Conservapedia

Hey guys, I was just wondering what you think of this little site: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Personally I think it's a bunch of bullshit.

Comments

  • BigBlindMaxBigBlindMax Banned
    edited September 2015

    Right-wing rhetoric presented as fact. The salty, W.A.S.P. butthurt is strong with this one.

  • edited September 2015

    Lol, click on their first page and it's already BS. They list atheists as people who deny the existance of the Christian god, when Atheists deny all gods. Also their article on 'God' is just the christian one, which ignores the vast majority of religious people on the planet. What a joke. And what they write about him is hilarious.

    'God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist, whether in the physical universe or in the spiritual realm (Heaven). Not only is God the creator and ruler of the things and beings within those two realms, but he is also the creator of the realms themselves. God created the physical universe, and before he acted in this creation, the universe did not exist. Likewise God did with the spiritual realm.'

    Like..citation please? :P

    Also their name is 'the trustworthy encyclopedia' ahahahahaha

    "A modern feminist seeks to participate in predominantly male activities, possibly including sexual intercourse with women." Oh my lord

    By far the worst article:

    What the hell is this

    'Mystery: Why do not Conservatives exist? Conservative principles are based on reason, so why do non conservatives still exist?' YEAH THATS A REAL FUCKING MYSTERY ISN'T IT haha

    Their list of percentages of non conservatives:

    • 20%: did not hear about conservative principles until after they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider

    • 10%: genuinely lack of desire to find the truth, and instead desire attention, praise by liberal teachers, getting along by going along, and not standing up to liberal bullies

    • 10%: refuse to forgive themselves and let go of their past mistakes and image

    • 10%: believe myths created around government programs like the "New Deal" that liberal policies create jobs instead of destroying them and depriving people of liberty through government control.

    • 10%: fooled by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background

    • 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior

    • 10%: feel that they deserve to make more money than they do, as in public school teachers and university professors, and refuse to rise above self-interest

    • 10%: harbor a grudge against a conservative, typically a parent but sometimes an ex-spouse, and refuse to forgive or rise above the animosity

    • 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

    • 5%: are susceptible to marketing and suggestion to an overlarge degree.

    The funniest thing is that all of them are estimates. So basically, they made it all up.

  • Oh God, this hurts my brain...

    Though it's less of a conservative wikipedia than a Christian fundamentalist wikipedia.

  • Eh, the two are often fundamentally intertwined in america.

    Sarangholic posted: »

    Oh God, this hurts my brain... Though it's less of a conservative wikipedia than a Christian fundamentalist wikipedia.

  • Eh, the two are often fundamentally intertwined in america.

    I see what you did there.

    Flog61 posted: »

    Eh, the two are often fundamentally intertwined in america.

  • Are you sure this isn't satirical? It's cancerous.

  • No, unfortunately this site is legitimate.

    AWESOMEO posted: »

    Are you sure this isn't satirical? It's cancerous.

  • You greatly overestimate the self-awareness of the American right.

    AWESOMEO posted: »

    Are you sure this isn't satirical? It's cancerous.

Sign in to comment in this discussion.