@@Swansong321 kinda. thats why no one with any skeptisism takes it serious. from what i know some may use it for pretty regular things for a quick answer. but nonone uses it for anything serious and as a foundation for anything. at least i hope so
@@theflyingdutchguy9870 Actually Wikipedia can absolutely be used for more serious stuff, they‘re quite well at explaining f.e. scientific stuff in an understandable way and they always cite their sources, so you can go look it up yourself in the original aswell.
I never heard of this site until now, I thought this was satire but it's actually real. Here's their article on Garfield: "Garfield is a comic strip created by an alleged homosexual and communist Jim Davis. It chronicles the life of the eponymous cat Garfield, his owner Jon Arbuckle and Odie - a dog. Garfield is a very popular comic strip, thanks to its promotion of liberal "values" - Garfield's laziness, obsessive eating, hate towards honest work (or any work for that matter) and violence against Odie is presented as a positive thing, clearly trying to appeal to the strip's communist readers. Homosexual themes are also very common in the strip, as well as themes of gender confusion, which is visible in the character of Nermal who is often mistaken for a female cat because of his feminine appearance." I'm not making this up.
No way that's hilarious 😂 I got to get in and see if I can find something crazier Edit: bro look at the photo they have for RUclips and the description for it on God that's the funniest shit I've ever seen
LOL Democrats are also right wing, at least by the standards of European countries. They are looking at us like "Wait a minute I thought you guys didn't like Hitler." Democrats are only less right wing than Republicans. The Republicans turn the wheel and make the country go more right, while the Democrats keep the wheel from turning backwards or even more remotely towards the left. That is why nothing improves.
according to them we're all Marxist Maoist Black Supremacist Anti-Christian Man-Hating Terrorists. which is of course why we voted for old white catholic man joe biden as president who doesn't even support universal healthcare
To me as a foreigner democrats and all sorts of American Liberals (which makes up almost all of the US politics) are right wing. Liberalism was created to defend a rich middle class made up of property owners, and modern democrats pretty much push for the same. (As evident by the cries of democrats when people were destroying property during blm protests). I'd even say that democrats are worse than classic liberals, because they have deep ties with corporations and work to protect the capitalist status quo and billionaires, all while pretending they're doing something for the people (even AOC voted to shut down railroad strikes after saying she supports them) This of course refers to politicians, as calling the working class "democrats" doesn't make any damn sense. Being brainwashed by a political party doesn't mean you're a member of it. Although most people who support democrats are pro capitalism (a kinder capitalism = a pipe dream) but also are pro minority rights in a very contradictory way.. Which to me, again, right wing.
"X has a liberal bias!" Okay, so tell us the truth- "I'm gonna make something with a conservative bias!" Ahh, of COURSE you will, because it's not about removing political bias, it's about protecting conservatives' ego. Just like the complaints about public schooling, just like the complaining about Twitter.
That's false, liberal bias, is like making out NATO or the west are the good guys or trying to deny that chromosomes are the primary factor in biological sex. Offcourse when these idiots talk about liberal bias they mean anything that they don't agree with, but there's definitely bias from both sides
My favourite part is the 'Conservapedia proven right' page - which always reminds me that they never cared to check if they were right about anything before they posted it. "Here's all the times our wacko beliefs happened to coincide with reality - don't think too hard about what that implies about everything else written here!"
So fundamentally “Conservapedia” doesn’t even reflect conservatism as understood by the rest of world but only the AMERICAN version of conservatism. And they want to be taken seriously?
Most MAGA cult women were sexually abused & think it's an inescapable aspect of being alive & female. I learned this by watching Emma Vigeland interview MAGA women during the emergence of the metoo movement. She'd go to Trump rallies & ask women their thoughts on metoo#, and the answer she always got was "get used to it.". She did these interviews one-to-one, over weeks. It's not like the MAGA women consulted each other on what to say. "Get used to it.". The answer gives insights. The shrinks call it "learned helplessness.". The shrinks would subject dogs to unpredictable electroshocks on the floors of their cages. Or throw mice in barrels of water to watch them try not to drown. I won't get into the details of the experiments because they were sadistic, but they showed that helplessness can be learned & the will to fight back against abuse can be crushed.
She took the stance that "equal rights" means no more separate bathrooms for men and women, and that traditional gender roles were actually a good thing. It was the 1970s so a lot of people bought into it.
At one time I might have said Conservapedia was a Poe. However, I've had conservatives tell me they think black people are "morally and intellectually inferior," that they would prefer Trump act more like Pinochet, and that the left represents the establishment while right wingers are a persecuted minority. It's almost impossible to satirize them, because not only do they believe things like this, they'll also state these beliefs as if they're profound insights.
'i judge people by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. the fact that all black people have poor character in my eyes is a complete coincidence'
Conservapedia feels like a parody. Practically everyone who stumbles on it insists it's a parody. I don't blame them. However when you know who Andy Schlafly is you start to realize it is 100% legitimate. This man is American Conservative royalty.
I heard about Conservapedia when I found out about the Conservative Bible Project. Assfly, a self-described Christian, had never actually read the Bible, and when someone pointed out that liberals were using actual Bible quotes against right-wingers, he decided that he needed to rewrite the Bible to bring it in line with modern conservative values. This dude is something else.
29:45 I grew up in a deeply conservative household. My father (and mother) were both Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, and xenophobic. They also indoctrinated me into evangelical Christianity. It was very difficult to escape; what really helped me was seeing how my parents bought into many of the insane Qanon conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. That experience, in addition to college education and my own life experiences, really helped me to question the beliefs that I had been raised in and realize that my parents had lied or misrepresented much of the world to me. I then was able to recognize them for what they are: ignorant and afraid of what they don’t understand.
The closer a group gets to fascism, the funnier it gets when they try to argue fascism is left wing. Like “we agree with 95% of fascism but that 5% difference puts it on literally the opposite side of the political spectrum”
@@geraldkenneth119 then, of course, when you ask them to define fascism they just define fascism and socialism as the same thing. Examples Socialism is when the government does stuff Socialism is when you want to oppose the status quo with violence Socialism is when there is conflict between classes (economic or social)
Just to play devil's advocate, I'll say that among us humans there is only a 0.1% difference in the DNA, so a 5% difference is actually not very close.
It's the old "actually the Nazis were socialists because they put socialist in their name" argument. Yeah sure, and North Korea is actually a people's republic.
My friends and I were making fun of Conservapedia when we found it in the late 2000s. I once made some edits to Conservapedia pages to make them even more unhinged, as a form of trolling. Andy Schlafly then personally sent me a message praising my unhinged troll edits-- he had no idea I was trolling, he thought I had made the site better.
I just can't imagine what kind of twisted combination of self hatred and self aggrandizement you have to have to fight for your own oppression. A female anti-feminist? What the hell is this world
Think so Serena Joy in Handmaid’s Tale (book). She worked hard to bring about Gilead, being a media personality but ended up getting her wish, which meant being kept out of the public sphere
@@ricardoaguirre6126 I'm sure some trolls do get on there but considering that a decent amount of conservatives agree with them an don't remove it, it doesn't matter.
Its creator Andrew Schlafly is a known far-right lunatic. He is well-known to be real, not satire. There is tons of news about him, articles, interviews, etc. He is completely sincere and an absolutely awful guy.
And they are no different than Nazis, Socialists, and Communists... Yeah. They are insane... but what do you expect when Ben Shitpiro also says "Communism and Nazism" are on the left? They are so Un-educated that anything that goes against their un-education causes them cognitive dissonance to the point it's easier for them to lie to themselves, than to accept reality.
I had actually forgotten about Conservapedia until I saw this video in my subscription feed. Thanks for reminding me and making me depressed about the state of human intelligence, Kavernacle!
RationalWiki's extensive documentation survives to this day, the internal politics of conservativapedia and it's sysops still are legendary. Are they real people or just "undercover" liberal trolls?
The parallels between Han Supremacy in the way they treat other ethnic groups in China is disturbingly similar to White Supremacy. They have a weird relationship with white people though, mostly some very justified resentment of the colonial period.
Unironically, this website made me an atheist. This is not a joke, this is my real conversion story., I was a christian back then when I stumbled onto conservapedia. These guys did what I claimed to do. They took the bible seriously. They didn't pick and choose like I did. However they were also massive bigots so I was forced into introspection. They were wrong about everything except the Jesus stuff so I was forced to examine if the stuff we shared was stuff that was true. There was no way this stopped clock was right even once. If I wanted to remain a christian, I had to become like them, which was a deeply repulsive idea. I then found Rationalwiki, started reading it and within 2 weeks, I switched from praying christian to hard atheist. If Andrew Schlaffly did 1 thing right, it was to help me lose my faith. I can't thank him enough for that.
How can you be a bigot and claim to be a Christian? Jesus literally said to love thy enemies, he frequently spend time with "sinners" without judging their life decisions. It says twice in the bible to not sleep with another men (although some translation use boy instead of men which given the period makes more sense since pleasure boys were quite common among the elite) and I didn't count how often it said to love thy neighbor but its a lot more. I have yet to meet a bigoted "Christian" who actually read the bible. (this is not to comment on your decision to become atheist that is entirely personal and not my business I just want to point out the hypocrisy of anyone trying to justify hate in the name of Christian beliefs which is unfortunately quite common)
@@lucagerulat307 Unfortunately the bible is jam packed full of bigotry, misogyny, racism, xenophobia etc... the Bible is an excellent crutch for those who want to be bigots and has been used to support and condone the vilest and most heinous of crimes and behaviours throughout history. Sure, it's got its good bits, but they're pretty much all cribbed from other writings and philosophies, so the bible itself is an irrelevant bunch of bronze age claptrap.
There's another one called Rationalwiki that i've been involved with for several years now, and it basically is a snarky counter to right-wing and/or anti-science propaganda. They've had a bit of a running feud of sorts with Conservapedia and if memory serves, originally started specifically as a foil for Conservapedia.
Yeah, one of the Rationalwiki founders was having a fight with the breast cancer page in conservapedia where the conservatives insisted that "abortion causes breast cancer" and since they dont allowed the guy to change that he started his own.
Nothing new. That faction has been calling everybody communist since the 1950's and following HItler's playbook this entire time. It is communist and socialist unless they want government benefits and social safety nets. It is communist and socialist if it doesn't involve licking the boots of their people. They themselves relish in the pride of being bootlickers, brown nosers, uneducated, and dimwitted. They see cowardice and spineless ignorance as a feature not a bug.
*Librarian here:* According to the results of studies on its reliability, Wikipedia is overall as reliable as a print encyclopedia. And when looking at specific topics, it can vary a little in reliability, from "roughly the same as a print encyclopedia" to "actually better". The "actually better" scores are due to the fact that it can be updated immediately to account for new discoveries or events, whereas a print equivalent takes a while to update.
Oh yeah. Like the issue that I had with print articles and print encyclopedias is that they just never updated stuff. Like my grandma had a ton of encyclopedias from like 1982 in her house, and the section they had on penguins was the exact same as the section on penguins in their 2012 version, they just added an extra paragraph about ecological concerns.
Wikipedia being unreliable is a holdover from the humble beginnings when you could reasonably make that argument to some extend... also because teachers and university professors kept saying it. But depending on the topic it is very difficult to slip misinformation and lies into an article. Imagine editing the wikipedia article of Franco to be more in line of what is written on conservapedia. Well, first hurdle would probably even being allowed to edit the article, since Wikipedia did the smart thing and no longer allows everyone to edit every article. But let's say you are one of the trusted Wikipedia editors allowed to edit that article. It wouldn't take long for the other editors to see what you edit, since Wikipedia keeps very accurate records of every edit made, and undo those changes, possibly even revoking your editing privileges to that article. That is if Wikipedia even allows your edits to go online instantly, I'm not sure but I can imagine any edit to these articles need to be approved first before they are applied. But most importantly: Wikipedia cites sources. Every article is basically a group essay on the subject and the more of interest that essay is, like who Franco was, the higher the chance of it being reliable and accurate with plenty of sources to back it up. If you want to put falsehoods on Wikipedia you'd have to edit some minor crap like the history of a statue in your small rural town in Arkansas or whatever. Or just straight up create a new article about something that may or may not exist. The former will probably be edited some time soon by someone who knows better, the latter will probably be removed shortly for being outright nonexistant or at the very least not warranting an article on Wikipedia. Like if I made a Wikipedia entry on the dog my parents had when I was a child then that's not gonna stay up for long as that is not only not interesting enough for the public, but also contains alot of unverifyable information since the only people who could fact check that are members of my family, friends who met the dog and neighbors. Conservapedia on the other hand is what Wikipedia is said to have been when it started. Totally unreliable.
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 it isn't an encyclopedia, it's a database of knowledge. The terraria wiki isn't radicalising someone, unless knowing the recipe for the shell phone is radically dangerous
The fact that they insist on dying on the evolution hill is hilarious to me considering how evolution is so well supported that the theory is even supported by unrelated fields like economics
Like, teeeechnically it CAN potentially be proven wrong (it wouldn't be scientific if it couldn't), but the evidence supporting it is so wholly and overwhelmingly expansive and solid that the odds of it being proven false are astronomically tiny, and gets tinier with every new supporting evidence. And that's not even going into how Tiktaalik couldn't have been found if what we think we know was way off the mark.
That's why they die on the hill. Because evolution is so well supported, but also directly contradicts their holy text: If evolution is accepted, at least one book of the old testament needs to go. You can try to reconcile by saying that it wasn't literal, but even that undermines the whole text. If there was never an Adam and Eve, if the text is just a story, then how can you be sure there was ever a Noah? A tower of Babel? A Moses? Even a Jesus? Either the whole bible must be accepted as infallible, or else none of it can be trusted. From their perspective, evolution is the crack in the foundations of their religion - if it isn't defeated, the whole theology comes tumbling down. Not right away, but in time - the Christians who teach that the bible is only sometimes-right bring up Christians who never read it at all, who bring up outright atheists.
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 I mean, technically the use of currency is the result of evolution. Benefit being that if a group of creatures aka we humans, see value in this. It allows us to instead of carrying around massive trading stocks like meat or wool. To just carry coins instead, wich are lighter and easier to transport and easier to trade for food when needed.
"Conservapedia: The Trusworthy Encyclopedia" The typo is intentional, by the way. If you've read the Rational Wiki article on Conservapedia, you know what I mean.
A podcast called "Qanon Anonymous" did an episode on Conservapedia, and the first article the hosts randomly picked was the "Tuba" page. They read aloud that a tuba was "a large brass instrument with 3-5 values." I was wondering if the hosts misread "valves", but no, Conservapedia writers don't even know that a tuba has valves. Probably some dope trusting the autocomplete function of their editing software? 😂
So wikipedia is edited by the unemployed but we are meant to believe a person with a full time job had the time to make an entire alternate version? Ok.
