If you've read this blog at all you may realize my politics are left of centre.
Okay, fine, I'm a dirty, dirty socialist. Are you happy now?
As a dirty, dirty socialist, I get a perverse thrill from reading extreme right-wing websites.
No, not Stormfront, that's just creepy, and I doubt I'll link to them again. Because they're just creepy.
I've been reading Conservapedia for some time, because, well, it's really funny.
Conservapedia is supposed to be a right-wing, socially conservative alternative to Wikipedia.
"Why?" I hear you ask.
Well, that's what I thought I heard you ask.
I'm sure you said it. My therapist told me the voices in my head had gone to Mexico to avoid Olympic crowds, so you must have said it.
Um, anyway, a guy named Andy Schlafly thinks Wikipedia has a left-wing bias.
Or, as Stephen Colbert would say, "reality has a left-wing bias".
Conservapedia would be brilliant satire, except that these people, unlike Colbert, believe what they're saying.
"It is difficult for widows to remarry because there are relatively few single men available beyond age 50. Only 8% of women who become widows between ages 55 and 64 remarry, and only 2% of women who become widows after age 64 remarry. Also, it becomes difficult to remain attractive as one grows older.Uh, I'm not sure what the conservative value presented is.
"But at a small conservative conference in early 2010, an informal survey found a remarriage rate of nearly 100% by the conservative widows in attendance."
Try this one on:
"Professor values refer to the common value system embraced by a large percentage of professors, just as Hollywood values refers to the common value system of many in Hollywood and the entertainment industry. Professor values are currently one of the most prevalent forms of liberal indoctrination."How about one more:
"Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro (allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the United States, and previously served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2005-2008)."For me it's like a car wreck, you just can't take your eyes off of it.
Then I came across this jem: "Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance".
The Conservapedian thrust of the article is socialist countries, like Canada, do poorly in Olympic competition because socialism does not allow for excellence.
The further implication, of course, is that beyond sport socialism doesn't allow or support excellence in any field, after all America is the best at everything and it's not socialist at all.
Not even a little bit.
There are a number of cogent arguments against, but they seem deliberately misunderstood, misconstrued or simply ignored.
Since you've read this far, let me let you in on a little secret (Yeah, I know, Internet.), I can't read Conservapedia any more.
The site is ridiculous (I know, I'm the pot calling the kettle black), Schlafly isn't intellectually curious or interested honest debate, and I can't read it any more waiting to see if he or any of the other Conservapedians will learn anything or concede any point when they are obviously wrong.
It was fun while it lasted, but I have a life to lead.
Maybe I'll start watching IRL.
Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance [Conservapedia]
Indy Racing League