|
All of the above made me want to read what they had to say about heavy metal. Some fairly competent history, the predictable diatribe about how it encourages Satanism, bestiality and homosexuality ( ) and then also this: quote:Popular artists who do not perform Christian music but are Christians personally include Zakk Wylde (guitarist for Ozzy Osbourne, and leader of Black Label Society), Alice Cooper, Ted Nugent, Rob Halford (Judas Priest), and Dave Mustaine (Megadeth). I think there's something about Rob they don't know. 
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
http://conservapedia.com/FencingConservapedia posted:when women participate in it, fencing is a joke sport. As a fencer, I would like to say something: go eat all the dicks, Conservapedia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 08:57
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:So, what they're telling me is that Kurt Cobain was even more awesome than I remember? Seriously, I can't stand grunge, but that upped my respect levels of him by a ton.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
The Conservapedia page on Led Zeppelin is rather dry and reads as if it were plagiarized from Wikipedia or an actual music website. No mention of Jimmy Page's dabbling in the Occult, nothing about their pagan/demonic lyrics, and not even any "holier-than-thou" posturing about Bonham's death by alcohol poisoning. Looks like someone at Conservapedia likes to get the Led out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
They don't even believe in intentional satanic backmasking, holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
Binowru posted:The Conservapedia page on Led Zeppelin is rather dry and reads as if it were plagiarized from Wikipedia or an actual music website. No mention of Jimmy Page's dabbling in the Occult, nothing about their pagan/demonic lyrics, and not even any "holier-than-thou" posturing about Bonham's death by alcohol poisoning. Looks like someone at Conservapedia likes to get the Led out. No mudshark?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 12:41
|
|
|
Karl Rove posted:http://conservapedia.com/Fencing Its a joke sport because the US does not consistently dominate it at the godless Olympics. Seriously, Andy had an extended campaign against soccer and more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 12:59
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Well, there's always the "ewww! gays! Gross!" argument, which is probably the underlining reason, just wrapped up in "The bible sez so!" The best article I've seen to explain it is this one. You have to understand that every valuation they make passes through the Bible and becomes "God approves of that" or "God doesn't approve of that". It's a little more complex than that, but I recommend reading the article. It's given me new thoughts on how to debate and attack the issue with evangelicals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 14:18
|
|
|
einTier posted:The best article I've seen to explain it is this one. Excellent article. The last bit reminds me of this guy who puts up Youtube videos that I like. quote:I want to finish by quickly drawing this back to my “so you say you don’t hate gay people” theme. Regardless of what a person says about not hating gay people, if they group consensual acts like gay sex together with non-consensual acts like bestiality and pedophilia, they’re going to come across as offensive. Really offensive. And not really very loving, either. This video is called "How To Tell People They Sound Racist", and I think it's a good general principle. Don't tell people they are racist; tell them that this thing they said is racist. So I don't like it when people say that someone "hates" gays, because that might not be true. But they could definitely be saying something that's pretty rude/offensive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Yea it's a pretty stupid statement. Indeed, it's a silly statement to agree with. 'This generation's music sucks, it's destroying music! The last generation's music was better!' is a sentiment that has existed literally since the dawn of music with little exception.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
prefect posted:This video is called "How To Tell People They Sound Racist", and I think it's a good general principle. Don't tell people they are racist; tell them that this thing they said is racist. So I don't like it when people say that someone "hates" gays, because that might not be true. But they could definitely be saying something that's pretty rude/offensive. Definitely, your first reaction is to call someone out for saying something racist/sexist/homophobic but the problem is most people do not see themselves that way. When you call "them" labels likes that its a serious accusation and causes them to get defensive, walling them off from listening to reason. I mean you still won't get everyone, some will take it personally because "freedom of speech!" but you remove one possible barrier of getting through to someone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:This could be the best one I've read so far: http://www.conservapedia.com/LMFAO quote:Party Rock Anthem - Equates "having a good time" with "losing one's mind".