I first learned about Conservapedia years ago while reading articles from the Wikipedia parody Uncyclopedia. So at first I assumed Conservapedia was just another Wikipedia parody written as if the authors were Fox News viewers. I was surprised when I learned Conservapedia’s founder was actually sincere in his beliefs. Poe’s Law strikes again.
as an american ex-conservative myself, I was raised in a very religious-nationalist community where I didn't really follow politics much but I heard all about the evil things the democratic party did (which was a mixed bag of legitimate critiques and conspiracy nonsense). Some time later I got curious why all the most educated people I knew were more left leaning and started digging in and basically changed my political beliefs based on a massive collection of single issue research and basically reject association with either major party. I genuinely believe people can be un-brainwashed as long as they're open to the idea that "we should do the most efficient thing regardless of which political party is promoting it" and the tag line of "effective politics is identifying the positive ideas the other side is promoting and letting them through, but blocking the destructive ones" which inherently pushes people towards a per-issue research cycle. A great place to look for having some of these conversations is Steven Hassan's cult deprogramming work. I've read "releasing the bonds" but he's written a lot more on the subject since then and has a podcast if you're looking for an easier free way to check out his work.
The strangest thing I've found on conservapedia is that (last time I checked), clicking on the "random article" button will only ever bring you to the article on placentas. That is just so, so deeply strange
It's a different one now but yeah it doesn't change how ever many times u press it. I think they just don't know how to implement a random number generator.
The fact that they had Judge Dredd on there, and didn't realize it was always meant to be satirical. Shows that life is a living "The Onion" meme or simply nottheonion -- "Too stupid to real, yet actually happens."
I've know about it since 2017 when I found a link to it on /pol/ when I was still a Nazbol smoothbrain The horrendous stupidity of the site did help me break out of the schizo pipeline though
And the fun thing about Conservapedia is, when people were trying to fact-check and correct their articles, they were banned. These people then found RationalWiki as an answer to Conservapedia.^^
I just checked Schlaffly's (AKA "ashmoo") wikipedia edits on that article and it's obvious that he's the one who wanted to inject his own bias into it.
I've seen Conservapedia. The funniest-saddest thing about them, for me (someone who has actually been different shades of Christian during points in my life) is their Conservative Bible Project. It's re-writing the Bible to have a more conservative lean! It's not even like how other Bible translations come to be - with people delving into original languages and scholarship to try to go "more accurate" or even putting stuff into more modern language and reworked sentences to be "easy reader." They straight up took from English-language Bibles (King James and NIV, notoriously wonky on translation to begin with) and nixed passages and re-wrote stuff because they thought all that giving to the poor and blessed are the poor stuff was Jesus being "too socialist." It's like the Lol Cat Bible taken 100-percent seriously and without the fun! And as someone who's actually read the Bible (admittedly, the NIV version, Protestant), I do have to wonder about Schafly's immortal soul here because the Bible expressly forbids "adding or taking away from this book" (Granted, that applied only to the Book of Revelation, but I'm certain the dip has edited that to Hell and back, too).
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 king James had some alternative motives then just trying to make a more accurate translation of the bible. Like the word "tyrant" is suspiciously absent from his version of the bible.
Franco was NOT a friend to Catholicism - just to its values, which he tried to co-opt as his own. Meanwhile, he had Catholic priests who supported Basque separatism executed.
Franco explicitly courted the support of the Catholic hierarchy- it's difficult to believe anyone could think otherwise, unless they had an ideological reason for such a position. Like, he went out of his way to do it, exaggerating and/or entirely inventing atrocities committed by Republicans against nuns, priests and Catholic churches and spinning his Reactionary treason as a new Reconquista, the Nationalists even being honoured as Crusaders by the Bishop of Salamanca. Catholic militias like the Carlists also endorsed and took part in the Nationalist war effort, as did some international Catholic organisations such as the Irish Christian Front. Res ipsa loquitur. It hardly needs to be said that Catholicism is now, and always has been, very happy to do business with any and all of history's greatest monsters who are willing to indulge a privileged position for the Church.
@@Justanotherconsumer The Spanish people have often been considered the most fervently Catholic people in history. In fact, it would be more accurate to say they EXPLOITED Catholicism more than any other people in history. (To be fair, there have been other fanatically Catholic nationalities, such as the French prior to the Revolution, but I'd say the Spaniards did more than anyone else to further both anti-Protestantism and anti-Semitism, by means of the Inquisition.) Many Spaniards felt that they - not Rome - were the center of Catholicism, and often simply ignored the rulings of the Pope, although ironically in his name. I would consider Franco, Queen Isabella, and certain other Spaniards to be more akin to Judge Frollo figures within the Church. Finally, it's very telling that the most devoutly Catholic ethnic group within Spain, the Basques, opposed Franco.
From their page on Video Games: Video games, even ones exported to Russia, increasingly promote the homosexual agenda contrary to the policy of Russia and elsewhere. 😂
I was on Conservapedia when it first launched, I visited it every day for weeks and weeks and weeks. It would leave me in hysterical laughter. Early on there was a particular article that was bizarre, insane ridiculousness. Conservapedians thought it was the left wing trying to ridicule and make them look stupid so removed it. Turns out it was written by a real Conservative and he was furiously outraged. It triggered a mini civil war where he and others were accusing the site of censoring conservative views, went on for a while. After it had calmed down, other socialists had gotten wind of the site and started writing hilarious satirical articles. The Conservatives after the civil war were terrified of accusing them of being left wing, not wanting a second war. The whole site went into complete turmoil. It was Poe's law, Poe's law EVERYWHERE. The conservatives had no idea what was a real conservative view or satire, they were in complete panic. I can not tell you how much I laughed during the whole saga, it was utterly glorious.
With wikipedia there's the image they keep (volunteers, even stuff they disagree with, etc) and then there's actual wikipedia (edit wars, propaganda, community mods abusing power, etc). I know about it cause I've done edits in the past which contained errors, then me fixing those errors was prevented by moderators in a targeted fashion. We've also had stuff like reports on a network of Polish nazis deliberately editing & moderating wiki articles to push a Polish-nationalist narrative on a host of topics including things where it obviously was noticed, like topics regarding non-Poles within the area that Poland nowadays occupies (which is often various topics about Germans that they edited to push a Polish-nazi narrative on).
I love how the cancel culture page has a picture of Nicki Minaj on it. Better not let the barbz see, or Schafly will find out how dedicated members of the Chun Li Communist Party can be
13:24 “replaced tradtional Chinese culture with … loyalty to the state.” Is such a fucking hilarious line if you know anything about that traditional Chinese culture because like loyalty to the state was absolutely central in it, I mean China has been an empire for 5000 years.
I find it funny that it states that Wikipedia can be openly edited and then has to come up with a reason why something that can be changed by anyone can have a bias 🤣
7:48 the best part is that if you check the source, it's an article about Sanger forking Wikipedia (from 2006) and there's not even a source backing the claim that wikipedia editors are mostly "teenagers and the unemployed" so... someone (Sanger himself?) used an article about himself to describe the demographics of editors of wikipedia.
The current Conservapedia entry on Special Relativity seems to be pretty neutral, though, except for one sentence: "However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory." Search "rationalwiki conservapedian relativity" for the history.
Congrats on 100K! Now when do we get to watch you eat all those chocolate oranges? Edit: Which reflects more poorly on society, Conservapedia, or Encyclopedia Dramatica?
I've known about Conservapedia for almost as long as it's existed. I dont remember how I learned about them but I quickly became a regular reader of RationalWiki, which was started to counter Conservapedia and would have articles about what they were up to, the grearest of these being their coverage of Andrew Schlafly's attempt to discredit the Lenski e-coli study.
... could we start posting pure fantasy on there? Like, could we start uploading pages about our homebrew dnd settings? Feels like a good place for fantasy.
I think the biggest thing when you're trying to help deprogram these people is looking at what's worked for people who have been successfully deprogrammed. Something I've seen several people mention is the eventual realization that one side is fighting for everyone's rights, and one side is fighting to take people's rights away. This involves calmly and cheerfully responding to conservatives in comments sections and firmly but kindly stating your position and your goals. You will not change the mind of anyone dropping in to argue with you, but the people who read the argument and don't respond and making their minds up quietly.
One thing that is funny about the Conservapedia text in this video is how VERY opinionated it is. It doesn't even sound like it could be research. "She is a personification of the failures of the public school system" is not something you can source.
That's honestly the thing that took me the furthest aback. It's not even the bizarre alt reality nonsense being espoused, I'm used to that by now. It's just how incredibly opinionated and obviously biased the language used is. Like, there is nothing like Conservapedia that really displays how empty conservative accusations of "bias" and "favoritism" really are.
I learned of that lame wiki through RationalWiki, which in contrast opened a whole world to me and helped me in formulating better my argumentd whenever I have to reply back or debunk a bigot or a conspiracy theorist.
j/ i think the "wikipedia bad" thing was just a psyop made by libraries that were mad that people weren't renewing library cards anymore. /j i always used wikipedia as a base for both school and personal research and no one ever got disappointed. you could argue about the first years of its existence being a little more chaotic and way less moderated, but straight up keeping the "wikipedia bad" stance even today is just dumb imho
It's funny when people periodically discover Conservapedia. Used to read through the wackier articles for a Vent group years back. We were big fans of the triceratops = biblical unicorn theory. It's a gift that keeps on giving.
I love how people only just seem to be discovering this site. I've known about it for around 10 years and even used it as an example of a biased media source for a class in my senior year in 2015.
I remember running into Conservapedia and its hilarious archenemy Rational Wiki when gay marriage was still debated in the United States. Rational Wiki is fun for snark about the right wing, especially their articles on Andrew Schlaffly and Best of Conservapedia
It's funny how you can recognise different propaganda by the writing style. Russian propaganda throws in emotional adjectives (illegal, unfounded etc) and American propaganda uses weasel words with liberal use of the passive tense (it is believed, it has been said). Both of these are taken as given rather than backed with any facts.
You'd think with the resources that must be available to him Andrew would have been able to find a photo that doesn't give off the serial killer vibe quite so strongly
Another terrifying aspect is that they really can’t seem to care past any accusation (which may explain why every accusation is a confession for them) They have full, total editorial control over this website, and yet they don’t edit out AOC only acting the way she does after the guy mentions he’s from Project Veritas which destroys their entire point. They could’ve easily said “a black guy wanted a picture and she pushed him away” but they went with the actual story, and it was still pointless. They’re so enamoured by their world view that even under scrutiny by their own sources they still believe in it
On paper. It certainly wasn't true when the nazis pushed entire village into them and set the churches on fire. As when they burned and murdered the village of Lidice for the killing of Reinhard Heydrich
Conservapedia is like 50/50 people who truly believe it all and trolls seeing what edits they can get away with
As is Wikipedia itself!🙄
@@Swansong321Wikipedia actually has a lot of safeguards for troll editing.
@@Swansong321 kinda. thats why no one with any skeptisism takes it serious. from what i know some may use it for pretty regular things for a quick answer. but nonone uses it for anything serious and as a foundation for anything. at least i hope so
@@theflyingdutchguy9870
Actually Wikipedia can absolutely be used for more serious stuff, they‘re quite well at explaining f.e. scientific stuff in an understandable way and they always cite their sources, so you can go look it up yourself in the original aswell.
@@blacky_Ninja Wikipedia is fantastic for mathematics and scientific knowledge
I never heard of this site until now, I thought this was satire but it's actually real. Here's their article on Garfield: "Garfield is a comic strip created by an alleged homosexual and communist Jim Davis. It chronicles the life of the eponymous cat Garfield, his owner Jon Arbuckle and Odie - a dog.
Garfield is a very popular comic strip, thanks to its promotion of liberal "values" - Garfield's laziness, obsessive eating, hate towards honest work (or any work for that matter) and violence against Odie is presented as a positive thing, clearly trying to appeal to the strip's communist readers. Homosexual themes are also very common in the strip, as well as themes of gender confusion, which is visible in the character of Nermal who is often mistaken for a female cat because of his feminine appearance." I'm not making this up.
No way that's hilarious 😂 I got to get in and see if I can find something crazier
Edit: bro look at the photo they have for RUclips and the description for it on God that's the funniest shit I've ever seen
No way dude 🤣
No fkin way 😂
C'mon, you made that one up, surely
🤦🏼♀️
Democrats aren't even remotely "Maoist" (or what ever buzzword right-wingers use) because the reality is they're centrist at best.
they'd be a lot cooler if they were
LOL Democrats are also right wing, at least by the standards of European countries. They are looking at us like "Wait a minute I thought you guys didn't like Hitler." Democrats are only less right wing than Republicans. The Republicans turn the wheel and make the country go more right, while the Democrats keep the wheel from turning backwards or even more remotely towards the left. That is why nothing improves.
True and the reality is that there are a certain number of Ex-Republicans who vote Democrat.
according to them we're all Marxist Maoist Black Supremacist Anti-Christian Man-Hating Terrorists. which is of course why we voted for old white catholic man joe biden as president who doesn't even support universal healthcare
To me as a foreigner democrats and all sorts of American Liberals (which makes up almost all of the US politics) are right wing.
Liberalism was created to defend a rich middle class made up of property owners, and modern democrats pretty much push for the same. (As evident by the cries of democrats when people were destroying property during blm protests).
I'd even say that democrats are worse than classic liberals, because they have deep ties with corporations and work to protect the capitalist status quo and billionaires, all while pretending they're doing something for the people (even AOC voted to shut down railroad strikes after saying she supports them)
This of course refers to politicians, as calling the working class "democrats" doesn't make any damn sense.
Being brainwashed by a political party doesn't mean you're a member of it.
Although most people who support democrats are pro capitalism (a kinder capitalism = a pipe dream) but also are pro minority rights in a very contradictory way..
Which to me, again, right wing.
"X has a liberal bias!"
Okay, so tell us the truth-
"I'm gonna make something with a conservative bias!"
Ahh, of COURSE you will, because it's not about removing political bias, it's about protecting conservatives' ego. Just like the complaints about public schooling, just like the complaining about Twitter.
🌏👨🚀🔫👨🚀
By "liberal bias" I assume they mean "They asked be to cite my work and have it peer reviewed"
That's false, liberal bias, is like making out NATO or the west are the good guys or trying to deny that chromosomes are the primary factor in biological sex.
Offcourse when these idiots talk about liberal bias they mean anything that they don't agree with, but there's definitely bias from both sides
So the conservatives actually did the "I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" thing unironically. That's not sad at all 🤣
Yep, it's been around since AT LEAST 2007.
@@DarthMcDoomington 2007?? TWO THOUSAND SEVEN??? I thought it was a newer thing that had popped up
My favourite part is the 'Conservapedia proven right' page - which always reminds me that they never cared to check if they were right about anything before they posted it.
"Here's all the times our wacko beliefs happened to coincide with reality - don't think too hard about what that implies about everything else written here!"
So fundamentally “Conservapedia” doesn’t even reflect conservatism as understood by the rest of world but only the AMERICAN version of conservatism.
And they want to be taken seriously?
I find that very sad.
5:25 Nothing gives me a chuckle like female political leader who is against women's rights. Like, girl. You existing is a oxymoron to own beliefs.
Same with black Republicans and gay conservatives.
Phyllis was also a proto-troll and was just as annoying as the gremlins on 4chan.
Most MAGA cult women were sexually abused & think it's an inescapable aspect of being alive & female. I learned this by watching Emma Vigeland interview MAGA women during the emergence of the metoo movement. She'd go to Trump rallies & ask women their thoughts on metoo#, and the answer she always got was "get used to it.". She did these interviews one-to-one, over weeks. It's not like the MAGA women consulted each other on what to say. "Get used to it.". The answer gives insights.
