Andrew Schlafly's Conservapedia - Right-wing parody of RationalWiki

  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Sailor Haumea, Syaoran Li, BestUserName and 6 others
dollarhuviya said:
I never heard about his anti-Semitic views or sympathy towards pedos like the RW cows I've seen have put forth.
Click to expand...

Whoa, I've never seen that at RW. But then I've mostly gone there to read the articles on conspiracy theorists and such. Those people are always amusing. (Chemtrails, birthers, truthers, moon-landing skeptics, Holocaust deniers, lizard-people, anti-vaxxers, etc)

Now METAPEDIA, that's freaky.
 
  • Agree
  • Dislike
Reactions: Sailor Haumea, Syaoran Li, Omegamage and 7 others
Mrs Paul said:
Whoa, I've never seen that at RW. But then I've mostly gone there to read the articles on conspiracy theorists and such. Those people are always amusing. (Chemtrails, birthers, truthers, moon-landing skeptics, Holocaust deniers, lizard-people, anti-vaxxers, etc)

Now METAPEDIA, that's freaky.
Click to expand...
Never been to Metapedia, what kind of sperging goes on there?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: fuehrer_dessler
fuehrer_dessler said:
It's cringier than their articles about science, religion or society??
Click to expand...

Probably not science, because that seems to be Assfly's weakest area. But it paints Anti-Feminism as purely a religious conservative hardliner stance, demonizing it way better than anything a feminist could have come up with to do that. Wingnuts sure are good at damaging their own causes, aren't they?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Syaoran Li, BestUserName, DadaistVizor and 3 others
Conservapedia also LOVES, and I mean that, to take anything normal people call 'good' and call it 'conservative'. For example, here are snippets I've lifted from the article "Greatest Conservative Movies"

conserva1.JPG

conservabeemovie.JPG


conserva2.JPG


And those are just the beginning...
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Francis E. Dec Esc., Syaoran Li, Army Burger and 10 others
AnOminous said:
All this being true, they chimp out less than RW. That should be the most humiliating thing in the lives of any RW sperg, that clowns like Assfly are less spergy and butthurt than they are.
Click to expand...

CP used to be a great source of sperg. Andy is pathologically unable to admit to being wrong, so you really just had to wind him up and point him in the general direction of something he could fight. The Lenski incident, which I consider to be Andy's magnum opus, was aided by undercover trolls who encouraged him to contact Lenski to question his work. This was one of those rare moments when we managed to bring Andy's insanity to a wider audience, as Lenski's slap down did the rounds of many otherwise unrelated blogs. His anti-relativity stance was also good. Despite being a trained engineer, he somehow conflated cultural relativism with Einstein's relativity, and simply couldn't back down once he had begun on that road. In short, RW was very much involved in trolling and doxxing.

Here's another great Andy moment. This is Andy, as counsel for some wing nut group, arguing for the recall of Senator Menendez


For context, a bunch of Tea Party nuts were unhappy with Menedez's support for healthcare reform (communism), decided to remove him. They attempted to recall him by using a state constitutional right to recall to recall a federal official. This doesn't work, but Andy's sure going to argue for it and will in return receive a lesson in history and constitutional law. It's not dissimilar to watching Sovereign Citizens or Orl Taitz argue in court. Enjoy a face palm at 3:24.

I'm editing because I remembered one of Conservapedia's finest: Ed Poor

Ed's a moonie, and a middle-aged man who does two things well:

1) Be creepy, particularly when young girls are concerned (also introduces himself as "Uncle Ed"

2) Shit stub articles and random categories

He's recently returned to editing Conservapedia, and here's a good demonstration of Ed's work: https://archive.is/cUfTq

Ed's idea of an article is a two liner which didn't even have categories until someone asked him to add them. His modus operandi has been to shit out stubs, with the expectation that others will come along to turn them in to something useful, and create bizarre categories that are more a window in to soul than a useful way of categorising articles. Some years back he created the category "Movies about football coaches with 11-year-old daughters". Despite claiming some expertise on the matter, and feeling qualified to request "writing assignments" from lesser editors in order to prove their fealty, he can happily spend a night churning out two-liner articles for whatever crosses his mind. It leads to a very random and very shitty collection of stubs.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Mrs Paul, Syaoran Li, BestUserName and 10 others
Feline Darkmage said:
Conservapedia also LOVES, and I mean that, to take anything normal people call 'good' and call it 'conservative'. For example, here are snippets I've lifted from the article "Greatest Conservative Movies"

View attachment 74040
View attachment 74041

View attachment 74042

And those are just the beginning...
Click to expand...

Some of these are a real stretch, not in the least because some these films are fucking terrible and it's totally down to the authors niche brand of conservatism and interpretation of film. The Wicker man entry really interested me because it implies the author hasn't seen the original 1973 classic which covers the themes of Paganism vs Christianity is a far more successful manner.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Syaoran Li, Gym Leader Elesa and Uncanny Valley
PantsOfDesire said:
For context, a bunch of Tea Party nuts were unhappy with Menedez's support for healthcare reform (communism), decided to remove him. They attempted to recall him by using a state constitutional right to recall to recall a federal official. This doesn't work, but Andy's sure going to argue for it and will in return receive a lesson in history and constitutional law. It's not dissimilar to watching Sovereign Citizens or Orl Taitz argue in court. Enjoy a face palm at 3:24.
Click to expand...

I'd forgotten that astoundingly stupid moment.

What's funny is these nuts claim to be gung-ho about the "Constitution," but the document they claim to worship is something that doesn't exist in reality. They appear to have a fanatical loathing of the actual Constitution, which is the sole source of the rules on how federal officials like Senators are elected and how they may be removed (through impeachment).

That these supposed constitutionalists would attempt to override the federal constitution's rules about federal elections by invoking state laws just shows both how little they know about the real U.S. Constitution and their actual contempt for its rules and its status as "the supreme law of the land," itself a quote they seem to love without apparently understanding it.

Still the guy has not been providing the lulz as of late, while RW has.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Sailor Haumea, Syaoran Li, BestUserName and 8 others
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Syaoran Li, Raging Capybara, fuehrer_dessler and 1 other person
  • Winner
Reactions: Syaoran Li, BestUserName and Jungle Princess
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back