Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Compensate Much?
Via Reddit, the 50 most popular pages on "Conservapedia," the reference wiki for right-wingers.
Elemenope|5.2.08 @ 8:36AM|#
Besides the amazing fruit obsession, I find it amusing that both Adolf Hitler and Aesthetics (?!) beat out George W. Bush.
jmr|5.2.08 @ 8:40AM|#
"Unicorn" beat Bush, too. But the main thing you see is the
quantity of time and brainpower they spend on homosexuality. If
it's not obsession, it's something...
JMR
Episiarch|5.2.08 @ 8:45AM|#
Compensate Much?
Wouldn't it be more like "Closeted Much?"
Makes me think of Derrick Blank from Strangers With Candy:
"Let's go watch some gay porn to get our hate back."
Fluffy|5.2.08 @ 8:57AM|#
With a little effort, we could move Flying Spaghetti Monster
into the top 20.
Maybe we could try to do a few edits to that entry, too.
Oh, and I used to wonder what kind of dumbasses were interested in
Victoria Beckham. I guess now I know.
Other Matt|5.2.08 @ 9:05AM|#
Fluffy, on that topic:
Richard Dawkins uses the flying spaghetti monster in his book
The God Delusion attacking belief in God. Some people use a
purported belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism
as a thinly-veiled attempt to mock Christianity by reducing it to
the level of an invented religion like Pastafarianism.
Seriously, ya think?
|5.2.08 @ 9:19AM|#
I was perusing the examples
of bias on Wikipedia, and I thought, why do conservatives do
this? Why do they insist on creating these ludicrous alternatives
to popular institutions, slapping "conservative" in the title
somewhere, and then proceed to generate content that shows them to
be every bit the myopic, reactive, conspiracy-theorists that the
liberals lampoon them to be?
Do they think this kind of thing will somehow attract people to
their movement?
|5.2.08 @ 9:22AM|#
Reinmoose,
See: 2 Homosexuality, 3 Teen Homosexuality, 6 Homosexual Agenda
(331,549 views), 9 Homosexuality and choice (311,912 views) and,
of course, 13 Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for
Homosexuality
|5.2.08 @ 9:23AM|#
Llandudno @ #62? What the hell is that about? Or is Llandudno some kind of Welsh Provincetown?
|5.2.08 @ 9:26AM|#
In the examples of liberal bias, it has "Mathematicians on
Wikipedia distort and exaggerate Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last
Theorem by (i) concealing how it relied on the controversial Axiom
of Choice and by (ii) omitting the widespread initial criticism of
it."
W.T.F.?
|5.2.08 @ 9:26AM|#
Hugh Akston -
You mean like how the Fox News production Red Eye was supposed to
take on the Daily Show and Colbert Report, but all it did was prove
that conservative media can't make anything funny... intentionally,
anyway?
ktc2|5.2.08 @ 9:29AM|#
So those who rail the most against homosexuals are actually self hating closeted homosexuals. This isn't news. Although it does remind me of that comedian's bit about Falwell wanting to ban breakfast sausages.
|5.2.08 @ 9:30AM|#
Could there be a better illustration of the need to have reality conform to world view inherent in the conservative mind?
|5.2.08 @ 9:33AM|#
I've always believed that Conservapedia is a great practical joke, because to believe anything else is to admit that I share the same air with these mouth-breathers.
J|5.2.08 @ 9:37AM|#
I frequent the site often for the unintentional humor.
Rationalwiki has a bunch of good stuff tweaking them.
When it comes down to it, the site is really just the
ego-manifestation of the creator. Most of the examples of liberal
bias come from arguments with other conservatives (often with
similar views to the creator) who disagree with him on some
issue.
It's so good it just has to be fattening.
|5.2.08 @ 9:38AM|#
Wikipedia has a strong bias against the Discovery Institute, a prominent proponent of Intelligent design. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism[31] and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism[32]) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
*facepalm*
J|5.2.08 @ 9:40AM|#
If I remember correctly, the creator is legal counsel for the AAPS (which produces the most BS medical journal I've ever seen). The only thing that has really hurt my support for Ron Paul is his (hopefully just political) membership in that association, because they are such a joke.
Elemenope|5.2.08 @ 9:44AM|#
Mo --
The ideological war for the soul of Mathematics is literally
thousands of years old. The Axiom of Choice is just one
more example of liberal denial of the nature of the universe (as
provided by God through convenient-if-invisible Platonic
Forms.)
;)
GuyWhoReads|5.2.08 @ 9:45AM|#
why do conservatives do this? Why do they insist on creating these ludicrous alternatives to popular institutions, slapping "conservative" in the title somewhere, and then proceed to generate content that shows them to be every bit the myopic, reactive, conspiracy-theorists that the liberals lampoon them to be
I understand that the TownHall people are working on a new
project called "ConservaReason" to repond to Hit & Run's
libertarian lies.
First up will be a detailed article on the Lincoln -
Douglas debates.
|5.2.08 @ 9:58AM|#
It's a well known fact that reality has a liberal
bias.
Which would seem to mean that liberals would need to do very little
top-down state-driven meddling. Doesn't seem to work that way,
though.
|5.2.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Colbert, I take it you are liberal. A conservative would say the same (exact opposite) thing, and could back it up just as "well". See conservative Fox News ratings in relation to liberal CNN. (I know, "most people are stupid")
Ali|5.2.08 @ 9:59AM|#
If they are fighting islamofascism, you'd think it rank high up there. I mean, you've got to "inform" yourself about that which you are fighting, no?
|5.2.08 @ 10:02AM|#
I clicked through to the unicorn article and learned this: "The
existence of unicorns is controversial."
Uh huh. Tell it to those rat bastards at Wikipedia who define a
unicorn as a "mythical creature."
I also note that Wikipedia's modest tagline is "The Free
Encyclopedia", whereas Conservapedia runs with "The Trustworthy
Encyclopedia." The mind reels.
|5.2.08 @ 10:02AM|#
Homosexuality
Homosexuality
Homosexuality
Homosexuality
David Beckham.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Rimfax|5.2.08 @ 10:11AM|#
"16. Unicorn" must be because of "Unicorn Planet", which keeps with the theme of homosexuality and David Beckham.
Colbert|5.2.08 @ 10:19AM|#
"Colbert, I take it you are liberal. A conservative would say
the same (exact opposite) thing, and could back it up just as
"well". See conservative Fox News ratings in relation to liberal
CNN. (I know, "most people are stupid")"
It was just a joke - a quote from Stephen Colbert's White House
correspondents dinner.
|5.2.08 @ 10:20AM|#
20. Cactus (221,284 views)
Why in God's name do 221,284 people feel that the conservative view
on cactus is important?
stephen the goldberger|5.2.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Alright this is really funny, HOWEVER, in their defense:
The only reason I would ever use a "conservative" encyclopedia if I
had a conservative mind is to look up hot-button issues where a
normal "liberally biased" encyclopedia could not do the trick.
Homosexuality is a topic of interest where I would not trust say
wikipedia to feed me the information I "wanted", but for other
topics a standard news source could do the trick.
Not to say there isn't a clear obsession with homosexuality at work
here, but perhaps the numbers are not as interesting as they
appear.
dhex|5.2.08 @ 10:35AM|#
apparently it's always raining men over at conservapedia.
mo - because they're all closet acid-heads who want to obliquely
research how to extract mescaline from san pedro cacti.
|5.2.08 @ 10:36AM|#
'I clicked through to the unicorn article and learned this: "The
existence of unicorns is controversial."'
Well, yeah. You see the reason why a paragraph before.
"The word "unicorn" is included in the text of the King James
translation of The Bible nine times[2]"
See also: Leviathan, Behemoth.
|5.2.08 @ 10:40AM|#
Which would seem to mean that liberals would need to do very little
top-down state-driven meddling. Doesn't seem to work that way,
though.
Which is why they're progressives, and not liberals. They
hijacked the term to sell the New Deal, leaving us liberals
scratching our heads.
ktc2|5.2.08 @ 10:46AM|#
It's really sad that they have to reject actual, factual science
to support their emotional investment in a myth.
That's a serious mental illness.
|5.2.08 @ 10:47AM|#
I contribute to Wikipedia and I will say that Wikipedia does
have a liberal-left bias. This is ironic, considering that the
founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales is a libertarian.
The liberal bias on Wikipedia most often shows up in pages that
present the liberal-left view of things as the obvious truth, while
ignoring or disparaging any contrary viewpoint.
Certain sections of Wikipedia are also under de facto "group
ownership", like any page related to climate change which is under
a headlock by a group of AGW proponents. They control the topic and
any edit that does not toe the party line gets reverted.
So I can understand the need for a Conservapedia, although I feel
that a better solution is to join Wikipedia and lend their
perspective and weight of numbers to making it more balanced. For
instance, after a rocky start, pro-gun people who tend to read a
lot about the subject, know their stuff and are passionate about
it, have brought back the gun-related pages to a decent
balance.
lunchstealer|5.2.08 @ 10:49AM|#
I'm a little sad that their Unicorns page doesn't mention the FSM's intellectual forebear, the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Elemenope|5.2.08 @ 10:50AM|#
I would not trust say wikipedia to feed me the information I
"wanted"
If you merely want to be fed "information" you "want", just take
lots of drugs and close your eyes. Why bother reading at all?
Other Matt|5.2.08 @ 10:58AM|#
For instance, after a rocky start, pro-gun people who tend
to read a lot about the subject, know their stuff and are
passionate about it, have brought back the gun-related pages to a
decent balance.
I'll have to check. Last time I read it, it was whacked out so far
in one direction it was laughable.
Other Matt|5.2.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Kevin: Checked, still pretty far afield. Presents discredited
Brady/Handgun Control crappy propeganda as fact, but notes that
these "facts" are sometimes disputed by outlandish lunatics that
own guns.
Ok, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but it's not doing as well as you
present I don't believe.
Chuck|5.2.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Mo,
The article on FLT says, "In a series of lectures in 1993,
mathematician Andrew Wiles announced a proof using techniques in
algebraic geometry, relying on the disfavored Axiom of Choice.[5]"
Now the Axiom of Choice is disfavored, which is news to
me. Most of mathematics, especially analysis, relies on the axiom
of choice, so I think calling it disfavored is, uh, not a
mainstream point of view.
