Monday, June 16, 2008

Train of Thought Field Trip: The Wonders of Conservapedia

These are truly dark days for the modern American conservative. Just two years ago the Republicans lost both the House and the Senate, and their chances in the upcoming Presidential election look grim. Their voice in the media has been largely silenced, as long as you ignore talk radio and Sunday morning politics shows and a lot of cable news programs and major newspapers. George Bush can’t even get away with ignoring habeas corpus anymore, thanks to activist judges with an insistence on protecting civil rights! It’s enough to shake even the strongest persecution complex. Now, however, their enemies have opened yet another front: the internet.

Lately it has been argued that Wikipedia, for example, has become biased. At first it might be tempting to say that people making these claims should just go to Wikipedia itself and edit the articles- after all, anyone can do it. The only problem is that you’ll need to cite your edits, which as it turns out is rather difficult for some people. Want to delete everything in the Obama article and replace it with a poorly written all-caps rant about how he’s a secret Muslim terrorist radical anti-white sleeper cell Black Panther jihadist? Fine, but you’re going to have to cite a source somewhat more reliable than an NRC press release.

Luckily the brave men and women of have risen up to defend their right to write insane things on the internet. First, they started by pointing out examples of the liberal bias wikidemonstrated on wikiwikipedia:

Wikipedia gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the homosexual agenda.

Wikipedia has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is listed under the category "American propaganda films."

Wikipedia has an extensive entry on "Creation myth"… and although the theory of evolution satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".

Wikipedia described the People for the American Way, which is a liberal advocacy group, as a "progressive advocacy organization"

Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.
Tolerance?! History?! Classifying an unabashedly anti-science propaganda film as… propaganda?! The word progressive?! Articles about punk rock bands?! Not on my internet! The entire list is 121 items long and located here, and is well worth a read if you have 8 hours to spare and deeply masochistic personality. Long rambling lists of Wikipedia wikifaults isn’t the only thing Conservapedia is good for, though. Get a load of truth as presented for the first time without the liberal filters, distortion fields, and facts that you’re used to.

First, and perhaps most baffling, consider the article on the kangaroo. The media has stifled the red-hot topic of kangaroos for some time now, allowing liberal lies to obfuscate the true nature of the animal. You see-
Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos… According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood.
Here I was, worried that kangaroos support gun control or perform abortions or something! It’s safe to say that when one is curious about the specifics of evolution, the best source to go to is young earth creationists. Along those lines, questions about eating meat should be forwarded to JJ, questions about sports to me, and keep in mind that John McCain is great for computer problem troubleshooting.

Ever found a statement by Ann Coulter offensive? Anything will do, from hoping for a terrorist attack on the US to calling John Edwards a faggot to saying that liberals are driven by Satan.
Her comments are frequently controversial and her critics often feign being offended.

Ah, turns out you weren’t really offended, you were just faking! A few short clicks from the Ann Coulter page is the Hollywood values article, which waxes poetic about the inexplicable hatred Hollywood has for the rest of the country, and includes this gem:
Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the internet.

I’m honestly not even sure where to start with that one, so instead of writing about it I’m off to watch some videos of “Hollywood types” engaging in “a favorite form of offensive behavior.” Try not to waste too many hours browsing this fantastic addition to the internet.

1 comment:

  1. Fucking hilarious post. Although the real star here is conservapedia, becase there are hours and hours of entertainment at your fingertips. I clicked on the link and it only took my a couple seconds to be brought a featured article on "liberals" and yes, it's everything you'd hoped it would be. The article is funny itself, but this image absolutely killed me.

    The whole idea behind the site reminds me of Colbert's joke about ignoring what he sees and hears because we all know about reality's inherently liberal bias.