Today on TITCFTIHEH: Conservapedia

Since I started this blog, I have been thinking whether I should delve into the issues of crazy Republicans, or the epitomy of craziness that is Religion. I know my feelings on both the topics are maddening enough that I would end up spending way too much time writing the article, and it wouldn't come out very well. But alas, I have found a way to address to batshit insane Republicans without ranting too much, and it comes in the form of an internet page called "Conservapedia". Basically, it has a Wikipedia layout and feeling, but the articles are "without liberal bias", and are written from the perspective of Conservatism and Christian religion. Conservatives and Religion in the same place? Holy shit, are we going to create some fucking universes with the craziness?

This is what I get when I googled Big Bang. I guess crazy ideas smashing together could create this.

Bit of background: In 2006, a lawyer and social studies teacher named Andrew Schlafly thought that Wikipedia contained way too many lies and was too liberal for his liking. He has been quoted saying that Wikipedia was "liberal, anti-Christian and anti-American". This patriotic soul couldn't stand for this, and decided to do something about it. He made Conservapedia. On the surface it seems like an alright idea... until you actually read Wikipedia articles. They just aren't liberal. I think Andrew is confusing the definition of liberal. I also think a few other people gets confused with this as well. I think he thinks it means something that is more left than him, which it isn't. (FYI, left is liberal, right is conservative. In America the Republicans are classed as in the right, and Democrats to the left. In Australia our Liberal party is slightly to the right, and Labor is slightly to the left).

Andrew Schlafly makes stupid websites and doesn't afraid of anything.

Conservapedia caught my attention because, in my opinion, it is an extremely good analogy for American Conservatives on the whole. Here we have a group of people that denies everyone elses reality because they don't believe it's true. Do you think God created the Earth 6000 years ago? Fuck evolution, Hitler believed in it. Do you want more people to notice you? Complain that everything else in the media has liberal bias. Don't agree with someone? Subtly add lies into every fucking thing you say to discredit them, preferably comparing them to Hitler along the way.

Conservapedia: We love young boys "reading" our material.

Fox News is (un?)surprisingly similar to Conservapedia. Fox news has their "Fair and Balanced" slogan, which couldn't be further than the truth. They say every other media outlet is too liberal, and they are the middle ground. When you have fuck tards like Glenn Beck calling Obama a racist, you can't claim to be Fair and Balanced. Similarly, Conservpedia's slogan is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". This may well be true if the articles weren't mostly bullshit (and not badly written), but they are both.

 I didn't write that lies bit, but it's true.

Whilst you read my examples of the cluster fuck that is Conservapedia, keep in mind that Schlafly prides himself on saying that Conservapedia is full of facts, has no gossip, and is concise. I had a look for a few articles that I thought would highlight the sheer arsefuck retardedness of the site, here is what I came up with.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Examples_of_Moronic_Vandalism_by_the_%22tolerant%22

I find this page hilarious because Conservapedia seems to be going for the whole holier than thou thing, and they crap out a page like this. They make it seem like internet trolls are a brand new invention, and they only target Conservapedia. It's almost as if they are taking these few comments from these trolls and using it as proof why liberals are evil. You don't have to be a liberal to see how retarded this whole site is.

Talking about evil liberals, it is interesting to see how they discredit anything and anyone they don't like. Don't agree with something/someone? Add sections on their ties to bad things on their page. For example, these articles.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Liberals are uncharitable, and Hitler believed in evolution. Well played Conservapedia. There are other examples of this around the site, just search for anything to do with liberalness and you will find a bunch of conservatists rants trying to discredit them. Another good example of this is Richard Dawkins' (famous atheist) page. Full of stories about how much he hates puppies.

Another tactic used is not putting everything there. For example, look at the pages on Rush Limbaugh on Wikipedia and Conservapedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_limbaugh
http://www.conservapedia.com/Rush_Limbaugh

Notice anything? I do. The Wikipedia has a decent section controversies (fair enough, this guy has said some crazy shit), and Conservapedia doesn't. Simply put, they don't want to make their God, Rush Limbaugh, look bad, so they just omit the shit out of the facts. Called Obama a "magic negro", fuck off, that doesn't need mentioning. Other pages where I found this were abstinence, Sarah Palin's famous "death panels", and a bit on birthers.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Abstinence

They make out abstinence out to be some miracle tactic to stop AIDS, and pregnancy. I don't doubt it stops pregnancy when the teenagers actually practice abstinence. But they just don't. Studies have shown that more teenagers actually get pregnant when they are taught religious and conservative values (abstinence). Does the Conservapedia page say this? Of course not.

 Oh abstinence, you so funny.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obamacare

A paragraph from the article: "Some critics, including former Vice-Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, have accused Obama of planning on setting up 'Death Panels' to judge the worthiness and 'cost effectiveness' of keeping certain people alive, such as senior citizens."

Yes, serial bullshit artist Sarah Palin claims that Obama's new healthcare plan will introduce "death panels", which are panels of people that will tell old people when they will be dying because we don't want them, and disabled children whether they are allowed to live. But this is simply not fucking true. Blatant lie. Does Conservapedia address this? Of course not. Funny thing is, when Palin was governor of Alaska, she pushed the same thing she is calling "death panels" (end of life counselling). Got a raging case of Ballzheimers here.

Does Conservapedia address the fact that Sarah Palin doesn't have any real opinions or values, and that she is just a talking point machine? No. The way the Conservative talking points dribble out of her semi-pretty mouth is actually quite astounding when you take out the meaningless (and usually incomprehensible) bits and condense the points she actually attempts to make. Her followers are the same things. Empty shells. See here. It would be a funny joke if she didn't have any followers; the sort of thing you mention when you're chilling at the water cooler, but she does, and that just makes it scary. Anyway... bit off topic.

"I can't just make shit up? Oh well."

What about birthers (people that believe Obama wasn't born in America)? Naturally it mentions them, but doesn't actually address the facts or evidence. It says that Obama was "allegedly" born in Hawaii. Yeah, because a birth certificate, pictures of the birth, and anntry congratulating his mother on the birth in an Hawaiin newspaper isn't enough evidence to prove those crazy motherfuckers are wrong. Yet another example of the reality Conservatives create themselves when they don't agree with you. For some people who aren't in power, this doesn't matter. But when these cunt bags have actual power, people should be worried.

And what about the article on racism, something close to the hearts of Conservatives (in the way that they keep the desire to kill all non-whites close to their hearts)?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Racism


Bam. These guys have balls. Don't address any claims of Conservatives being racist, attack your opponents for being racist. They even go so far as to say Obama is a racist. If you're going to make shit up, might as well do it with the largest, steeliest balls you can muster.

 Giant. Honking. Balls.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ballzheimers

Ballzheimers. The ability to attack someone for something that you have done. Good example is when Dick Cheney attacks Obama for doing the things that Bush and Cheney did. Conservapedia has a mad case of ballzheimers to claim Wikipedia is biased and is full of crap, when they have some of the largest nuggets of rotting, rancid crap I have ever read. I can't help but laugh at how delusional some of these people must be.

I almost feel sorry for them (Conservatives). But then I remember what people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin say and I just want them to stop fucking breeding.

 Facepalm; always applicable.