Total Drek

Or, the thoughts of several frustrated intellectuals on Sociology, Gaming, Science, Politics, Science Fiction, Religion, and whatever the hell else strikes their fancy. There is absolutely no reason why you should read this blog. None. Seriously. Go hit your back button. It's up in the upper left-hand corner of your browser... it says "Back." Don't say we didn't warn you.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Your regularly scheduled conservapedia report.

I know that many of you rely on Total Drek for news about that miraculous intellectual cesspool Conservapedia. Granted, this is a little like saying that you rely on me to depress you on a regular basis but, hey, if my blog provides a service for the melancholy who am I to complain? In any case, I haven't had a great deal to say about Conservapedia lately. This isn't because they have gotten any less insane- if anything the madness has been accelerating- but rather because there is an increasing tendency over there to dispense with facts and just link to conservative blogs. What we're seeing, then, is a sort of implosion where gradually Conservapedia will grow into an increasingly dense ball of illogic until ultimately it vanishes beyond its own event horizon.

Yeah, as if we could get that lucky.

As this process plays itself out, however, I've really been struck by a growing tendency towards uncontrolled paranoia. To understand what I mean, let's examine first the articles Conservapedia has on a subject that should be near and dear to its heart- conservatives:

Not too crazy, really. I mean, there's that "Republican in name only" thing but, really, not too bad. Okay, so now contrast this with another category that's been growing of late- atheism:

This is starting to look a little creepier. First off, there are a lot more articles on atheists than on conservatives which, believe it or not, does not mean that Conservapedia likes us better. Some of the articles are reasonable, if inadequate, while others are little more than hatchet jobs. Still, the really interesting articles are the bizarre ones, such as Atheistic Style:

There is a style common to many atheists, including:

1. a refusal to recognize how democracy relied on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has lasting democracy
2. a refusal to credit the role played by faith in great contributions of many people, such as Isaac Newton
3. a general disbelief of unseen and unquantifiable concepts, such as love, intrinsic beauty and fidelity
4. a belief that atheists are somehow smarter than those having faith, downplaying contributions by Christians
5. a belief that humans are smarter today than 100 and 1000 years ago
6. a view that most of science is known and understood, in contrast to Isaac Newton's view that little is understood
7. a focus on materialism, and a devotion to relativism in many forms
8. a generally pessimistic or depressed view of life
9. among scientists, a belief in never-detected gravitons, black holes, dark matter, super strings and life in outer space
10. belief in the Nobel Prize, universities and newspapers as oracles of truth
11. overreliance on hearsay and a perception (often wrong) of what most people think
12. an insistence on censoring prayer from the classroom

Poorly written and largely incorrect but, hey, it's nothing compared to Atheistic Logic:

Here is a growing list of logical contradictions in atheism:

atheists say they do not believe that any God or equivalent deity exists, but then are often hostile to Christians, as in censoring classroom prayer even when everyone wants to participate.

Atheists often feel that they are well qualified to comment on school curricula, in effect advising others how to raise their children, while refusing to admit that others are more qualified to tell atheists how to raise their own children with regards to religion.

I particularly enjoy the second of those two. Now, Conservapedia clearly doesn't trust atheists, but their feelings for us pale in comparison to how they regard liberals:

This is, as they say, the motherlode. We have articles on Liberal Fascism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal Gloss,* Liberal Tricks, Liberal Tools, and, my personal favorite, Liberals and Friendship:

Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.

A liberal friendship can occur wherever liberals apply peer pressure to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.

Really, I think the only possible conclusion is that the folks on Conservapedia are utterly terrified of liberals and, really, would probably wet themselves if they met Barack Obama on the street. But, all the same, we have freedom of speech and, thus, it is their right to say whatever they want to about Liberals.

However, in celebration of Conservapedia and their free expression, allow me to propose a new article for inclusion- Conservative Tools:

This is an example of a Conservative Tool:

I think it has a ring to it.

* Not to be confused with lip gloss. Totally different kind of gloss.

Labels: , , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

You'd think looking like/being that conservative tool would more contribute to a "generally pessimistic/depressed lifestyle" than mere atheism!

I've told my brighter AP students about Conservapedia, and they have lots of fun with it. Whenever something is "stupid" in class, the kids all gleefully chorus, "Must have found it on conservapedia!"

Saturday, March 15, 2008 5:55:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter