|
AtraMorS posted:Keep in mind that the thing that made Salem different was the whole atmosphere of paranoia that accompanied it. While witch burnings in Europe are great examples of people taking rash action based on superstition and nonsense, Salem had the extra process of naming names; indeed, since confession and naming others could get you out of an execution, it's pretty easy to argue that this was the preferred outcome, and it simultaneously placated (bad guy got caught), justified (bad guys are real), and perpetuated (there are more bad guys out there) the witch hunt mentality. Inevitably, it got to the point where those who maintained their innocence had to pay with their lives. You see a similar mentality in the inquisitions, but hell, a lot of the times those confessions weren't even considered valid unless they were given under torture, so there's this element of cruelty in an inquisition that makes the "Salem" mentality sort of unique. To be fair, The Inquisition had the process of naming names, too (At least, I know it did when dealing with the Cathar heresy, it may well have ceased it during the witch trials for all I know). Having said that I do agree that what Salem experienced was very different to what mainland Europe experienced, but honestly there's not much I can see that distinguishes the Salem trials from typical English-style witch trials, in that they were instigated from within the community rather than by the authorities, were conducted in secular courts, involved minimal torture, and the whole concept of a 'witch' was generally far less formalised. All I can think of is that the Salem trials happened a little while after it stopped being cool to kill witches in elsewhere, and that there were more people killed/imprisoned than was typical for that particular kind of witch hunt. Then again, we did get the Pendle witches over here which are probably a close second to Salem in terms of fame. I think there's just something creepier about witch trials when it's the community turning against itself rather than some monolithic institution going around burning everyone.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Seriously my favorite game is 'read Conservapedia sources'. Most of them either link to Conservapedia essays/other articles, Amazon pages for books, or articles that don't have what they claim. I looked up Hannah Arendt the other day to see if they had any reprehensible stuff to say about her (no) or if they tried to claim her as a conservative hero (no), and this is the entirety of an article about one of her main works: quote:The Origins of Totalitarianism is a three-volume book written by Hannah Arendt. I know that we are WELL past the point where people even pretend Conservapedia could ever be an alternative to Wikipedia, but seriously. This is just a copy/paste from the middle of the top review on Amazon. At least quote a part where a point is made, for Christ's sake. The best part is that the following is at the very top of that article's author's user page: quote:This summer I was hired to teach writing at a private school in New York City. If I tell you how to write an article, please don't edit war: I'm a senior editor here, because I know how to write encyclopedia articles. Well ok then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Christ, look at this, from the talk page. Wonderful. If you take a strong position against, you're a liberal and in denial. If you don't, you're wishy-washy and thus contemptible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Oh god, the Conservapedia article on "lifeboat ethics". It's the classic "20 people in a lifeboat that can only support 15" dilemma, a clear metaphor for scenarios of uneven resource distribution, carrying capacity, etc. What Conservapedia says, however, is that Lifeboat Ethics are silly, because This Would Never Really Happen. You can't know the future: maybe the lifeboat can hold more people than you think! Or maybe another ship is just beyond the horizon, ready to rescue you all! And if everyone just prays enough, then they'll find a better solution! Besides, what are the odds that a situation like this could actually happen? Speculating about hypothetical situations is liberal foolishness!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:Oh god, the Conservapedia article on "lifeboat ethics". It's the classic "20 people in a lifeboat that can only support 15" dilemma, a clear metaphor for scenarios of uneven resource distribution, carrying capacity, etc. I love how they don't understand thought experiments at all. I wonder if they consider the prisoner's dilemma "flawed" too. I also love that their answer to it is to yell at the ocean like Jesus did and, you know, poo poo will be just fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
When I was in college back before Wikipedia gained prominence, professors would give students poo poo for using it as a source in their papers. Though I think now most professors have realized that its a worthwhile source for a lot of things. I'm wondering though, has anyone in college now, or anyone who is a professor, caught students using conservapedia as a source? I can just imagine some jackass using the conservapedia "gay bowel syndrome" page as a source for a paper in their History of AIDS class or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:"gay bowel syndrome" Wait they have that? Really!? My old "science teacher" gave us a lecture on it! With hand gestures, with loving diagrams!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:When I was in college back before Wikipedia gained prominence, professors would give students poo poo for using it as a source in their papers. Though I think now most professors have realized that its a worthwhile source for a lot of things. When I was teaching I went over reliable internet sourcing, and used Conservapedia as an example of something that includes far too much opinion and interpretation and far too little information. I understand that there is some interpretation on Wikipedia, but it's generally the "most commonly accepted interpretation of experts in the field" and opposed to "the opinions of one guy who can lock articles at will." When I started undergrad way back in 2001 I remember them telling me Wikipedia was a bad source, by the time I finished undergrad in 2006 that opinion had done nearly a 180. I still tell students not to cite Wikipedia itself, but rather to follow their sources and cite that source. If they actually use a piece of information from Wikipedia I generally ask them to try and find it somewhere else. If they can't, they won't fail, but it's good prep for upper division classes and grad work (should they go that far) where citing Wikipedia directly is a "bad idea".
