Jozrael

Big thumbs up to Willravel for pointing me to this travesty.

So I read wikipedia often, and defend its redeeming qualities to many people who assume it to be inaccurate and error-prone. I just happened across Conservapedia, and read that the reason it was created was because Wikipedia has a liberal bias (they have an article pages upon pages long documenting all their grievances).

Not gonna lie, I read that whole article, and a good handful of those points made sense. The rest seemed poppycock. I read some more articles...the entire place is positively dripping with political and/or religious agenda. They were trying to create the mirror of Wikipedia. I think they created a monstrosity. If you imagine the spectrum, I'd be willing to grant that Wikipedia has a slight tendency to the left. Perhaps 10%, giving an abstract amount to it (and probably overstated). Conservapedia by this estimate is so far to the right it's not even funny. Also, they're not a true Wiki: you must register for accounts there. If you're seen to be promoting liberal bias (by providing counterarguments! The nerve!) your account is suspended and your IP banned.

I like TFP. I feel myself growing more liberal by the day. I have called myself a moderate for a long time, but I really think it was just ignorance keeping myself there. While I don't doubt that the conservatives have a good handle on a number of topics, especially on some economic ones, I find that their practices irk me more than the those of the liberals do.

Perhaps this would've been better as a blog...

To pose a question to the community, what's your stance on this after taking a peek?

Willravel

If Conservapedia were a physical place, I'd vomit and urinate on it. It's the ultimate slap in the face to intellectual honesty and truth, and those responsible should never be able to publish or write anything ever again. They should also be barred from reproducing, so that their horrible, horrible genes can't continue on (that's a bit of irony there).

Seriously, Conservapedia is what I would imagine hell is like.

Rekna

This seems to parallel foxnews perfectly....

Glory's Sun

damn Will, that's pretty much the opposite of a liberal view I figured you would hold. I figured you would defend their right to say what they wanted to say even though you didn't agree with it.

I'm by no means conservative.. and have no interest in reading such rhetoric as that, but I'm not going to say they can't do it and shouldn't do it.

MSD

I still prefer to think of it as a large running gag and parody of itself. It's easier to deal with that way.

Willravel

Most of what I read on Conservapedia would be considered defamation, which isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Glory's Sun

For the sake of argument..there's plenty of defamation on both sides of the fence. They could simply argue that it's a statement of beliefs which is protected as long as it doesn't rise to the level of hate speech.

I looked at some of it and while it can make one nauseous, it's nothing that we haven't seen before.

Jozrael

I don't think Will's arguing that they're not really allowed to say that, or at least wasn't until you called him out on it. I think he's basically just saying it's sickening, which I entirely agree with. I haven't seen him start an e-petition to cancel that site's service

Glory's Sun

well, he is calling for them to lose the ability to procreate etc etc.. which is a bit much. Aren't Liberals supposed to have their belief set and still allow others to have their own? Aren't Liberals supposed to endorse a concept of tolerance? I see no tolerance in those statements.

Jozrael

I think tolerance is separate from politics, though certainly I believe it more widespread in liberals, and I believe willravel a pillar of tolerance in this community.

That said, I think he's just venting. Does he actually wish these things? I think I'll stop defending him and let him speak for himself, actually xD. Don't wanna be putting words in his mouth.

Glory's Sun

I'm not just calling Will out.. I'm just surprised to see someone who takes such a passive stance and wears the Bleeding Heart Liberal proudly put such a statement out there.

Tolerance is not separate from politics. Politics walk hand in hand with personal beliefs and as long as it isn't damaging to the constitution it should be tolerated.

Leto

I often wonder what drives or motivates people to go to the extremes of the spectrum. I can understand inequalities and resulting equal and opposite reactions, but really the central tendancy covers off the vast and quiet majority (let's say one to two standard deviations of the mean on both sides of the spectrum)

Methinks that if we ignore or filter out the rusty wheels on the left and right, we will just be fine. In fact those who do adopt the squeeky wheel mentality are those who have little or nothing better to do with their time.

Poppinjay

Why would tolerance be a liberal staple? Liberal and conservative are two extremes far from each other. It's the mushball middle that's the most tolerant.

