![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
My attention has been brought to the existence of Conservapedia, and I wish so very much that it hadn't. Apparently in tonight's Colbert Report (damn you Australian delay in receiving fakenews...) contains a call to arms to edit Stephen into it. Is anyone surprised? Didn't think so.
Anyway, I heard about it, and immediately I knew I must not under any circumstance look at that site. Or I would lose my shit and not in a good way.
But...
the lunacy...
so tempting...
So I gave in. And after ten minutes I REGRET IT SO, SO MUCH. I mean, fuck. Seriously. There's a page entitled Atheism and Mass Murder , I shit you not, and the page on racism is 1/4 a definition of the word and 3/4 an attack on Keith Olbermann for 'incorrectly' calling Rush Limbaugh racist. And the page on Democrats contains some absolute gems like "A poll conducted by Fox News released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the United States were to lose the War in Iraq." and "White Democratic leaders --but not blacks or Latinos--consistently favor measures such as the establishment of same-sex civil unions".
Oh god. If I weren't so internet illiterate, I would be engaging in so much cybervandalism right now. I'm daydreaming about the things I'd write... although if we're honest, I'm so lazy even in my greatest righteous rage I'd probably only be bothered redirecting links to things like this.
Damn. It's so stupid I'm sort of ashamed I even care what it says.
no subject
on 2009-10-08 07:27 am (UTC)Seriously: editing The Bible? I love when Conservatism eats "its" (Jesus wasn't a Conservative) own young (this happens often).
no subject
on 2009-10-08 08:01 am (UTC)Of course there's a significant difference between this and the tradition-destroying, anti-american, ethically berefit 'modernising' of a a bible that must be taken literally word for word no matter how social norms have or how great the moral dissonance... this time it's conservatives doing it.
no subject
on 2009-10-08 02:47 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-10-08 11:10 pm (UTC)Yep, I feel your anger.
no subject
on 2009-10-08 07:49 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-10-08 11:01 pm (UTC)Absolutely. It can be just as annoying to have to talk to militant atheists... and they tend to be so smug... but gah, that sounds horrible. I don't think I could deal with that very well. I think I would be quite rude.
no subject
on 2009-10-09 12:29 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-10-09 12:37 am (UTC)Ha, yeah. Maybe your article was not conservative enough. Did it mention that
homosexualsdemocratsatheists are trying to forward the communist cause? A good dash of that always helps.no subject
on 2009-10-09 02:03 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-10-09 05:31 am (UTC):D Quality analysis, right there!
no subject
on 2009-10-09 05:33 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-10-09 05:37 am (UTC)It's very snoopy, and I approve wholeheartedly! I mean, come on. Lie and distrust are what every good relationship are built on, godammit!
... right?
no subject
on 2009-10-09 05:39 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-10-09 05:46 am (UTC)And I shall read them with delight. I can never get enough of that kinda stuff.
no subject
on 2009-10-09 05:01 am (UTC)God, people are such douchebags.
no subject
on 2009-10-09 05:42 am (UTC)Firstly: your icon is made of amazing brilliance.
Secondly: EXACTLY. WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THESE FUCKTARDS.
I will so join you in the consrvapedia destruction. Our next joint fic challenge: rewrite conservapedia with heavy doses of teh sarcasm. It'll be fun! :D
no subject
on 2009-10-09 05:51 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-10-09 06:09 am (UTC)What section do you believe deserve our illustrious attentions first? I'm up for vandalising the homosexuality page for as long as we can keep it up.
no subject
on 2009-10-09 06:21 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-10-09 06:26 am (UTC)Aces. I see we have plans. The difficulty now being to translate it into Stephenesque faux-conservospeak. History has a well known liberal bias, possibly?