The shrinks call it "learned helplessness.". The shrinks would subject dogs to unpredictable electroshocks on the floors of their cages. Or throw mice in barrels of water to watch them try not to drown. I won't get into the details of the experiments because they were sadistic, but they showed that helplessness can be learned & the will to fight back against abuse can be crushed.
She took the stance that "equal rights" means no more separate bathrooms for men and women, and that traditional gender roles were actually a good thing. It was the 1970s so a lot of people bought into it.
It’s nothing new either. Back in the day, there were leagues of women against the vote…for women.
At one time I might have said Conservapedia was a Poe. However, I've had conservatives tell me they think black people are "morally and intellectually inferior," that they would prefer Trump act more like Pinochet, and that the left represents the establishment while right wingers are a persecuted minority. It's almost impossible to satirize them, because not only do they believe things like this, they'll also state these beliefs as if they're profound insights.
Their article on Biden is as hilariously unhinged as it is horrifying. Who ever wrote that page genuinely needs help.
@@matteoreyes405 is there any page whose writer doesn’t need help?
'i judge people by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. the fact that all black people have poor character in my eyes is a complete coincidence'
@@valivali8104 The writers who are specifically trolling.
@@RedShocktrooperRST how is it possible to tell difference?
Conservapedia feels like a parody. Practically everyone who stumbles on it insists it's a parody. I don't blame them. However when you know who Andy Schlafly is you start to realize it is 100% legitimate. This man is American Conservative royalty.
Has anyone ever figured out what they're "conserving"? All I see is racism, misogyny, and (usually but not always White) Xtian supremacy.
People can just amaze you with how absurd their beliefs can be
I heard about Conservapedia when I found out about the Conservative Bible Project. Assfly, a self-described Christian, had never actually read the Bible, and when someone pointed out that liberals were using actual Bible quotes against right-wingers, he decided that he needed to rewrite the Bible to bring it in line with modern conservative values. This dude is something else.
Yup
Bro wanted to make Bible 2
Isn’t rewriting your religion’s holiest of texts the ultimate form of heresy?
@@cardboardking577 with blackjack and hookers, I hope
@@geraldkenneth119 Yes.
29:45
I grew up in a deeply conservative household. My father (and mother) were both Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, and xenophobic. They also indoctrinated me into evangelical Christianity. It was very difficult to escape; what really helped me was seeing how my parents bought into many of the insane Qanon conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. That experience, in addition to college education and my own life experiences, really helped me to question the beliefs that I had been raised in and realize that my parents had lied or misrepresented much of the world to me. I then was able to recognize them for what they are: ignorant and afraid of what they don’t understand.
I don’t think it counts as lying if your parents genuinely believed the madness that escaped their lips
So college education DOES corrupt youths and turn them liberal!! (jk)
The closer a group gets to fascism, the funnier it gets when they try to argue fascism is left wing. Like “we agree with 95% of fascism but that 5% difference puts it on literally the opposite side of the political spectrum”
“I’m not fascist, I’m *proceeds to describe the very definition of fascism* ”
@@geraldkenneth119 then, of course, when you ask them to define fascism they just define fascism and socialism as the same thing.
Examples
Socialism is when the government does stuff
Socialism is when you want to oppose the status quo with violence
Socialism is when there is conflict between classes (economic or social)
Nazis completely ruined the brand connotations, if it wasn't for them they'd happily call themselves fascist
Just to play devil's advocate, I'll say that among us humans there is only a 0.1% difference in the DNA, so a 5% difference is actually not very close.
It's the old "actually the Nazis were socialists because they put socialist in their name" argument. Yeah sure, and North Korea is actually a people's republic.
My friends and I were making fun of Conservapedia when we found it in the late 2000s. I once made some edits to Conservapedia pages to make them even more unhinged, as a form of trolling. Andy Schlafly then personally sent me a message praising my unhinged troll edits-- he had no idea I was trolling, he thought I had made the site better.
lmao that's legitimately the funniest shit i've ever heard
I just can't imagine what kind of twisted combination of self hatred and self aggrandizement you have to have to fight for your own oppression. A female anti-feminist? What the hell is this world
two words: virtue signalling
Or they think that they gain more power if others like them, in this case women who are poorer, have less power.
There are black people in the US who claim that slavery was morally right. Some people are just braindead idiots.
Think so Serena Joy in Handmaid’s Tale (book). She worked hard to bring about Gilead, being a media personality but ended up getting her wish, which meant being kept out of the public sphere
This type of woman is usually from a christian background where the subjugation of women is a deeply entrenched tenet of their faith.
I legit thought this was a satire site the first time I saw it, now I’m amazed that everything is what they genuinely believe.
Some of it is definitely being written by trolls.
@@ricardoaguirre6126- you mean "Conservatives"
Oh. Yes, I get it now.
@@ricardoaguirre6126 I'm sure some trolls do get on there but considering that a decent amount of conservatives agree with them an don't remove it, it doesn't matter.
*For now.
They'll believe something else tomorrow.
@@ricardoaguirre6126 I mean the whole Qanon thing was started as a joke to troll boomers, and look where we are now.
If Conservapedia is satire, it is hillarious. If Conservapedia is legit, it is hillarious.
If it's legit, it's more terrifying than hilarious, because a lot of people take Conservapedia seriously.
@@sergei_mikhailovich I used to think life was a tragedy, then I realised it was a comedy...
Then I realised how tragic that was.
@@dontpanic7153 Well, tragicomedy IS a genre, so...
The fact that we can't tell is disturbing, and also hilarious.
Its creator Andrew Schlafly is a known far-right lunatic. He is well-known to be real, not satire. There is tons of news about him, articles, interviews, etc. He is completely sincere and an absolutely awful guy.
So,....Conservapedia views establishment, center-right, moderate Dems as "far left".
And they are no different than Nazis, Socialists, and Communists... Yeah. They are insane... but what do you expect when Ben Shitpiro also says "Communism and Nazism" are on the left? They are so Un-educated that anything that goes against their un-education causes them cognitive dissonance to the point it's easier for them to lie to themselves, than to accept reality.
Standard conservative stance yeah
It's not that democrats are far left, it's that conservatives are far right.
In the USA there's close to Zero leftists. For any sane Nation democrats are a regular ass right wing party and republicans are borderline nazis.
yup.
I had actually forgotten about Conservapedia until I saw this video in my subscription feed. Thanks for reminding me and making me depressed about the state of human intelligence, Kavernacle!
Pedia..so ANYONE can add pedia and it makes it a reliable source?Wikipedia is bullshit
I'm sorry for your sadness, but if it makes you feel better your comment made me laugh. Thank you.
It's been around for about a decade. I remember the atheist community of the era making fun of it.
RationalWiki's extensive documentation survives to this day, the internal politics of conservativapedia and it's sysops still are legendary. Are they real people or just "undercover" liberal trolls?
That was how I became acquainted with it.
@General Sci Guess you missed the bit at 4:47 that said "established in 2006"? Or by "been around" you meant had been relatively visible online? 🤔
@@irrelevant_noob Congrats. You're right. You're always right. Have a cookie.
13:42 why yes Mao really hated all that "white privilige" he found in china in the mid 1960s amongst the Chinese Han elite.
The parallels between Han Supremacy in the way they treat other ethnic groups in China is disturbingly similar to White Supremacy.
They have a weird relationship with white people though, mostly some very justified resentment of the colonial period.
@@Justanotherconsumer Both are forms of Racism.
Duh, of course they're similar.
Unironically, this website made me an atheist. This is not a joke, this is my real conversion story.,
I was a christian back then when I stumbled onto conservapedia. These guys did what I claimed to do. They took the bible seriously. They didn't pick and choose like I did. However they were also massive bigots so I was forced into introspection. They were wrong about everything except the Jesus stuff so I was forced to examine if the stuff we shared was stuff that was true. There was no way this stopped clock was right even once. If I wanted to remain a christian, I had to become like them, which was a deeply repulsive idea.
