Conservapedia

Conservapedia: Most Books are “Liberal Claptrap”

One of the greatest things I’ve ever seen them post:

Nearly 250,000 people will soon be without a single bookstore, as the last one is closing in Laredo, Texas. [31] Most books (other than the Bible) are liberal claptrap anyway, so this is probably good news.

For those not familiar with wikiformatting from the permalink above, I can translate. The paragraph was added by Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis, the latter a hero of the conservative movement. And apparently an enemy of the written word.

Speaking of Phyllis Schlafly…

…and fundamentalist-inspired misogyny, the Republican Party’s inexplicable hatred of independent women continues apace. While we’re on the subject, don’t miss her son’s take on feminism:

Specifically, a modern feminist tends to:

• shirk traditional gender activities, like baking [. . .]
• prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do [. . .]
• object to being addressed as “ma’am,” or feminine nicknames such as “sweetheart” or “honey”; object to other female-only names, such as “temptress.”

Imagine!

Conservapedia’s Affair with Literalism Continues

Last Friday, Obama mocked congressional Republicans for characterizing his “pretty centrist” healthcare plan as some kind of “Bolshevik plot,” explaining that such scorched-earth argumentation leaves Republicans with little to no room to maneuver, and in fact demonstrates the party’s bad faith. Watch:

Clever, hard-hitting, and long overdue. But from the minute Obama said the word “Bolshevik,” this reaction from far-right outlets was unavoidable:

Conservapedia has never been one for metaphor or literary devices. A respect for context, and a willingness to look for meaning beyond the literal, is too much to ask from young-earth creationists.

Copyright Threats from Creationists: Nothing New

Several years ago, friend-of-the-site RationalWiki posted a stunningly thorough side-by-side refutation of a Conservapedia article on creationism. Conservapedia, naturally, could offer no argument in defense, but happily threatened the site with a copyright suit, because if you can’t beat ‘em, sue ‘em, “fair use” notwithstanding.

Now, history is set to repeat itself. Another RationalWiki user has posted a thorough, well-sourced, compelling refutation of William Dembski’s latest attempt to ground creationism in science, and rather than engage in a debate on the merits, Dembski himself is now threatening to sue.

By means of background, Dembski is not a lawyer. But it’s common knowledge that U.S. copyright law explicitly preserves the right to excerpt a work, even substantially, for comment and criticism. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. Dembski’s complaint against RationalWiki is so wrong that no lawyer would take it; and if they did, they’d be laughed out of court. But it’s still further proof that (1) creationists can only protect their views by censorship and, (2) they’re willing to ignore established law when convenient, be it the Establishment Clause or federal copyright statutes.

Disappointing to be sure, but not surprising. Though the Bible may not be much for science, it does have some good insights on human nature. And as the author of Ecclesiastes would’ve put it, “there is nothing new under the sun” (1:9-14).

The Marxist Impulse in Conservative Polemic: “Liberal Fascists”

Jonah Goldberg, the man famous for redrawing the political spectrum to equate “liberals” with Nazis, shares an important trait with Conservapedia — a passion for historical revisionism. For both, the war against liberalism is a quest that spans the epochs. There were Jewish liberals in ancient Jerusalem, eager to kill the Son of God; and there were German liberals in the Weimar Republic, eager to kill the Jews. What a difference a few millenia makes!

Curiously, this need to remake all of history to demonize one’s foes is not conservative — it’s Marxist. Politicians have manipulated history for millenia to aggrandize themselves, but it was Marx who first took that impulse to its extreme, in framing his epochal struggle between workers and merchants. How curious that expansive revisionism now undergirds the modern right-wing fringe.

Conservapedia Rewriting the Bible

Really. It makes too much sense, doesn’t it? The life of Jesus fairly read makes him look like anything from a social reformer to, in the Gospel of Thomas, a quasi-anarchist or, in the Acts of Paul & Thecla, a feminist. It was only a matter of time until conservatives ditched the substance of his theology, to embrace only the steady-state implications of institutional religion.

This in flagrant violation of Revelations 22:18 –

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.”

Of course, presumably that passage was added by liberals.

Thus the routinization of charisma has come full circle: Jesus challenged the status quo, Paul regularized his teachings, and with the passing of millenia, Christianity became the status quo. Now, conservatives would have Christianity used to roll back the clock — once the extirpation of its revolutionary roots is complete.

Whether mankind needs an intermediary on earth, between him and God, is a theological question. Historically, Protestants believe that mankind can speak directly to the divine, while Catholics require a church intermediary. Conservapedia’s approach appears to combine the worst of both worlds: the Bible is mutable, but the only authority is a fundamentalist website. No man comes to the kingdom — but through the Republican Party.

Metablogging Censorship: Is It Ever the Right Call?

As most common readers will know, this blog, normally a pleasant and fairly civil place, has seen a not-so-subtle deluge from birther hordes, on account of our few posts on Orly Taitz. Thankfully, it’s also brought in a lot of inoffensive readers, and some great commenters, too. Welcome!

Of course that leaves the question of what to do with the set of crazies. Screeching about birth certificates and other such nonsense is one thing, but wishing for public figures to die is another entirely, and no part of any civil discussion. I’ve never censored commenters (the farthest I’ve gone is disemvoweling a few persistent birthers), but this particular individual, and others like her, seem to push the limits of my commitment to free speech.

Although the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private actors, no-one should silence another lightly, even on the internet. You’ll notice that any blog that does censor comments for ideology alone quickly descends into an echo chamber, useless at best, and a breeding ground for disconnected extremists at the worst (RedState, Confluence, Conservapedia).

Still, with narrowly tailored rules, that worst-case scenario can be avoided. I’ll never spam or delete comments for their political content alone; never have, never will. But I will censor comments that fall outside the lines of First Amendment-protected speech, if any emerge (they have not), and I am open to censoring the comments of those who add nothing to the site, and instead make it a less pleasant place for other readers. I say “open” only, because I remain unsure of the best course to take. Your suggestions are welcome to break my mental deadlock.

On a more pleasant note, a big “thank you!!” to Mike C., for the e-mail I received, copied below: an excellent summation of the problem posed by some pundits. “You’re welcome” for the review, but much more, thank you for reading and taking the time to write.

My father gave me a copy of the book with a very heartfelt note saying how worried he was for me and his grandchildren with the direction the country is going.  He used similar terms as Mr. Beck to describe the current administration – elitist, intellectuals, etc.  It saddened me very much that a well educated and well traveled man in his late 70s could be drawn into this propaganda – but my father’s generation, I believe, is the foundation of Mr. Beck’s (and Limbaugh’s) audience.  They truly are the Greatest Generation, but also the most exploited – mainly for the undying desire to follow self-proclaimed “patriots”.

Your review [of Beck's book - Ed.] was insightful and mirrored my own feelings while reading the book – although I think I was far more horrified at the prospect of Americans buying into this viewpoint.   Now I just need to figure out how to gently tell my father what I think about the book – but most importantly to show the love and respect he deserves for writing the letter of concern for me and my children.

Thanks for providing common sense about something that lacks it completely.

Again, thank you for reading, Mike C., and thank you to all readers.

Where Conservapedia Went Wrong – From the Inside

Flash - Conservapedia is intolerable. Even for creationists & conservatives. Or so writes Philip J. Rayment, ex-administrator and Australian creationist, in his tell-most web memoir. There he documents the double standards, factual relativism, and bizarrely churlish behavior that have made Conservapedia not just a failure in its own right, but a macrosm of the failures of the American far-right. No governing philosophy so steeped in dogmatism can long survive, or retain its adherents.

To be sure, Philip is an imperfect hero in this little tale. While he’s rightly rejected an organization of theocrats and thugs, Philip is an unapologetic young-earth creationist, with presumably similar opinions on gay rights, etc., etc. But he differs from the organization he left, and indeed the majority of his fellow-travelers, in two significant ways: he has a decent respect for the rest of humanity, and a desire to debate rather than dictate. This, as they say, is not nothing. If opponents we must have, we should hope for such individuals.

Short Note: Last Vestige of Sanity Departs Conservapedia

Yesterday, Conservapedia lost its last claim to sanity when Philip J. Rayment, longtime administrator, resigned, saying only “enough is enough.” Philip was for some time the only administrator who even entertained the idea that non-fundamentalist Christians were human. For those of us who briefly had an account on Conservapedia back in the day, he was a pleasure to debate with, and always genial, especially to his opponents. This basic human decency bought him suspicion and contempt from Conservapedia’s more hardline elements – and thus his departure.

To be sure, Philip shares a few negative traits with those he leaves behind, notably, adherence to a narrow and exclusionary view of religion that threatens all of western civilization’s post-1700 gains. But his consistent composure, decency, respect, and genuine interest in debate should serve to remind us that just because we have such glaring differences with our ideological opponents doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t discuss them like adults.

Conservapedia Has a YouTube Channel!

Good news, everyone! Conservapedia, the “trusworthy” encyclopedia, now has its very own YouTube channel! Now you can look forward to more gems like this little wonder:

From Andy Schlafly comparing “liberals” to lynch mobs, to Conservapedians bragging about their site outpacing Rush Limbaugh’s (o rly?), this channel clearly promises to be the gift that keeps on giving. God willing, they’ll expand into Twitter, too…

Oh glorious day. Do what you must with this information.