I think the big difference is that liberals just wish conservatives would shut up. Conservatives shoot liberals to shut them up.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Glory's Sun

:shrug: I don't assign any label to myself .. I just thought the liberals were the group who were tolerant of everyone's life and their belief sets. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it.. I'm just sayin..

sure I'd like for conservatives to shut up and quit playing martyr but I'd also like for the far left to shut up and quit playing nicey nice all the time

Willravel

You wouldn't call essentially blaming Charles Darwin for the holocaust hate speech? I can't imagine a worse way to offend truth. Charles Dawrin managed to answer one of the fundamental questions of man—where did we come from?—and because it offends some very ignorant people they're trying to associate him with one of the worst crimes in the history of our species. I mean holy crap.

I'm not talking actual castration, but the place is evil from my perspective. Nothing on it even attempts at being correct. It is the most pure form of intellectual dishonesty that I've ever come across.

There are some things that shouldn't be tolerated, which is why we have laws. We don't tolerate murder, theft, rape, and more extreme forms of lying. Defamation is illegal for a reason.

Glory's Sun

well I wouldn't say that Darwin actually answered anything.. but that's another thread for a different day; but yes making that leap is pretty silly and unfounded.

people often use their beliefs to defend an intellectual thought. I'd agree that it's dishonest..at least that site is.. I was just shocked that it resulted in that kind of outburst from you.

Rekna

If someone is dishonest about something tolerance does not say you cannot correct them. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things.

Glory's Sun

I agree with this...

I never said to agree with it.. I was just saying that someone who holds a bleeding heart liberal tag went crazy in a response.. it was surprising to me. that's all.

roachboy

i prefer to think about this along the same lines as msd---it is a parody, a joke.
even if it is not a parody, it is still a joke.

i find my patience with rightwing bullshit pseudo-information ebbing day by day. it is probably good that i am presently far from power.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Jozrael

When I said tolerance is separate from politics I mean no one political group has a monopoly on tolerance, nor can an entire group be labelled tolerant. Tolerant and intolerant people are sprinkled across the spectrum.

Martian

Conservapedia is hilarious. I knew there were people who thought like that out in the world somewhere, but I've never encountered one.

Among the things I've learned from Conservapedia:

Evolution was supported by Hitler and is therefore wrong.
The gays are disease-ridden and promiscuous. They can change, but they don't want to. They even have an agenda to ruin marriage for the rest of us.
Supporting gay rights is equivalent to supporting NAMBLA.
Obama must be a Muslim, because he has a Muslim name and hasn't changed it. Also, being a Muslim is apparently a bad thing.
Obama's entire presidential campaign is the result of affirmative action.

I don't see how this could not be a joke. It's too good to be true.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Glory's Sun

Live where I live and it won't be so surprising.. I've heard it all..

levite

Yeah, I gotta say, I kinda side with Will on this.

Legally, of course I would tolerate Conservapedia: maybe it's hate speech, and maybe it isn't, but until there is direct proof that the speech has resulted in actions taken, they are protected by the First Amendment.

That doesn't mean what they say is either moral or ethical: only legal.

My problem with them is not simply that I am not a conservative, and I dislike their disagreeing with me. My problem is the form their conservatism takes. A huge problem I have with modern conservatism. I had no problem with a conservative agenda when that meant you wore an "I Like Ike" button, and believed in curtailing public spending. I still didn't agree with it, because many of the social programs those Republicans of yore disagreed with I believe are important. But I respected the view: it was educated, carefully thought-out, and propounded because of sincere and informed beliefs about how best to run the country.

But so much of today's conservatism revolves around religious fundamentalism and fanaticism, or the deliberate embrace of ignorance on many levels, combined with a glut of fear and narcissistic interest in appearing tough. It results in a political discourse which is no longer about how to run this country most efficiently in ways that ensure freedom for all, nor with any compassion for those not wealthy and powerful, but instead with an agenda toward suppressing knowledge, taxing the poor and lightening the load on the rich, and securing ever more power for those who already have too much, all under the banner of "patriotism" and "family values."

I won't lie, it's the philosophy displayed in Conservapedia that makes me toy with the idea of moving to Canada or England, or even Israel, where at least everyone acknowledges what the political problems are. I don't, only because I still believe in America, and I think that someday, if we work together, we can help this nation find its heart and soul again.

But as much as I support the legal notion that Conservapedia has the right to spew its filth, Will and I also have the right to denounce it for the ignorant, cowardly, cold-hearted, monstrous perversions of truth and compassion that it is.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Frosstbyte

I shudder to imagine what would happen if I actually met someone who believed truly everything posted on that site. If that makes me intolerant, so be it. I don't really feel like it's important to be tolerant of people who blindly hate others and ignore the world around them in favor of taking an oft-mistranslated 2000 year old book literally.

Leto

Martian, you don't have to worry about Conservapedia, I just went there and it has a big American flag on it's home page. Therefore it doesn't represent like Wikipedia does. It's just for American issues.

Phew!



-----Added 26/9/2008 at 02 : 16 : 54-----
oh, i did a little test. I entered "dune" into both wiki & conserva pedia and received quite a different result. While both were wrong (nothing about Frank Herbert!!!) one had a much deeper approach to the subject matter. See for your self:

Conservapedia:

Dune - Conservapedia

A dune is a low hill of drifted sand in coastal areas that can be bare or covered with vegetation.[1]

References
↑ The Fragile Fringe: Glossary
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Dune"
Category: Ecology


Wikipedia:

Dune - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i would paste in the results, but it would be too big.

Halx

I find it amusing how "conservatism" has taken on a personality of its own. If you were to ask me 10 years ago, I would have said that a conservative was someone who was tight with their money. Now it somehow means that the person is highly religious and goes out of their way to interfere with how other people live and think.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Tully Mars

IMO, the fiscal conservative you speak of realized sometime ago that by embracing the religious right they could obtain a majority. It's basically become an odd marriage of convenience.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Jozrael

As a note, Wikipedia correctly includes a reference to Frank Herbert. See Dune (disambiguation) at the top of the page.

Frosstbyte

I have spent WAY too much time reading this website today. It's like the reading equivalent of watching a train wreck. The questions they pose tantalize my feverish little brain.

Just remember: "The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and intelligent design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall."

mcgeedo

When I look at Conservapedia, I disagree with much of what is written. I also disagree with almost everything Michael Moore and Al Gore have ever said. I am a Conservative/Libertarian, but I'm also tolerant of the right of others to free speech. I'm fascinated that someone (anyone) who claims intelligence would suggest castration or the other forms of punishment/control etc. that have been thrown around regarding Conservapedia. I think I've learned something about a number of the regulars here today.

Jozrael

He clarified his position here. He says the defamation part is illegal, and he clarifies his position on the castration/other insults. There's far worse on Conservapedia.

I find this quite intellectually sound, and don't think there's anything wrong with what they've said.

Neither do I think you wrong in reshaping your opinion on members from this topic.

Leto

right you are! Thanks for that tidbit...

jorgelito

It's these same conservatives that support Israel when many liberals do not. Conservatism, like liberalism, are words that are loosely thrown about without much meaning anymore. Most of my conservative friends are not religious fundamentalists nor are they fanatical or embracing of ignorance. In fact, most of them are Jewish and Israeli, Asian and regular white. A few of them are gay as well (Pink Republicans). It is intellectually dishonest to paint us conservatives with the same brush and in such a derogatory manner. One might even say it is defaming.

Israeli politics are way messier than US politics I think. As much as I love Israel, I'm not sure I would like to live there. The laws are too confusing and convoluted. You think there aren't extremists in Israel?
-----Added 26/9/2008 at 06 : 14 : 33-----
Funny, that sounds like a liberal.
-----Added 26/9/2008 at 06 : 15 : 11-----
QFT. Agreed, nice post, welcome to the TFP.

