Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2007-03-12T10:13:04Z

BPearl: /* No: */

== Yes: ==

== No: ==

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

* Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
* Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
* Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
* Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

The other big problem is that you perceive "Liberal Bias" where the problem is that as of late, the Conservative Movement in the USA seems to have a marked anti-Reality bias.
[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.) --[[User:BPearl|BPearl]] 06:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2007-03-12T10:12:43Z

BPearl: /* No: */

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2007-03-12T10:10:24Z

BPearl: /* No: */

== Yes: ==

== No: ==

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

* Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
* Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
* Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
* Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.)

[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]

Politically correct

2007-03-12T08:55:23Z

BPearl:

'''Political correctness''' most commonly refers to the alteration of ones choice of words in order to avoid offending any group. More specifically, groups which (or whose putative "leaders" or other activists) claim some status as "[[systemically oppressed]]" will periodically attempt to change the terms by which they are referred to and demand that society as a whole change its usage of words as well. More generally, political correctness can refer to a broad range of lifestyle choices which fall into the realm of a political correctness movement aimed at changing (or expressing ones opposition to) [[Western culture]] as a whole.

An example of political correctness is the changing terminology used to described handicapped people. In the past the term "crippled" was perfectly acceptable and not considered offensive. At some point, somebody decided "crippled" was degrading and the preferred term changed to "handicapped". This, too, was eventually deemed offensive and "disabled" became the preferred term. Today, "disabled" is now considered degrading and "differently abled" and "physically challenged" are now the politically correct terms. The same can be said for the changing uses of terms for Black Americans: "Negro" and "colored", once perfectly acceptable terms, were declared degrading and offensive by some activists during the 1970s and "Afro-American" and "Black" came into use, which in turn gave way to "African-American", and in broader usage, "people of color".

The distinction for example between "colored people" (1950s-60s usage) and "people of color" (today) is an important one which illustrates the basis of political correctness. Political correctness is rooted in the notion widely promoted among left-wing academics and sociologists that Western culture promotes systemic oppression against some groups by marginalizing them and disincluding them from the "norm"; the groups thus supposedly systemically marginalized are referred to as "the Other" by these left-wing academics. The implication is that these groups are systemically excluded from the mainstream. "Colored people" is therefore deemed offensive because the order of words puts "colored" first, emphasizing their difference from the mainstream, while "people of color" is acceptable because putting the term "people" first emphasizes that they are people and thus does not emphazise their difference from the "norm". According to this mindset, the term "differently abled", even though a currently fashionable politically correct term, is still unacceptable because it implies that disabled people are an "Other" and different from the "norm". It is unclear what term would be politically correct to these people - perhaps something like "people of diverse mobility".

Furthermore, instead of encouraging supposedly marginalized groups to integrate with and assimilate into the mainstream of Western culture, political correctness ironically encourages them to emphasize and indeed to wallow in their marginalization from society, and to make a public display of such. This is known as [[identity politics]]. The buzzword "[[diversity]]" is widely used to promote this. Gays and lesbians are therefore encouraged to label themselves as "queer" and make public displays of "queerness" calculated to disturb the sensibilities of mainstream people, rather than integrate into the mainstream themselves; Black Americans are encouraged to adopt [[Afrocentrism]] and convert to [[Islam]], etc.

The term "Political Correctness" is almost never used non-ironically any more, except by people who deliberately say they're not being politically correct because they know they're about to say something grossly offensive, and don't want anyone to call them on it.

==See also==
* [[Postmodernism]]

User talk:ChristianHero

2007-03-12T08:53:05Z

BPearl:

If you don't provide some citation links for the claim that Saddam had no connection to Al Qaeda, it will get reverted very fast. (It probabyl will, anyway, for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct".)

Canadian newspapers

2007-03-12T08:49:20Z

BPearl:

Canadian Newspapers are as varied as their American counterparts. The distribution of newspapers varies widely and is heavily divided between provinces. The current largest newspaper in Canada is the [[Toronto Star]] which has a current reader base of 3,293,031. Canadian newspapers, much like their American equivalents, lean heavily on the ideal of "Journalistic Freedom" and "Democratic reform"[1]

[http://www.cna-acj.ca/ ''Canada Newspaper Association'']

Guy Fawkes

2007-03-12T08:48:51Z

BPearl:

Guy Fawkes was born on April 13, 1570 in Stonegate, Yorkshire. He was an English soldier and part of the [[Roman Catholic]] group who tried to act on the [[Gunpowder Plot]] on November 5th. The plot was to assassinate the [[Protestant]] rulers of [[England]], including King James I and the whole of [[Parliament]], by blowing up the Westminster palace during the opening session of [[Parliament]] in 1605. Fawkes was caught before he could put this plan into action. He was interrogated through [[torture]]. Normally torture would have been forbidden, but James I decided that the country was at war and therefore torture was acceptable. Fawkes was ultimately was put to death along with his co-conspirators for treason and attempted murder. He died on January 31, 1606, by being hanged, drawn and quartered.

His death is celebrated in England every year on [[Guy Fawkes Day]], celebrating the death of the only man ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions.

Talk:Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2007-03-12T08:44:20Z

BPearl:

I have serious doubts about this place's operating model, but I'd like to hear what others have to say first.

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2007-03-12T08:43:46Z

BPearl:

== Yes: ==

== No: ==