I then found Rationalwiki, started reading it and within 2 weeks, I switched from praying christian to hard atheist.
If Andrew Schlaffly did 1 thing right, it was to help me lose my faith. I can't thank him enough for that.
How can you be a bigot and claim to be a Christian? Jesus literally said to love thy enemies, he frequently spend time with "sinners" without judging their life decisions.
It says twice in the bible to not sleep with another men (although some translation use boy instead of men which given the period makes more sense since pleasure boys were quite common among the elite) and I didn't count how often it said to love thy neighbor but its a lot more.
I have yet to meet a bigoted "Christian" who actually read the bible. (this is not to comment on your decision to become atheist that is entirely personal and not my business I just want to point out the hypocrisy of anyone trying to justify hate in the name of Christian beliefs which is unfortunately quite common)
@@lucagerulat307 Unfortunately the bible is jam packed full of bigotry, misogyny, racism, xenophobia etc... the Bible is an excellent crutch for those who want to be bigots and has been used to support and condone the vilest and most heinous of crimes and behaviours throughout history. Sure, it's got its good bits, but they're pretty much all cribbed from other writings and philosophies, so the bible itself is an irrelevant bunch of bronze age claptrap.
the right wing is bigotry and hate
The question is, were they even right about the Jesus stuff? Almost certainly not.
@@lucagerulat307 Religious people are not religious - why do you think they constantly try to outsmart their gods that supposedly knows everything?
There's another one called Rationalwiki that i've been involved with for several years now, and it basically is a snarky counter to right-wing and/or anti-science propaganda. They've had a bit of a running feud of sorts with Conservapedia and if memory serves, originally started specifically as a foil for Conservapedia.
Yeah, one of the Rationalwiki founders was having a fight with the breast cancer page in conservapedia where the conservatives insisted that "abortion causes breast cancer" and since they dont allowed the guy to change that he started his own.
These people legitimately think that Joseph Biden is a communist. We have a moral obligation to fleece these pigeons, somehow!
Nothing new. That faction has been calling everybody communist since the 1950's and following HItler's playbook this entire time. It is communist and socialist unless they want government benefits and social safety nets. It is communist and socialist if it doesn't involve licking the boots of their people. They themselves relish in the pride of being bootlickers, brown nosers, uneducated, and dimwitted. They see cowardice and spineless ignorance as a feature not a bug.
QAnon people are obsessed with him.
*Librarian here:* According to the results of studies on its reliability, Wikipedia is overall as reliable as a print encyclopedia. And when looking at specific topics, it can vary a little in reliability, from "roughly the same as a print encyclopedia" to "actually better". The "actually better" scores are due to the fact that it can be updated immediately to account for new discoveries or events, whereas a print equivalent takes a while to update.
yup.
Oh yeah. Like the issue that I had with print articles and print encyclopedias is that they just never updated stuff. Like my grandma had a ton of encyclopedias from like 1982 in her house, and the section they had on penguins was the exact same as the section on penguins in their 2012 version, they just added an extra paragraph about ecological concerns.
Wikipedia is incredibly biased towards the west, case in point, it's views on NATO, Ukraine, Russia, China etc.
Wikipedia being unreliable is a holdover from the humble beginnings when you could reasonably make that argument to some extend... also because teachers and university professors kept saying it. But depending on the topic it is very difficult to slip misinformation and lies into an article. Imagine editing the wikipedia article of Franco to be more in line of what is written on conservapedia. Well, first hurdle would probably even being allowed to edit the article, since Wikipedia did the smart thing and no longer allows everyone to edit every article. But let's say you are one of the trusted Wikipedia editors allowed to edit that article. It wouldn't take long for the other editors to see what you edit, since Wikipedia keeps very accurate records of every edit made, and undo those changes, possibly even revoking your editing privileges to that article. That is if Wikipedia even allows your edits to go online instantly, I'm not sure but I can imagine any edit to these articles need to be approved first before they are applied.
But most importantly: Wikipedia cites sources. Every article is basically a group essay on the subject and the more of interest that essay is, like who Franco was, the higher the chance of it being reliable and accurate with plenty of sources to back it up. If you want to put falsehoods on Wikipedia you'd have to edit some minor crap like the history of a statue in your small rural town in Arkansas or whatever. Or just straight up create a new article about something that may or may not exist. The former will probably be edited some time soon by someone who knows better, the latter will probably be removed shortly for being outright nonexistant or at the very least not warranting an article on Wikipedia. Like if I made a Wikipedia entry on the dog my parents had when I was a child then that's not gonna stay up for long as that is not only not interesting enough for the public, but also contains alot of unverifyable information since the only people who could fact check that are members of my family, friends who met the dog and neighbors.
Conservapedia on the other hand is what Wikipedia is said to have been when it started. Totally unreliable.
@@blackm4niac _Exactly._ Very eloquently put.
“Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire
These conservatives are dangerous despite their absurdity.
*because of
Times when you should ask "am I in a cult?": when you have your own encyclopedia.
Wouldn't that mean every fandom of every tv show is a cult...?
@@lavitorroja2632 Arent they?
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 it isn't an encyclopedia, it's a database of knowledge. The terraria wiki isn't radicalising someone, unless knowing the recipe for the shell phone is radically dangerous
@@cewla3348 My dude i am joking.
@@lavitorroja2632 The term “Cult Fandom” does exist.
The fact that they insist on dying on the evolution hill is hilarious to me considering how evolution is so well supported that the theory is even supported by unrelated fields like economics
Like, teeeechnically it CAN potentially be proven wrong (it wouldn't be scientific if it couldn't), but the evidence supporting it is so wholly and overwhelmingly expansive and solid that the odds of it being proven false are astronomically tiny, and gets tinier with every new supporting evidence. And that's not even going into how Tiktaalik couldn't have been found if what we think we know was way off the mark.
That's why they die on the hill. Because evolution is so well supported, but also directly contradicts their holy text: If evolution is accepted, at least one book of the old testament needs to go. You can try to reconcile by saying that it wasn't literal, but even that undermines the whole text. If there was never an Adam and Eve, if the text is just a story, then how can you be sure there was ever a Noah? A tower of Babel? A Moses? Even a Jesus? Either the whole bible must be accepted as infallible, or else none of it can be trusted.
From their perspective, evolution is the crack in the foundations of their religion - if it isn't defeated, the whole theology comes tumbling down. Not right away, but in time - the Christians who teach that the bible is only sometimes-right bring up Christians who never read it at all, who bring up outright atheists.
How economics prove evolution?
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 I mean, technically the use of currency is the result of evolution.
Benefit being that if a group of creatures aka we humans, see value in this. It allows us to instead of carrying around massive trading stocks like meat or wool. To just carry coins instead, wich are lighter and easier to transport and easier to trade for food when needed.
@@AdaTheWatcher Thank you
"Conservapedia: The Trusworthy Encyclopedia"
The typo is intentional, by the way. If you've read the Rational Wiki article on Conservapedia, you know what I mean.
A podcast called "Qanon Anonymous" did an episode on Conservapedia, and the first article the hosts randomly picked was the "Tuba" page. They read aloud that a tuba was "a large brass instrument with 3-5 values." I was wondering if the hosts misread "valves", but no, Conservapedia writers don't even know that a tuba has valves. Probably some dope trusting the autocomplete function of their editing software? 😂
So wikipedia is edited by the unemployed but we are meant to believe a person with a full time job had the time to make an entire alternate version? Ok.
"Wikipedia has a left wing bias"
Ah yes, in that it shows deference to reality & facts?
Exactly. Wikipedia may have a left wing bias, but so does reality.
@@iExploder it does not. only a liberal would say a thing like that.
I first learned about Conservapedia years ago while reading articles from the Wikipedia parody Uncyclopedia. So at first I assumed Conservapedia was just another Wikipedia parody written as if the authors were Fox News viewers. I was surprised when I learned Conservapedia’s founder was actually sincere in his beliefs. Poe’s Law strikes again.
as an american ex-conservative myself, I was raised in a very religious-nationalist community where I didn't really follow politics much but I heard all about the evil things the democratic party did (which was a mixed bag of legitimate critiques and conspiracy nonsense). Some time later I got curious why all the most educated people I knew were more left leaning and started digging in and basically changed my political beliefs based on a massive collection of single issue research and basically reject association with either major party.
I genuinely believe people can be un-brainwashed as long as they're open to the idea that "we should do the most efficient thing regardless of which political party is promoting it" and the tag line of "effective politics is identifying the positive ideas the other side is promoting and letting them through, but blocking the destructive ones" which inherently pushes people towards a per-issue research cycle.
A great place to look for having some of these conversations is Steven Hassan's cult deprogramming work. I've read "releasing the bonds" but he's written a lot more on the subject since then and has a podcast if you're looking for an easier free way to check out his work.
The strangest thing I've found on conservapedia is that (last time I checked), clicking on the "random article" button will only ever bring you to the article on placentas.
That is just so, so deeply strange
It's a different one now but yeah it doesn't change how ever many times u press it. I think they just don't know how to implement a random number generator.
The fact that they had Judge Dredd on there, and didn't realize it was always meant to be satirical. Shows that life is a living "The Onion" meme or simply nottheonion -- "Too stupid to real, yet actually happens."
I've know about it since 2017 when I found a link to it on /pol/ when I was still a Nazbol smoothbrain
The horrendous stupidity of the site did help me break out of the schizo pipeline though
Imagine the probability of that ever happen in the future after they finish their sabotage of public education system.
I remember hearing the term Nazbol everywhere back then.
And the fun thing about Conservapedia is, when people were trying to fact-check and correct their articles, they were banned. These people then found RationalWiki as an answer to Conservapedia.^^
the chad rationalwiki.
finally, a king i can respect
“Conservative reality” is the most “alternative facts”-sounding thing I’ve heard in a long time
Congrats on 100k, your majesty 👑👑👑
I just checked Schlaffly's (AKA "ashmoo") wikipedia edits on that article and it's obvious that he's the one who wanted to inject his own bias into it.
It's written like a 12th grader who's barely getting by in u.s history
Who was raised by super conservative parents and never questioned them.
I've seen Conservapedia. The funniest-saddest thing about them, for me (someone who has actually been different shades of Christian during points in my life) is their Conservative Bible Project. It's re-writing the Bible to have a more conservative lean! It's not even like how other Bible translations come to be - with people delving into original languages and scholarship to try to go "more accurate" or even putting stuff into more modern language and reworked sentences to be "easy reader." They straight up took from English-language Bibles (King James and NIV, notoriously wonky on translation to begin with) and nixed passages and re-wrote stuff because they thought all that giving to the poor and blessed are the poor stuff was Jesus being "too socialist."
It's like the Lol Cat Bible taken 100-percent seriously and without the fun!
And as someone who's actually read the Bible (admittedly, the NIV version, Protestant), I do have to wonder about Schafly's immortal soul here because the Bible expressly forbids "adding or taking away from this book" (Granted, that applied only to the Book of Revelation, but I'm certain the dip has edited that to Hell and back, too).
What is the deal with King James?
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 king James had some alternative motives then just trying to make a more accurate translation of the bible.
Like the word "tyrant" is suspiciously absent from his version of the bible.
@@lordcthulhu8472 hhahahaha
5:45 That picture of the guy running Conservapædia gives off major pedo-vibes.
Well, I wholeheartedly agree but... Just the fact that he's running Conservapedia gives off major pedo vibrs
Well, Matt gaetz and matt schlep Ali Alexander epstien loser trump. And le grande Lindsay the young boys Graham
@@KuLaydMahn I’m sure he’d identify as an ephebophile.
100k, 100k, 100K, 100K 100K!!!!!
Keep it up big man, proud of you!
I love listening to this channel while I play poly bridge 2, congrats on 100K! You deserve it man =)
Franco was NOT a friend to Catholicism - just to its values, which he tried to co-opt as his own. Meanwhile, he had Catholic priests who supported Basque separatism executed.
The pope congratulated him after taking madrid
Franco explicitly courted the support of the Catholic hierarchy- it's difficult to believe anyone could think otherwise, unless they had an ideological reason for such a position. Like, he went out of his way to do it, exaggerating and/or entirely inventing atrocities committed by Republicans against nuns, priests and Catholic churches and spinning his Reactionary treason as a new Reconquista, the Nationalists even being honoured as Crusaders by the Bishop of Salamanca. Catholic militias like the Carlists also endorsed and took part in the Nationalist war effort, as did some international Catholic organisations such as the Irish Christian Front. Res ipsa loquitur.
It hardly needs to be said that Catholicism is now, and always has been, very happy to do business with any and all of history's greatest monsters who are willing to indulge a privileged position for the Church.
Catholicism was a friend to Franco, though.
@@Justanotherconsumer The Spanish people have often been considered the most fervently Catholic people in history. In fact, it would be more accurate to say they EXPLOITED Catholicism more than any other people in history. (To be fair, there have been other fanatically Catholic nationalities, such as the French prior to the Revolution, but I'd say the Spaniards did more than anyone else to further both anti-Protestantism and anti-Semitism, by means of the Inquisition.) Many Spaniards felt that they - not Rome - were the center of Catholicism, and often simply ignored the rulings of the Pope, although ironically in his name. I would consider Franco, Queen Isabella, and certain other Spaniards to be more akin to Judge Frollo figures within the Church. Finally, it's very telling that the most devoutly Catholic ethnic group within Spain, the Basques, opposed Franco.
@@redbepis4600 Only because he was afraid of communism. Not because he approved of Franco as a person.
Best part of wikipedia is the math pages are bitchin'
I used them frequently when I was in multi variable calc, linear algebra, and differential/partial differential equations in college
What do you mean the math pages are bitching?
From their page on Video Games:
Video games, even ones exported to Russia, increasingly promote the homosexual agenda contrary to the policy of Russia and elsewhere. 😂
Daaaamn. Phyllis Schaffley was an OD. (original devil). Glad to see her son is carrying on the art of being horrible
he's less useful........he doesn't have a gr@v3 to use the bathroom on unlike phyllis.
Well done on 100k. You've worked hard for it mate!
Glory to Mao and his cancel culture route through America🇨🇳
wow moa
He will cancel all the landlords from People's TikTok
wow_mao
Conservapedia now links to your comment as a source!
I was on Conservapedia when it first launched, I visited it every day for weeks and weeks and weeks. It would leave me in hysterical laughter. Early on there was a particular article that was bizarre, insane ridiculousness. Conservapedians thought it was the left wing trying to ridicule and make them look stupid so removed it.
Turns out it was written by a real Conservative and he was furiously outraged. It triggered a mini civil war where he and others were accusing the site of censoring conservative views, went on for a while. After it had calmed down, other socialists had gotten wind of the site and started writing hilarious satirical articles. The Conservatives after the civil war were terrified of accusing them of being left wing, not wanting a second war.
The whole site went into complete turmoil. It was Poe's law, Poe's law EVERYWHERE. The conservatives had no idea what was a real conservative view or satire, they were in complete panic.
I can not tell you how much I laughed during the whole saga, it was utterly glorious.