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:Wait they have that? Really!? My old "science teacher" gave us a lecture on it! With hand gestures, with loving diagrams! They've pretty much got an entire library of gay bashing, ranging from 'Homosexuality and obesity' to the oddly specific 'Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco' to the downright ironic 'Homosexuality Obsession'. There's easily over 200 topic relating to, or about homosexuality. They seem to take an inordinate interest in mens' bottoms for people who think being gay is wrong. Here's the full list:  http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3412241&pagenumber=99&perpage=40#post401460633
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 12:15
|
|
|
Someone once suggested these people (what with their opinion on women) think that all men are homosexual by default and heterosexuality is a matter if will,
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 12:32
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Seriously my favorite game is 'read Conservapedia sources'. Most of them either link to Conservapedia essays/other articles, Amazon pages for books, or articles that don't have what they claim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
kissekatt posted:[1] This really happened. [2] I swear guys, my buddy in Canada told me about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
I would love for one of the citations to be the very same page the citation is listed on. That could be peak Conservapedia for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
sicarius posted:I love how they don't understand thought experiments at all. I wonder if they consider the prisoner's dilemma "flawed" too. Actually, their article on the prisoner's dilemma is informative and fairly neutral; not coincidentally, it's (so far) escaped the notice of Sergeant Schlafly's Conservative Hearts Club Band. Rummaging through the article history reveals that almost all the contributors have either quit Conservapedia or been banned. (Oh, and early versions of the article mentioned the "t*t for tat" strategy. Yes, they censored the word "tit".)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:(Oh, and early versions of the article mentioned the "t*t for tat" strategy. Yes, they censored the word "tit".) "Okay so now I can rest easy tonight knowing our family encyclopaedia has an article and Homosexuality and raping the infant decedents of the founding fathers... Oh darn somebody forgot to censor tit, what if my kid had seen that!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:They've pretty much got an entire library of gay bashing, ranging from 'Homosexuality and obesity' to the oddly specific 'Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco' to the downright ironic 'Homosexuality Obsession'. "Summa Homosexualita"
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
How many of those are by Conservative?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:How many of those are by Conservative? All of them? They're kinda his thing, and he already has a template so he can bang one out in five minutes, followed by thirty hours of fine-tuning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Conservative officially spends more time thinking about gay sex than a man who actively looks for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:I would love for one of the citations to be the very same page the citation is listed on. That could be peak Conservapedia for me. Time to bring out my favourite citation again. citation number 1. It's like they are criticizing you for having the audacity to question them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:Someone once suggested these people (what with their opinion on women) think that all men are homosexual by default and heterosexuality is a matter if will,
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
Is it true that Andy's daughter sometimes comes on the site to argue about the liberal relativity thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
A few days ago, Paul Kurtz died. Known as the 'father of secular humanism', Dr Kurtz was 86. PZ Myers mentioned this. And now, Conservapedia's front page says: Conservapedia's Front Page posted:PZ Myers proves Paul Kurtz, the father of secular humanism, was another atheist failure without a legacy.[15] The argument here is that the post about Kurtz's death was only 23 words long, whereas a subsequent post (about an upcoming party) was 130 words long. THEREFORE, Kurtz was an atheist failure who left no legacy. There isn't even a Conservapedia article about him! ... Oh wait.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
They're apparently also completely misinterpreting the "Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan" quote. What a shock.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:They're apparently also completely misinterpreting the "Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan" quote. What a shock. Apparently they're reading it as "Success has many sons, failure is childless." 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Apparently they're reading it as "Success has many sons, failure is childless." I also notice the Paul Kurtz Conservapedia article leaves out little details like, "Kurtz published over 800 articles or reviews and authored and edited over 50 books. Many of his books have been translated into over 60 languages."
