- Joined
- Jan 22, 2017
- Messages
- 14,815
- Reaction score
- 22,684
- Location
- U.S.A.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Conservapedia, launched on November 21, 2006, is a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia. It was founded by teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly with the help of several students from his fall 2006 World History class.
One of the main differences they tout between their site and Wikipedia is being true to the facts and free of mobocracy. They openly admit they write with a conservative bias, but maintain this doesn't detract for them being factual and informative. With that in mind, I poked around the website a bit to see what information someone would come away with from reading a Conservapedia article vs Wikipedia.
What is "The Great Reset" you might wonder?World leaders actively hope that COVID-19 can lead to The Great Reset, and are even openly calling for it in the news. (Source)
They also have an article on a phenominon they've dubbed "Faucism".The Great Reset is the globalist, Biden junta and Liberal Party of Canada agenda to use the destruction of the U.S. and global economies by the Chinese virus pandemic to implement the Green New Deal. It is based on the idea that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste and that capitalism can be snuffed out once and for all. (Source)
Faucism[1][2][3] (pron. "FOUL CHEE ISM"[4]) is a mental condition which causes one to view bureaucratic "public health experts" as infallible. A combination of scientism and totalitarianism, it refers to the cult of personality of Anthony Stephen Fauci... (Source)
hopelessly ignorant about something important, as liberals often are
Like many of their other articles, it starts off unobjectionable enough. However;The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance initially founded in 1949 to combat the spread of communism in Central Europe from the Soviet Union
The article continues to praise Russia and Putin as bastions of conservative Christian thought. They go even further in their article on Putin;In recent years, NATO has become a promoter of the homosexual agenda, which Russia (and the Bible) opposes.
Interestingly, they chose on Putin's page to display an image of Putin looking at footage of Ukrainian president Zelensky doing a homoerotic dance (on a TV show before he became president).A self-described Christian, Putin leads the increasingly conservative Russia against the homosexual agenda and towards pro-life side. Liberals criticize Putin and Russia because they disagree with him on social issues.
The Homosexual Agenda is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to mandate approval of homosexuality and its ideology. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association.
The page includes this bizarre sentence,The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the rights of free speech and religious freedom today.
And also some of the goals of this agenda including very benign objectives like, "Legalize homosexuality" to totally insane claims such as "Accept child sex trafficking" and "Encourage abortion". They even manage to tie this piece in nicely with the pro-Russian messaging from their NATO and Putin pages;
The primary effect of the formula appears to be to lead students away from the Bible, which implicitly rejects a unified theory for mass and light. Indeed, despite a century of searching, physicists themselves have completely failed at developing a coherent unified theory for both mass and light as implied by the formula.
I recently discovered the existence of "Conservapedia", a conservative alternative to Wikipedia which is apparently a progressive site overrun with radical Marxists that necessitates the building of a new Wikipedia. So, what is Conservapedia exactly?
One of the main differences they tout between their site and Wikipedia is being true to the facts and free of mobocracy. They openly admit they write with a conservative bias, but maintain this doesn't detract for them being factual and informative. With that in mind, I poked around the website a bit to see what information someone would come away with from reading a Conservapedia article vs Wikipedia.
The first article that caught my eye was their article on COVID-19. This article really sets the theme for the rest of my experience with Conservapedia. After a few paragraphs of dry descriptions of what COVID is, there is this sentence;
What is "The Great Reset" you might wonder?
They also have an article on a phenominon they've dubbed "Faucism".
They also have a funny article where they credit conservatives for inventing words. The list of "conservative" words includes words like, "axiomatic", "altruism", "alcoholism", "Big Brother", "clueless" and hundreds of others. Many of the words include little definitions. "Clueless" for example;
That second pic could just as well be of their voters.the republican party went from this (first pic) to this (second pic)...
It had escaped my notice until I saw a twitter post about it. I'm curious, how was the site before the Trump era? I expect the religious fundamentalism was still present but there was less conspiracism. Like, I expected the articles on evolution and COVID 19 to be trash. What surprised me was how completely overrun with Qanon talking points the site was and how funny some of the articles were. Like the one crediting half the English language to conservatives.I recall reading Conservapedia roughly a decade ago, and it appeared to be a site that is dedicated to self-parody.