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
There's an amazing argument taking place right now on the main talk page. I'm phone posting but the general argument is that somehow Michelle Obama made a terrible gaffe by saying the phrase "riding the underground railroad" because there's no possible way to actually "ride" it. There's one poster that's getting pretty "are you loving kidding me?" because Andy insists Mrs. Obama could not possibly have been speaking in metaphor. quote:Apparently Michelle thought there really was a railroad built underground, and made the gaffe in an inept attempt to score political points.--Andy Schlafly 10:46, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:There's an amazing argument taking place right now on the main talk page. I'm phone posting but the general argument is that somehow Michelle Obama made a terrible gaffe by saying the phrase "riding the underground railroad" because there's no possible way to actually "ride" it. Well, since Andy is himself completely unable to understand metaphor or, actually, any kind of intelectual position that is not 100% right or 100% wrong, this is not very surprising at all. EDIT: Agruing with Andy is like arguing with a logic gate. It's either 1 or 0, and if you insist it's really 2 he shouts at you angrily. Erenthal fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Sep 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
Erenthal posted:Well, since Andy is himself completely unable to understand metaphor or, actually, any kind of intelectual position that is not 100% right or 100% wrong, this is not very surprising at all. Tristate logic exists.  Though Andy is always on high impedance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:This could be the best one I've read so far: http://www.conservapedia.com/LMFAO This is a pretty awesome quote: "LMFAO's entire business plan, which has been brutally effective, appears to be based around deliberately affronting decent people and gleefully encouraging poor behavior in the young and wannabe young." You could literally use that for everyone from Elvis on up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
God their media articles were all written by 80 year old church ladies weren't they? Like, every other line is all about offending good family values and decent people. Funny enough, their rap pages are sparse and even handed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
Frostyhawk posted:I think there's something about Rob they don't know. You trying to imply something here? Rob Halford, like the rest of Priest, is anti-abortion. After all, if we abort the babies, what will the Nightcrawler feast upon?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
This is interesting. Look at the category tags. "Astronomy | Fringe physics | Obsolete scientific theories | Pseudoscience | Atheism | Liberal Falsehoods"
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
I like that for the LMFAO article someone had to watch all of their videos. Like, imagine a conservapedia editor sitting down and watching the Sexy and I Know It video, studiously taking notes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
Erenthal posted:Well, since Andy is himself completely unable to understand metaphor or, actually, any kind of intelectual position that is not 100% right or 100% wrong, this is not very surprising at all. I really miss those halcyon days when he posted on usenet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Seriously, I can't stand grunge, but that upped my respect levels of him by a ton. I used to hate Nirvana in high school, mostly because I thought they were completely overrated but I gave them a second shot after playing "Heart Shaped Box" on Guitar Hero and I'm kind of a fan now. Karl Rove posted:http://conservapedia.com/Fencing I'm not saying it's fair or accurate to ascribe what Conservapedians do to all conservatives, but this is similar to the kind of dismissive sexism and misogyny aimed at women by conservatives in general. They act like Title IX is some kind of government tyranny and completely without any merit because only sports with males should count. Binowru posted:The Conservapedia page on Led Zeppelin is rather dry and reads as if it were plagiarized from Wikipedia or an actual music website. No mention of Jimmy Page's dabbling in the Occult, nothing about their pagan/demonic lyrics, and not even any "holier-than-thou" posturing about Bonham's death by alcohol poisoning. Looks like someone at Conservapedia likes to get the Led out. Don't forget the near-Bacchanalian premarital sex. prefect posted:Excellent article. The last bit reminds me of this guy who puts up Youtube videos that I like. But they do hate gays, it's just that the conservative elements of our society have done great work in casting hate as only that which uses explicit pejoratives (e.g. "fag," "friend of the family," "kike," etc.) and direct action (e.g. curb stomping gay guys, lynching Black people, etc.), rather than the more insidious and problematic examples of subtle hatred, like not hiring people with Black-sounding names, not letting gay people marry, opposing anti-discrimination legislation and ordinances, etc. Just because someone isn't at Klansman levels of explicit hatred doesn't mean they aren't bigoted and don't hate people simply for their demographic characteristics. RagnarokAngel posted:Definitely, your first reaction is to call someone out for saying something racist/sexist/homophobic but the problem is most people do not see themselves that way. When you call "them" labels likes that its a serious accusation and causes them to get defensive, walling them off from listening to reason. I completely agree, but I view that as a persuasive tactic and it in no way refutes that these people are bigots and haters. I'm all for whatever is the most pragmatic way of converting people to acceptance and progress, but that doesn't mean I can't still privately view them as disdainful bigots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:This is a pretty awesome quote: "LMFAO's entire business plan, which has been brutally effective, appears to be based around deliberately affronting decent people and gleefully encouraging poor behavior in the young and wannabe young." You'd be hard-pressed to find an entertainer, advertiser, or company whose business plan DOESN'T involve deliberately affronting decent people and gleefully encouraging poor behavior in the young and wannabe-young. Hell, to an extent, Conservapedia itself thrives on affrontery of a kind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:But they do hate gays, it's just that the conservative elements of our society have done great work in casting hate as only that which uses explicit pejoratives (e.g. "fag," "friend of the family," "kike," etc.) and direct action (e.g. curb stomping gay guys, lynching Black people, etc.), rather than the more insidious and problematic examples of subtle hatred, like not hiring people with Black-sounding names, not letting gay people marry, opposing anti-discrimination legislation and ordinances, etc. Just because someone isn't at Klansman levels of explicit hatred doesn't mean they aren't bigoted and don't hate people simply for their demographic characteristics. "Hate" implies a conscious effort whether you mean it or not (or whatever the dictionary definition may be). It's a very serious accusation to claim someone is knowingly bigoted as opposed to merely being ignorant or naive of the repercussions of their actions. Most people are not doing the things you're talking about, even the "more subtle" things. They're not in any position to hire (or not hire) people of a certain race, and aren't voting against anti-gay legislation. I have known many people who are totally cool with gay marriage, calling it marriage, etc. but still will say "Gay" as a pejorative. It's conditioned by society as OK, and that's a Bad Thing. You are correct to call people out on doing it. The problem is accusing THEM of being homophobic as opposed to the homophobic nature of their ACTIONS. Many people are not malevolent and calling them "hate filled" implies that they are knowingly doing it, and that's just a really good way to piss people off and make them even more resentful of the message you're trying to get across.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:"Hate" implies a conscious effort whether you mean it or not (or whatever the dictionary definition may be). It's a very serious accusation to claim someone is knowingly bigoted as opposed to merely being ignorant or naive of the repercussions of their actions. This is a really good way of putting it. The best way to get someone to change isn't to call them a monster, it's too point out to them why what they say or do might hurt someone else, and let them decide if they are okay with that. Most people, upon self-reflection, aren't, and try to adjust from that point on. Progress is slowly made. Those who are okay with their words and actions hurting others, go right on ahead and call hate-filled monsters. No amount of self-reflection will help them, and frankly, they can all pretty much gently caress off and society would be no worse for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:"Hate" implies a conscious effort whether you mean it or not (or whatever the dictionary definition may be). It's a very serious accusation to claim someone is knowingly bigoted as opposed to merely being ignorant or naive of the repercussions of their actions. Woah, I'm not talking about stupid people who use the word "gay" like that, those people are just ignorant, dumb, privileged, or otherwise don't really understand what they're doing. I'm talking about the people who vote for Prop 8 and claim they don't hate gay people, they just want to "protect traditional marriage," or the people who patronizingly talk about how "Black people live on the Democrat Party plantation" or that Black people only vote for Obama because he's Black but they vehemently claim they aren't racist, or the people who insinuate that Muslims should be presumed to be "radical" until they individually prove otherwise but claim that they don't hate Muslims. None of these people are saying explicitly hateful things like Neo-Nazis and Klansmen, but those are all bigoted things and express an implicit hated and perception of inferiority upon people in those respective groups.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Woah, I'm not talking about stupid people who use the word "gay" like that, those people are just ignorant, dumb, privileged, or otherwise don't really understand what they're doing. K, yeah. gently caress those people. They are bad people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
Karl Rove posted:http://conservapedia.com/Fencing User "RayM" has been editing all the sports entries to call them joke sports, especially when women perform them. Here's a great discussion on it: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Joke_sports
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:User "RayM" has been editing all the sports entries to call them joke sports, especially when women perform them. Lots of juicy quotes there. This is an amazing non-sequitur: "A thought posted:It seems to me like this is not really an encyclopedic entry. Could we make this an Essay, so it can still be thought about and debated, but we don't dilute the true encyclopedic entries? PaulRP 15:55, 10 August 2012 (EDT) That's the entirety of the section, by the way. There's no previous reference to bestiality. I have no loving clue why Conservative would bring that up on a sports talk page. And why the reference to the DMV? I just don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
FoiledAgain posted:Lots of juicy quotes there. This is an amazing non-sequitur: The gist of the DMV thing is this: To religious conservapedia types human beings are not animals. We are a separate creature above and beyond animals. One created by god, and chosen by god. We have souls and are capable of sin. Adam was tasked with naming the animals and human kind as a whole have been tasked with being the caretakers of animals. Scientists like Carl "Adolf" Sagan will tell you that human beings are animals. That we came to be by chance mutations just like every other animal. If he were to describe humans, he would do it using the same type of language one would use to describe any given species during a nature documentary. That we are omnivorious, bipedal, mammals. Specifically primates. We are social creatures etc ect etc. Now, these conserapedia types have come up with a one liner to shut down all this evil science man talk of humans and animals being the same. "If human beings and animals are the same then why doesn't the DMV issue licenses to animals?"  This relies on their specific definition of the word "animal" which of course is the source of contention in the first place. Also believing that humans and animals are same thing means that it's okay for man on dog loving because they are both animals you see...
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
These idiots are debating the merits of different loving strokes.quote:Backstroke Not an inefficient, silly stroke
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 13:35
|
|
|
quote:I have yet to see an "informed opinion" on any of the sports listed on this page. What I see is a bunch of editors who think it's fun to disparage hard-working athletes for their own amusement. SharonW 10:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:These idiots are debating the merits of different loving strokes. There has been actual scientific research done into the efficiency of different swimming strokes. But to say one is "better" than others is reading too much into it. prefect fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Sep 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
It doesn't need to be better, it just needs to be more conservative. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:It doesn't need to be better, it just needs to be more conservative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I'm not saying it's fair or accurate to ascribe what Conservapedians do to all conservatives, but this is similar to the kind of dismissive sexism and misogyny aimed at women by conservatives in general. They act like Title IX is some kind of government tyranny and completely without any merit because only sports with males should count.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Karl Rove posted:in this case it's literally "If women participate in it, it's no longer a sport". quote:The other female sports you list seem more legitimate than women's boxing. Women's boxing appears to be particularly artificial - how often are there schoolyard boxing matches between girls?--Andy Schlafly 19:55, 9 August 2012 (EDT) I also like how halfpipe snowboarding and BMX cycling are joke sports, because you know, physically-taxing stunt performances and man-powered racing through an obstacle course are totally not legitimate athletic endeavors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Does that mean we can add NASCAR to the list?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Tell your friend that he, too, is a wuss. If it has rules, it isn't real fighting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
While there is a point to be made that a well-rounded MMA guy will probably beat an boxer of average skill in most 'real' fights, any professional boxer will easily defeat some Affliction-wearing tough guy who trains Muay Thai and BJJ three hours a week, no matter what kind of dirty tricks the "no-holds barred!" fighter tries to use. Fish-hooking and eye-gouging won't get you anywhere against someone who trains every day and is used to being hit (and hard) on a constant basis, has more power and is in far better shape.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 03:14
|
|