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

roachboy

there's a difference between how one talks about conservatives and idiocy like this "encylopedia"--which the more i look at, the more i am convinced has to be a joke. if you are concerned about stereotypes, jorgelito, i would expect that you'd be kinda impatient with stuff like this that plays to them, that reinforces them. the "encyclopedia" claims to speak to and for conservatives---and as if the entries were not adequate proof of the structural idiocy of this project, the entry about wikipedia should do it:

Wikipedia - Conservapedia

personally, i don't care if there are idiots. i don't care if there are politics addressing idiots orchestrated by idiots.


i have a big problem with the way populist conservatism operates in the states, and this nitwit anti-wikipedia is a good expression of why.

i care because shit like this, if it is taken seriously, makes political debate impossible, and by making debate impossible it makes democracy impossible. there has to be some agreed-upon standards of what constitutes information--it is simply not the case that because there is inevitably distortion introduced into any analysis by virtue of analysis being done by a human being with personal and intellectual committments that there is therefore nothing *but* distortions so that it is ok to set about generating infotainment based on nothing *but* distortion, which you then defend as your "opinion" or your "belief"---there is a world and information refers to that world, and as problematic as this sometimes is, that world is not entirely in your head, and it should not matter whether you believe in jesus or think markets are natural formations like rocks and so are therefore rational--there *still* should be--has to be---basic agreement about what constitutes SOMETHING about information so that there can be debate/exchange at all.

the populist segment of the american conservative coalition that is not about that.

it claims to speak for all conservatives--and the way the conservative media apparatus operates, you'd think that this nonsense DOES speak for all conservatives. it is about creating a self-enclosed and self-referential world, a kind of fantasy-substitute for the world that other people know about. that has never seemed to me to square with anything about traditional conservatism--which was, back in the day, ABOUT the concrete world and which opposed "liberalism" and other such movements for being about abstraction---this has much more in common with types of populist reactionary movements, with fascist antecedents. it is a dangerous phenomenon.

traditional conservative writers--you know, edmund burke, in some places tocqueville--maistre (who i like because of his wackiness and because through that a very keen intelligence works)--i find interesting and instructive sometimes---in my 3-d life, i have no problem with most economic conservatives that i know--i don't agree with them--but at least we can talk about that, and other things, and know that we're talking about the same thing--the world outside our heads--even as we disagree.


i think that the republicans--as an aspect of the american right--made a huge mistake when they crawled into bed with the christian coalition, when they started opening themselves up to more whacked out forms of far right politics, when they started shifting their understanding of the center consistently rightward in order to rationalize doing so. the populist right owes more to poujadisme than to burke. it is a dangerous formation.


this "encyclopedia" is a fucking joke.
it has to be.
it's scary to think it isn't.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Halx

I don't get where you're coming from here. "Socially Liberal" nowadays typically means live and let live. You'll find many non-religious people in this socially liberal community.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

mcgeedo

roachboy, allow me to surprise you and agree with you.

"i think that the republicans--as an aspect of the american right--made a huge mistake when they crawled into bed with the christian coalition, when they started opening themselves up to more whacked out forms of far right politics"

I think the Democrats made the same mistake with Michael Moore, Al Gore and Al Franken.

I think only the lunatic fringe take Conservapedia and MoveOn seriously. And I think they are a small fraction of the American public. God, I hope so!

Baraka_Guru

roachboy, good comments on the traditional conservative. I'm on the same page as you regarding that. I tend to think of them when I see things like this project. I wonder if contemporary conservative thought is in any way internally balanced. I tend to see more of the line of thought in this wiki than I do the traditional mindset. Or, at least, it has a much higher public profile. I guess traditional conservatives, by nature, are good at not being seen.

It's been said, but I'll say it again: This wiki is a joke. It's like an attempt to return to the worst ideas and "knowledge" of the 19th century and prior. It mirrors the eurocentric pre-Enlightenment mindset, but somehow modernizes it.

I must stop looking through it.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Jozrael

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

This is the first sentence under the origins of Wikipedia. Is this information? Yes. Is it biased? Yes. Would the converse be allowed to be phrased like this in Wikipedia? No.

thespian86

I've always kind of wanted to scream something racist just for funzies. Or scream about abortion or some shit.

You know, try everything once

(I'm kidding)

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.

jorgelito

I disagree. Socially liberal means telling everyone what to do and how to live their lives.

As a very religious conservative person who is a member of this TFPO community, I have no interest in telling others how to live their lives or what to do and do not appreciate the constant bashing and stereotyping.
-----Added 27/9/2008 at 06 : 44 : 08-----
Wow, Baraka, is this really how and what you think of us conservatives? I am shocked and quite frankly hurt, I thought we were friends. No wonder you are ignoring my posts.

That is totally fucked up.

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter