Turns out Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia that is, according to wikipedia, is "written from an Americentric, socially conservative, and Conservative Christian point of view." Here's my question: WHY THE FUCK DOES AN ENCYCLOPEDIA NEED A POINT OF VIEW??
I have a theory on how this came to be. Someone was reading the encyclopedia and said, "These facts don't agree with my motherfucking opinions so they must be wrong." Then they created their own encyclopedia so that they, and everyone like them who doesn't ever want to come across (I'm going to call them "opinion fascists") any collection of words that ever disagrees with their point of view. So the opinion fascists created a fucking bubble, and that bubble is Conservapedia.
Upon investigation, I found out that Conservapedia puts Fox News to shame. What could be so different about a conservative encyclopedia, you may ask, especially if it's The Trustworth Encyclopedia? Here's what's fucking different- look at the article on evolution. Do you know what the first picture is in this article? Darwin? Nope that's not it. A monkey? Nope, wrong again. It's Hitler. Adolf fucking Hitler. It's an "encyclopedic" article about evofuckinglution and they have a picture of Adolf Fucking Hitler. And it gives a quote of him using evolution to explain why he thinks races shouldn't intermingle. After the 8-line long Hitler quote it says, "Charles Darwin was also a racist."
Another one that really pissed me off is in the Obama article; it says, "If elected, Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President." You know what? They're right- the executive branch hadn't hit their fucking 'black quota,' so he's just going to get handed the job. That's the most fucking absurd thing I've heard in my life.
Some other interesting claims:
1) The article about overcoming homosexuality is longer than the article for Andrew Jackson (he was a President, by the way), Thomas Jefferson, Lyndon Johnson, and the fucking Watergate scandal, and I've met 2nd graders that could write a better article on Kennedy.
2) They suggest Bill Clinton may haveused cruise missiles to manipulate polls
3) Environmentalists want to "protect" the environment (that's really in quotes on the actual page) instead of as they put it, "letting humans take dominion over it."
The article on atheism is interesting- because of how many problems they relate to atheism. For example, apparently atheism is linked to mass murder. There's just too damn many other things they cite as being due to atheism to list here.
In the Conservepedia article on John Kerry, it is claimed that Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and several other groups, and I quote, "were started to counter the charges of 'war crimes' Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans..." To act like SBVT was started for any reason other than to call falsely call Kerry's military record into question is a fucking joke. They even claim "The Swift Boat veterans had an extra reason to be enraged: John Kerry had been one of theirs and was using his service for political ends." Yeah, and SBVT didn't fucking use their serice for political ends? Fuck that. I know of few fucking attacks in politics that have been so full of holes, and have been documented as being as full of holes. They shat on their service to their country in order to get George fucking Bush elected.
Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia, the 10th reference cited is entitled "Conservepedia: as accurate as a catatonic drunkard's line of urine." Haha, I could not have put it better myself.
I've got to stop now, my stomach lining is having trouble handling the ulcer developing from doing the research for this post.
Posts
1 comment:
OMG conservapedia. kill me now.
Post a Comment