I say you got a steel brain to go through this BS site
@@cloudycolacorp thank you or deal with it? I don't know what to say
@@cloudycolacorp oh lol no my apologies, i felt I came off rude friend, it is okay
With wikipedia there's the image they keep (volunteers, even stuff they disagree with, etc) and then there's actual wikipedia (edit wars, propaganda, community mods abusing power, etc). I know about it cause I've done edits in the past which contained errors, then me fixing those errors was prevented by moderators in a targeted fashion. We've also had stuff like reports on a network of Polish nazis deliberately editing & moderating wiki articles to push a Polish-nationalist narrative on a host of topics including things where it obviously was noticed, like topics regarding non-Poles within the area that Poland nowadays occupies (which is often various topics about Germans that they edited to push a Polish-nazi narrative on).
Their movie pages are comic gold! Some of their "great conservative movies" completely miss the plot.
I love how the cancel culture page has a picture of Nicki Minaj on it. Better not let the barbz see, or Schafly will find out how dedicated members of the Chun Li Communist Party can be
Congrats on 100K. You're a righteous guy, its pretty cathartic to listen to you process this bizarre zeitgeist
13:24 “replaced tradtional Chinese culture with … loyalty to the state.” Is such a fucking hilarious line if you know anything about that traditional Chinese culture because like loyalty to the state was absolutely central in it, I mean China has been an empire for 5000 years.
7:24 The projection in this Conservapedia article is incredible. Literally every sentence is some form of projection.
I find it funny that it states that Wikipedia can be openly edited and then has to come up with a reason why something that can be changed by anyone can have a bias 🤣
Well done mate...good content gets rewarded
7:48 the best part is that if you check the source, it's an article about Sanger forking Wikipedia (from 2006) and there's not even a source backing the claim that wikipedia editors are mostly "teenagers and the unemployed" so... someone (Sanger himself?) used an article about himself to describe the demographics of editors of wikipedia.
This thing literally reads like a parody site. It's insane.
They also are leading a bizarre lone crusade against *the theory of relativity*.
What's next Gravity?
The current Conservapedia entry on Special Relativity seems to be pretty neutral, though, except for one sentence: "However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory." Search "rationalwiki conservapedian relativity" for the history.
Congrats on hitting the 100k mark! I've been following for a while and while I do disagree on some points I always appreciate your perspective!
Congrats on 100K! Now when do we get to watch you eat all those chocolate oranges?
Edit: Which reflects more poorly on society, Conservapedia, or Encyclopedia Dramatica?
RIP Kavernacle's pancreas.
Conservapedia probably has more slurs on it
I've known about Conservapedia for almost as long as it's existed. I dont remember how I learned about them but I quickly became a regular reader of RationalWiki, which was started to counter Conservapedia and would have articles about what they were up to, the grearest of these being their coverage of Andrew Schlafly's attempt to discredit the Lenski e-coli study.
The Conservative Reddit is also a total "safe space" as in only Conservatives can comment, total echo chamber.
Wow, they've unironically created a hilarious satire. The Onion couldn't come up with this.
... could we start posting pure fantasy on there? Like, could we start uploading pages about our homebrew dnd settings? Feels like a good place for fantasy.
Only if its a very conservative setting. Thayans did nothing wrong.
thank you so much for posting content and thank you for your channel! ❤
I think the biggest thing when you're trying to help deprogram these people is looking at what's worked for people who have been successfully deprogrammed. Something I've seen several people mention is the eventual realization that one side is fighting for everyone's rights, and one side is fighting to take people's rights away. This involves calmly and cheerfully responding to conservatives in comments sections and firmly but kindly stating your position and your goals. You will not change the mind of anyone dropping in to argue with you, but the people who read the argument and don't respond and making their minds up quietly.
"From the dystopian monarchy of the United Kingdom" 🤣 Way to the go with 100K! 👍
One thing that is funny about the Conservapedia text in this video is how VERY opinionated it is. It doesn't even sound like it could be research. "She is a personification of the failures of the public school system" is not something you can source.
That's honestly the thing that took me the furthest aback. It's not even the bizarre alt reality nonsense being espoused, I'm used to that by now. It's just how incredibly opinionated and obviously biased the language used is. Like, there is nothing like Conservapedia that really displays how empty conservative accusations of "bias" and "favoritism" really are.
I remember I subbed to you when you were at less than 20k. This is such a milestone, it’s great to see it!!!
I learned of that lame wiki through RationalWiki, which in contrast opened a whole world to me and helped me in formulating better my argumentd whenever I have to reply back or debunk a bigot or a conspiracy theorist.
That's how I learned of Conservapedia too.
RationalWiki was made in response to Conservipedia
I never even knew this existed until I got this video recommended.
Congrats on 100k! Keep growing and learning and sharing. Stay humble. Thanks!
"Conservative reality" is my new favorite oxymoron
i dont get headaches often, but after reading some pages on there, my head is genuinely throbbing in pain and i am not exaggerating
They do live in an alternate reality, I'm not surprised
It's almost impressive how flimsy that accusation of racism was, like, how else are you supposed to react to someone who works for project veritas?
j/ i think the "wikipedia bad" thing was just a psyop made by libraries that were mad that people weren't renewing library cards anymore. /j
i always used wikipedia as a base for both school and personal research and no one ever got disappointed. you could argue about the first years of its existence being a little more chaotic and way less moderated, but straight up keeping the "wikipedia bad" stance even today is just dumb imho
I've known about Conservapedia since about 2008, back when it was first starting up. Even then it was widely ridiculed and made fun of.
It's funny when people periodically discover Conservapedia. Used to read through the wackier articles for a Vent group years back. We were big fans of the triceratops = biblical unicorn theory.
It's a gift that keeps on giving.
good to see you reach 100k, been here since like 20 or 30k
This is basically just a venting space for upset conservatives.
I’m conservative, but Conservapedia is for typical, idiotic creationist, anti-science, Jew-worshipping American conservatives.
I love how people only just seem to be discovering this site. I've known about it for around 10 years and even used it as an example of a biased media source for a class in my senior year in 2015.
I'm an ex-catholic atheist, and I'm quite familiar with National Catholicism, Franco's ideology. It's just another flavor of Fascism.
Oh look, the Neonazis are Neonazis. Gasp
You want Neonazis? Look at Metapedia.
I had almost completely forgotten about that site until seeing your video on my home page
Conservapedia: "Franco was not fascist, he was (lists elements of fascism)"
I remember running into Conservapedia and its hilarious archenemy Rational Wiki when gay marriage was still debated in the United States. Rational Wiki is fun for snark about the right wing, especially their articles on Andrew Schlaffly and Best of Conservapedia
It's funny how you can recognise different propaganda by the writing style. Russian propaganda throws in emotional adjectives (illegal, unfounded etc) and American propaganda uses weasel words with liberal use of the passive tense (it is believed, it has been said). Both of these are taken as given rather than backed with any facts.
Well done I joined you when you were at 16.000 roughly! You've come a long way!
You'd think with the resources that must be available to him Andrew would have been able to find a photo that doesn't give off the serial killer vibe quite so strongly
I’ve never heard the origin story. I thought this was as abstract to them as it sounds to us but they really went full crazy.
Hey dude, congratulations on reaching 100k subscribers, great channel, appreciate your work
Another terrifying aspect is that they really can’t seem to care past any accusation (which may explain why every accusation is a confession for them)
They have full, total editorial control over this website, and yet they don’t edit out AOC only acting the way she does after the guy mentions he’s from Project Veritas which destroys their entire point. They could’ve easily said “a black guy wanted a picture and she pushed him away” but they went with the actual story, and it was still pointless. They’re so enamoured by their world view that even under scrutiny by their own sources they still believe in it
aren't churches the original 'safe space,' on paper anyway
On paper. It certainly wasn't true when the nazis pushed entire village into them and set the churches on fire. As when they burned and murdered the village of Lidice for the killing of Reinhard Heydrich