Its a perfect real world example of Poe's law.I recall reading Conservapedia roughly a decade ago, and it appeared to be a site that is dedicated to self-parody.
IMO America's churches are a breeding ground for hate and ignoranceIt had escaped my notice until I saw a twitter post about it. I'm curious, how was the site before the Trump era? I expect the religious fundamentalism was still present but there was less conspiracism. Like, I expected the articles on evolution and COVID 19 to be trash. What surprised me was how completely overrun with Qanon talking points the site was and how funny some of the articles were. Like the one crediting half the English language to conservatives.
There's a very good argument for their return.I blame Reagan. He got rid of all the looney bins
To be honest I'm borderline an anti-theist. I understand why many people are religious and I don't really have an issues with it on an individual level. But damn, organized religions really make it hard to not oppose the whole thing all together. I really dislike how much you can get away with behind the shield of religious views. "Oh, well yeah I think homosexuals are degenerates that will burn in hell for their sins, shouldn't be able to marry, shouldn't be able to adopt, and shouldn't display their degeneracy in public. Those are just my religious values so it's intolerant of you to criticize me for them."IMO America's churches are a breeding ground for hate and ignorance
It had escaped my notice until I saw a twitter post about it. I'm curious, how was the site before the Trump era? I expect the religious fundamentalism was still present but there was less conspiracism. Like, I expected the articles on evolution and COVID 19 to be trash. What surprised me was how completely overrun with Qanon talking points the site was and how funny some of the articles were. Like the one crediting half the English language to conservatives.
I am certain they didn't. The site would have crashed. I had to website go down on me several times while researching to write this post lol.I cannot imagine more than a couple thousand people visited the site at any given time.
Whatever issues Wikipedia has, Conservapedia is clearly not the solution to them.Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”nypost.com
All the howling about gays and abortion is to establish religion when the constitution clearly prohibits the establishment of religion. Evangelicals are political "Christians" and mainstream Christians don't push back because deep down their only joy in life is to stick their filthy snouts into other people's crotchesTo be honest I'm borderline an anti-theist. I understand why many people are religious and I don't really have an issues with it on an individual level. But damn, organized religions really make it hard to not oppose the whole thing all together. I really dislike how much you can get away with behind the shield of religious views. "Oh, well yeah I think homosexuals are degenerates that will burn in hell for their sins, shouldn't be able to marry, shouldn't be able to adopt, and shouldn't display their degeneracy in public. Those are just my religious values so it's intolerant of you to criticize me for them."
Obviously most religious people aren't like that at all, but the way that institutionalized religion legalizes and protects discrimination in many ways is what really bothers me.
I recall reading Conservapedia roughly a decade ago, and it appeared to be a site that is dedicated to self-parody.
It would be a lot less scary if there weren't elected politicians right now parroting these talking points. If this was just some fringe website it would be funny. But it's not. It's fairly representative of how people like MTG and Tucker Carlson talk.The scary thing is that they are dead serious.
Its a perfect real world example of Poe's law.
It would be a lot less scary if there weren't elected politicians right now parroting these talking points. If this was just some fringe website it would be funny. But it's not. It's fairly representative of how people like MTG and Tucker Carlson talk.
From an academic perspective, it is really interesting how pervasive the "homosexual agenda" talking point is. It really is just a fancy way of calling things they don't like "gay". The "gay agenda" talking point has been around since at least the 90s-00s. I'm not quite sure when it switched over to "homosexual agenda" but it was about the same time the Conservative movement started switching over their rhetoric to being against the "globalists". As far as I can tell, the homosexual agenda and the globalist agenda basically all refer to the same things.
In lots of ways conservatism has turned into escapism. A religion. Religion doesn't have to make sense, just has to make you feel good. Some know it all is in charge. "I alone can fix it" Trumpy to the rescueConservapedia is another fine example of how cons would rather live in a bubble they create than in reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?