sadly, he actually exists

Given my ongoing and rather crippling addiction to Conservapedia, none of you will be surprised to learn of my trepidation at the launch of the new Conservapedia YouTube Channel. Now, not only can you read utter madness- you can get a full A/V version of it. And you thought Pauly Shore movies were bad. Since I know some of you still don’t know what conservapedia is, allow me to “educate” you through the use of this handy propaganda film starring Andrew Schlafly himself:

Honestly, it’s difficult to know what’s scariest about this video but the implication that anyone at all believes Wikipedia to be an appropriate resource for teaching history to high schoolers is, at the very least, bizarre. Also, Andrew Schlafly sounds like he’s going through puberty. Continually. I did not realize that before.

Have some fun poking around the admittedly scant pickings. You can check out such titles as “Evolution- Did it happen?” which is, amusingly, simply an advertisement for Conservapedia, and “Evolution- True or False?” And that’s about all they have up right now, although I’m quite certain more will appear before long. Regardless, however, don’t bother disagreeing with them as they have the best- absolute best– counter-argument I’ve ever seen. Specifically, if you check out Conservapedia’s article on ad hominem you find this:


Or, in plain human writing:

Conservatives understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. Liberals and Atheists are outraged by examination of an individual’s character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are moral relativists. Conservatives understand how important it is that those debating an issue be trustworthy, otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate, intellectual, argument because they come from deceit, like Richard Dawkins. [emphasis added]

So, in short, if they disagree with your ethics they don’t have to bother refuting your argument because, by definition, it must be bad. And it doesn’t appear to matter what you’re arguing- that 2+2=4, that the sky is blue, whatever- you’re just wrong.

Ah, Conservapedia: an electronic bullet to the brainpan.

4 thoughts on “sadly, he actually exists”

  1. Ah, thank you Andrew Schlafly, finally a justification for my “Wikipedia is not a citeable academic source” policy that my students will be able to understand… “See kids, I believe Wikipedia started with the American spirit, but then, over time, it got taken over…the way perhaps a lynch-mob takes over a community….but instead of dragging people out of their beds in the dead of night and killing them, this lynch mob deletes irrelevant Bible verses from entries on natural selection and the Renaissance.”

    Also that smug girl with the red hair ought to watch her step bragging about how they’ve beat out Rush Limbaugh in terms of website hits, he’s had kneecaps busted for lesser offenses.


  2. This verifies every single finding about how information acquisition does not make preferences more thoughtful and reflexive, but more polarised and one-sided. The more I hear about propagandists finding Wikipedia biased, the less I perceive any form of bias myself.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: