Fright Right

After my discovery of Conservapedia (I know it's been around for a while, but it was new to me) yesterday, I've spent a few enjoyable hours exploring the site. I've gasped in astonishment, I've laughed with delight, and I've marveled at some of the unintentionally funny entries on various topics. It struck me as if the sites of Landover Baptist, The Onion, and America's Best Christian, Betty Bowers, were all rolled into one. And the best thing about it is that they really aren't trying to be funny!

Before I get deeper into this, let me reiterate that I don't hate conservatives. I have several in my family, and I love them dearly, although we disagree on a lot of things. That's okay. It's a big world, and finding common ground is important. I am highly bothered, however, by the distortion and ignoring of facts, especially in the field of science. What can I say? That is what I studied, so that is what I tend to focus on.

As I was exploring the site, I came across some random things that I really enjoyed, and a search for hot button topics turned up some other intriguing nuggets...like the entry on Barack Hussein Obama, which opens with the statement that he was "allegedly" born in Hawaii. Haha! I'm going to share a few with you, and don't be surprised if this becomes a running feature here. Some of this stuff is just way too much fun to not write about! I also noticed that access was sporadic at best; the site seems to crash frequently and with regularity. As I wrote on Facebook, if Conservapedia wants to reach the heathen liberals, it had best be getting some better servers!

One of my favorites popped up when I was checking random pages:

Waitress: A waitress is the female eqiuivalent [sic] of a waiter. Some extreme feminists and Liberals seeking to alter language and police thought wish to refer to both male and female table attendants in restaurants as waiters, as an expression of their desire to wipe all out distinctions between male and female. Some have even coined the "word" waitron to show their abhorrence of gender distinction!

The term server is now used as a "gender-neutral" term, though ironically this word derives from the gendered Latin servitor (masculine). The feminine term in Latin is servitrix.

Well, to be technically correct (which Conservapedia doesn't seem overly concerned with), it comes from the Latin root servire, which means to serve. As with many languages, there are different forms denoting gender, and in some languages, like German, nouns have gender, which is indicated by the article used before it: der Mann, die Frau, das Buch. What cracked me up about this was the fact that whoever wrote that entry seemed morally outraged that Liberals (note the capital L) seem poised to wipe out the distinction between genders! And then there's "waitron." Seriously? Have any of you ever heard one single person say, "Oh waitron...could I get a glass of water, please?" Where do they come up with this stuff? I posted this on Facebook, and some of the comments were hilarious, including words like vagenus, vagitron, and skank. Nicely done, Commenters!

Then there was the entry on "liberal style." (The picture above, of a “socialist brain,” actually appeared on the Conservapedia site. While captioned as a satiric representation, it seemed a little out of place on a site that purports to be an encyclopedic reference.) I'd like to think I have a sense of style, but the Conservapedia take on it seemed to be more about behavior than style. It was a lengthy list of infractions, so I'll pick and choose some of my favorites of the liberal style characteristics, with my commentary in red:

• A never-ending need for attention (e.g., Hollywood types and politicians Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
  • Yes, those Hollywood types...can you believe they want attention? You'd think that they thrive on publicity or something. ::rolling eyes::
• A high word-to-substance ratio, as in using many words to say little of substance (e.g., Obama and the 90/10 rule here)
  • There's that wordiness again. Should we start leaving out adjectives, prepositions, what have you? Would that help?
• Feign offense as a way to silence criticism, or censor prayer and conservative viewpoints (e.g., ACLU)
  • Yes, every complaint levied uses feigned criticism; that's where the Hollywood types come in...ACTING!
• Pretend to know more than he does; Isaac Newton admitted that he knew almost nothing, yet a liberal pretends to know much (e.g., Al Gore)
  • I object to the use of "he" in this! This is gender specific, and I am feigning deep offense! Hey, was Sir Isaac a conservative?
• Demands answers to questions, but after receiving answers then the liberal himself tries to avoid answering similar questions
  • We're sneaky that way, in demanding answers.
• Refuses to admit the truth in debate, even if a conservative compromises in a conciliatory manner
  • Sometimes there is no compromise. Sorry.
• Like to use the phrase "reflects poorly on the site" when talking about the liberal articles on Conservapedia
  • Considering that I only learned of this site yesterday, I don't think you're all that high on our radar, Conservapedia. This seems rather self-serving.
• A lack of originality and a predominance of copying and imitating
  • Huh?
• Call something disliked a "conspiracy theory," but don't use that term against wacky liberal theories like global warming
  • Oh, that wacky global warming!
• Respond with "sigh" when presented with repeated examples of harm caused by liberal culture, yet persist in denying the harm despite overwhelming evidence
  • ::sigh:: (How could I resist?)
• Thinking in terms of what someone likes or doesn't like, or has or doesn't have, or belongs or doesn't belong
  • Again, I say Huh? Setting aside the twisted grammar...isn't that kind of how you think in order to determine if there is a problem? I.e., 45 million Americans don't have health care; I don't like it; and such a travesty does not belong in our country, so let's see what we can do to fix that. Is that what they're talking about here?
• Insistence on talking more and having the last word in a discussion or debate, or last wordism
  • Nuh-uh.
• An obsession with and exaggeration of artificial scarcity, such as wealth, rather than focusing on creating more
  • "Artificial" scarcity? I wonder what the roughly 13% of the US population, over 39 million people, who are living in poverty would have to say about that "artificial" scarcity?
• Calling conservative free speech "hate" speech
  • Only when it's hateful.
• Preference for obscenity and profanity
  • Fuck, yeah!
• Over-reliance on mockery
  • You mean like this entry? Fair enough.
• Believing that conservatives will fail, and refusing to accept when they succeed, as when George W. Bush won in 2000
  • And then proceeded to fail for the next eight years.
• Using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people's emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason
  • I think this is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard! I am deeply offended, and I don't know how I can go on.
• Often long-winded and verbose, and in debates liberals often consume more than their fair share of the alloted [sic] time, leaving less time for the other side
  • I think we've addressed this already. Why do you keep bringing it up?
• Dismissing legitimate criticism as "a joke"
  • Hey, I can't help it that some of this makes me laugh.
• Denying something widely known to be true but difficult to prove, such as observing that men are far more likely to work in gas stations than women.
  • ...Wha...? See the item above.
• Using non sequiturs in argument, such as responding to the point [snip] that liberals over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy by citing an example of conservatives' observing liberal hypocrisy. But their example does not help their argument. Quite the contrary, use of that example tends to prove that liberals do over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy (relativism). Think about that.
  • Okay, I will....
  • I'm done. Now what?
• Inability or unwillingness to differentiate between genuine conservative arguments and parodies of conservative arguments
  • Um...I'm not among the group who thinks that Stephen Colbert really is a conservative. Just sayin'.

I think my absolute favorite thing, though, was the Lenski Dialogue. This was my favorite because it dealt with Microbiology. Professor Richard Lenski and his associates conducted a 20-year study on mutations in the E. coli bacterium. You read that right—20 years of research on a single project. When Lenski posted it on Conservapedia, Andy Schlafly questioned his data (despite having no training in Microbiology) and an exchange of letters ensued. (Lenski's research proved a significant mutation in the bacterium, which has definite implications on evolution, something to which Schlafly gives no credence.) To give Conservapedia credit, they have also posted the four letters that were exchanged; the Wikipedia article provides background and further discussion of the incident. If you read nothing else, at least read the letters. Dr. Lenski's letter is one of the single best scientific smackdowns I think I've ever seen—and I am not being hyperbolic.

What bothers me most about this Conservapedia site is that it doesn't even pretend to be comprehensive or rational in its entries. A respected professor with years of research experience is subjected to the rather rude questioning of someone (Schlafly) whose self-listed qualifications include "teacher of pre-college students." Would that be high school? Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it does not constitute the qualifications or knowledge necessary to interpret complex laboratory data and methods.

Conservapedia is only marginally about facts. It is primarily about political ideology…an encyclopedia in sheep's clothing.

Stay tuned for more entries about fascinating things like waitrons.

Yea verily, time for a rewrite

I posted a story about this on Facebook earlier today, and now I'm seeing more "buzz" about the project, so it's definitely blogworthy. Besides, I find it funny.

Did you know that there is a conservative alternative (a conservaternative?) to Wikipedia? That's right, Conservapedia was founded in 2006 by Andy Schlafly, AKA Son of Phyllis (she who is known as the Great Slayer of the Equal Rights Amendment, effectively shooting herself in the foot), because he felt that Wikipedia showed a "liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias." I look forward to spending a little more time at Conservapedia and seeing their interesting interpretations of history and the world around us. I really wish there will be an entry about dinosaur wranglin', but I hate to get my hopes up.

Here's the deal. The folks at Conservapedia have decided to work on a new, conservative interpretation of the bible, because they feel that it's just too goldarn liberal. This Conservative Bible Project calls for a new translation using the following guidelines. (I was only going to pick a few, but they're just all too good—I can't leave any of them out!) Open up the good book and let that conservative light shine!

• Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
• Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
• Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
• Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
• Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
• Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
• Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
• Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
• Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
• Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Some of my favorite parts are how they want to dump "gender exclusive" language--way to carry on the fine tradition of your mom's self-directed misogyny, Andy! Then there's getting rid of outdated terms like "peace," and we have got to stop using nasty words like "comrade" and "laborer" and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") because such “socialistic” words "improperly encourages the 'social justice' movement among Christians." *gasp* NO! Social justice must be stopped! Oh, and let's see...let's ditch the adulteress story, because that whole "let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone" crap has gotten waaaay too many of us in trouble lately! And let's be sure to put in stuff about the Free Market—in parable form, of course—to show that Jesus would have been against the stimulus package. Then there's the "liberal wordiness" to contend with.

Okay, I'll cop to that last one.

[gales of laughter] Oh. My. God. The more I read about this, the funnier it gets. I have to laugh about it, otherwise the sheer arrogance of these people in thinking that it is in any way appropriate to put their own conservative political spin on the bible might just make my head explode. Granted, human bias has shaped the bible ever since the first scribes started writing stuff down. It's impossible for even the best journalist or reporter to completely keep their own biases out of a story, and I'd say that's been happening since the beginning of reporters, including those who "reported" on events in the bible. Subsequent translations would include further biases. But to try to parse it in political terms like liberal and conservative is just the height of idiocy and arrogance to me.

Hey, Andy Schlafly, what would Jesus do? I bet he'd call you an asshole, tell you to mind your own business, and advise you strongly to stop politicizing his message of love and compassion to all.

At least that's my wordy liberal take on it.