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
And having daughters is even worse than having no kids at all! Goddamn Obama filling this world with leftist-voting baby-killing union-joining Herman Cain-ruining women  This is a fun game because I bolded the part where you can put literally any random set of negative adjectives and Phyllis Schlafly will agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I'm reminded of that lovely article saying Romney is better than Obama basically because Romney has a five sons and several grandchildren and Obama has a mere two daughters, as though passing on your DNA was the only worthwhile thing a human being can ever do. It'd be even funnier if this guy was a creationist, then we'd have one of them accidentally validating Darwinism, albeit the reddit teenager version of it. Some with the anit birth control fundies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
After Chris Christie laid on the praise for Obama this morning I figured Andy would poo poo himself and then all over Christie, but apparently he'd been declared a RINO (and even worse, a PLINO) a long time ago.quote:Christie is a RINO, as illustrated by his refusal to renew the appointment of a New Jersey Supreme Court Justice who provided the swing vote against same-sex marriage, and subsequently nominating candidates who were widely criticized by conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:After Chris Christie laid on the praise for Obama this morning I figured Andy would poo poo himself and then all over Christie, but apparently he'd been declared a RINO (and even worse, a PLINO) a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Yea the Islamic wave sweeping Jersey, don't loving ask me what I mean, it's a thing, why aren't you fighting it. Also this dragon, why aren't you fighting this dragon?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:After Chris Christie laid on the praise for Obama this morning I figured Andy would poo poo himself and then all over Christie, but apparently he'd been declared a RINO (and even worse, a PLINO) a long time ago. By that bolded part they mean that Christie treats Muslims like normal human beings, such as when he nominated one to be a judge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Conservapedia linked to a ShockofGod video offering an easy to make Halloween costume: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=640uoT16-eM In case anyone needed anything for this evening...
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Siroc posted:Conservapedia linked to a ShockofGod video offering an easy to make Halloween costume: "Ratings have been disabled for this video." I wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:"Ratings have been disabled for this video." Nearly positive most of the comments on any of his videos are all puppet accounts. The grammar and phrasing is very, very similar to the style he/Conservative write in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:Nearly positive most of the comments on any of his videos are all puppet accounts. The grammar and phrasing is very, very similar to the style he/Conservative write in. quote:questionevolution1 9 hours ago
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Conservapedia posted:The slow clean-up after Hurricane Sandy is controlled by Democrat unions and government, and many voters must be wondering: wouldn't free enterprise restore power more quickly? Oh my god, this is loving rich. It's literally a claim so stupid that I don't know how to attack it. First off, the power company is a private enterprise. Secondly, JCP&L has proven themselves to be so incompetent when it comes to handling their power system that they have incurred the wrath of many towns due to their handling of such situations such as a fire in the Morris power station, which lead to numerous blackouts in my town last year in such hazardous conditions as light rain and bright sunny weather, Hurricane Irene, and the huge October snow storm we had. Also, a giant loving hurricane is a huge expensive issue. How exactly would a free market solution work? Would they not rescue anyone that couldn't pay for it? Also, the hurricane happened two days ago. It's a little early to be bitching about a slow clean up, especially when you still have trees coming down! Parahexavoctal posted:Oh god, the Conservapedia article on "lifeboat ethics". It's the classic "20 people in a lifeboat that can only support 15" dilemma, a clear metaphor for scenarios of uneven resource distribution, carrying capacity, etc. Excuse me, the solution they provide, quite clearly on their page, is to ensure that Jesus is always a passenger on any ship that you sail on. Come on! Why don't you think Andy takes cruises?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
I think my favorite part of the Lifeboat ethics page is the first footnote, which is used to to contradict the sentence that it references.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
You know what's one thing that leads to government agencies being slow and inefficient? When politicians who're convinced the government can't do anything right turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy by putting incompetents into key positions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I dunno, I'd be less surprised if he just deleted any negative comments and blocked the posters to whitewash the feed and... Yep, if you write anything he doesn't approve of your comment is deleted and you're banned from commenting on any of his videos. It's crazy to think that, in between all the Conservapedia edits, he still finds time to police his YouTube channel as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 22:57
|
|