I guess this is an example of liberal bias because using the axiom
of choice makes you "pro-choice" or something. Either the author is
a really, really, hard-core intuitionist, or has absolutely no idea
what AC is all about. It's telling that the author refers to ET
Bell as writing "the standard biography of all the great
mathematicians," something historians of math would get a chuckle
out of.
|5.2.08 @ 11:22AM|#
"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in
Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former
communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a
senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure,
and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully
comprehend - but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the
Bush presidency.
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the
reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe
that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible
reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment
principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the
world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now,
and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're
studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again,
creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's
how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all
of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
Conservapedia isn't an effort to describe the world as it
objecitvely exists, but to use description to remake the world as
conservatives would like it to be.
We've seen how the modern conservative mind works lo these last
eight years. They believe they can make the world become what they
want through the sheer force of disseminating their vision of what
it should be.
Having lived through the period from September 2001 through the
spring of 2005, I can understand how they could come to believe
things really work that way.
J|5.2.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Oh!
I like the focuses on mathematics, but I like this too:
The theories of relativity (general and special) are disparaged.
The logic and underlying reason seems to be something to with
sharing the name with moral relativism.
Not kidding. At all.
non-sucker (the other kind)|5.2.08 @ 11:45AM|#
The "popular pages" results at Conservapedia have long been
skewed toward teh buttsex by a bot designed specifically to yield
posts like Gillespie's and comments like yours.
Way to get trolled.
|5.2.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Is this just a theory or is there somewhere I can I get information on this bot that is skewing the stats? All that aside, the entries are laughable by themselves.
Orange Line Special|5.2.08 @ 12:02PM|#
dbcooper writes: Isn't this (a) old news, and (b) the result
of some automated link clicking?
Shhh. Radley doesn't know that. Nor does he have the chops to look
through this
popular page and offer a counterargument. They don't do things
like that around here, this is just like a playground for
"libertarians".
|5.2.08 @ 12:16PM|#
Unicorn" beat Bush, too.
So is unicorn some sort of euphemism for RINO...maybe with the
covet that a Unicorn is a big tent republican?
Redeye defender|5.2.08 @ 12:21PM|#
You mean like how the Fox News production Red Eye was
supposed to take on the Daily Show and Colbert Report, but all it
did was prove that conservative media can't make anything funny...
intentionally, anyway?
Redeye is not realy a counterpoint to Colbert/Stewart; that was
that another (totally horrendous - and now cancelled) show '1/2
news hours' - which of course is a blatant ripoff of of 'this hour
has 22 minutes.'
Redeye fills the same niche as something like 'best week ever' and
'the soup/talk soup' but from a 'south park republicanism' angle.
(I am not saying that red-eye is anywhere close to being a good as
southpark, just that they have the same political
sensibilities.)
But it's not a 'cip show' per se. It follows the same talking head
format as every other daytime cable news and financial network
show, but tries to do it deliberately ironically, rather than the
vapid stupidity that too frequently emerges during the day.
Elemenope|5.2.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Nor does he have the chops to look through this popular page
and offer a counterargument.
Does anyone have the fortitude to make it through the list? I
spewed my coke after entry 30, thus breaking my keyboard and
monitor.
|5.2.08 @ 12:39PM|#
"Does anyone have the fortitude to make it through the
list?"
No...I did skip to matriarchy and patriarchy. Thought it was pretty
accurate as a description of how the terms are used and what they
generally convey.
Heck. Leave it alone. OLS thinks he (she?) actually contributed
something.
the innominate one|5.2.08 @ 1:19PM|#
Mo | May 2,
2008, 10:20am | #
20. Cactus (221,284 views)
Why in God's name do 221,284 people feel that the conservative view
on cactus is important?
Because they like pricks?
|5.2.08 @ 2:50PM|#
joshua,
They don't. It's self-hating, closeted gay men that wish to reduce
the rights of gay men that people hate.
Andy|5.2.08 @ 2:52PM|#
The few homosexuality-related articles i've checked out are just
individual studies done by one person.
Why is it that conservatives can latch onto any one study/argument
(of ID, or global warming not happening) as supporting their own
view of things, but if say one study arguing that AIDS was created
in a lab or 9/11 was an inside job was quoted they would flip the
hell out? There is very rarely a total consensus on anything, but
usually there is a vast majority who objectively see things one
way. To ignore this consensus whenever you feel like it seems
dishonest. Are they really that hypocritical?
ktc2|5.2.08 @ 4:21PM|#
As long as we're making fun of religious whackos, these guys do
it well:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
|5.2.08 @ 5:25PM|#
I agree with the proposition that the main reason the "homosexuality" page has so many hits is because that is one of the main subjects that conservatives want an "alternative" view of. Also, it is probably one of the most likely pages for non-conservatives to visit in order to laugh at the conservatives' "alternative" views.
|5.2.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Like I once said about the losers who spend all day at home in their underwear, listening to (and calling into) conservaclone talk radio: anything that keeps 'em off the streets...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245