even a link to a "liberal vandals lack machismo" article (any guesses who wrote that one?).

# ? Sep 25, 2012 06:36

tote up a bags: Jun 8, 2006; die stoats die

Rand alPaul posted:

This could be the best one I've read so far: http://www.conservapedia.com/LMFAO

"The name of the group, in just five letters, manages to combine casual profanity with the reductive inanity that encapsulates the worst of the internet generation."

Is it wrong I agree with this

# ? Sep 25, 2012 06:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 08:43

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Stoat posted:

Is it wrong I agree with this

Yea it's a pretty stupid statement.

# ? Sep 25, 2012 07:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

«‹›441 »