Forum:There is no God...

Forums: Index > BHOP > There is no God...

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5885 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

So I was on Conservapedia vandalising when I came upon this a very gushing article about us, but just you look at this, low and behold we are more evil than a site which runs primarily on shock porn. Like, do all those conservatives think one of Modus's clever parodies is more evil than goatse? It is then that I lost all trust in those right of Hitler...

tl;dr Fucking Hypocritical Nazis

Moral of story: Go on Conservapedia and have a laugh... the kind of "fuck who the hell thinks that" kind of laugh... you know the Scientology one... the one you use when talking about Tom Cruise... Sir DJ ~ Irreverent

It's lack of standards results in an obviously liberal stance, and much of their humor is directed at Christian and Conservative values. HA!

Thank Allah for Libertarianism. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to have gay sex on a church altar. --THINKER 17:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"According to one person, the site's take on evolution had a greater "depth" than that on competitor site Uncyclopedia." I don't know which to laugh at more, that statement, or the totally reliable source they quote. I had a quick look at the ED evolution page - thanks feck for the Firefox developer toolbar and the ability to turn images off. Ah well, it takes all sorts to make a world I suppose (or is that too liberal a view?) --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 17:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, just post on the article's talk page to remove it, saying something to the effect of "What "one person" are we talking about? This cannot be true anyway, as the page contains DISGUSTING PORNOGRAPHY!" That would probably get the page unlocked, that sentence removed, and the article rewritten. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 01:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad I'm a silly European pagan. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I'm so glad that you're a silly European pagan too. Thanks to you I get a discount on crumpets and goatskin chaps. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Our logo looks better than theirs too....a burning EU flag overlaid with an image of the Goat of Mendes. Quality. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I had to read about 10 articles on Conservapedia before I was able to convince myself that it was actually serious. Thought it was a joke wiki. Seriously. MrN 18:30, Feb 16

I'm still not 100% sure that the site isn't all just an elaborate joke (which would be wonderful) or whether the site is all completely serious (which would be even more wonderful). - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:45, Feb 16

The answer to both is "yes". As examples (from Conservapedia:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing):

Real: "1) Knowledge of God. 2) Terrorism 3) Communism 4) genocide 5) Hunger/Poverty (not the government's job however)... 19) US national debt ..... 267) natural resources ..... 1,532)...",

Fake: "1) preventing gay marriage 2) preventing abortion 3) putting the 10 commandments in schools 4) convincing the global scientific community that evolution is false 5) defeating terrorism indefinitely and continuously 6) stopping liberals 7) keeping guns 8) stopping socialised health care 9) preventing environmentalist lies from damaging America's economy 10) making the speed of light more scriptural 11) abolishing public education 12) promoting conservative facts" ...but it could easily be the other way around.

In other words, parody is dead. Long live parody! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think one or two of our better writers should seriously think about giving our page on Conservapedia a serious overhaul. As it stands it's a little immature, and does not really reflect the message which I think we want to send. If Conservapedia readers come here, and read something full of random hate, that's not good. Our article on them should be brilliant and insightful. It should not contain anything which we can not substantiate, and should really make the Conservapedia readers think. I'm actually not sure there are many more 'important' articles than this one for us to get right. (what the hell happened there??? OK, rant over, I'm of back to clean the Toilet some more...) MrN 01:18, Feb 17

We'll see. I just go where Sophia leads. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if anyone has some brilliant concept or joke to build the page around, I'd be glad to help out. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:37, Feb 17

Try doing something in the vein of George W. Bush: subtle. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a CRAZY idea, perhaps. How about we actually do it in a completely serious style. I mean serious. Not even attempting to be funny. Just facts. Just the truth. Nothing made up at all. We would have to do a better job than Wikipedia. It would be the only serious article in the entire main namespace. That being the joke. Or, do I need to ease up on the funny cigarettes? MrN 01:51, Feb 17

Yeah. make it so unbelievably serious, like over the top serious - maybe take it even further than Conservapedia does... --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 03:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not too serious... more like the author is almost a fascist, he is so right-wing. Indeed, almost like it's a conservapedia article about conservapedia. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:03, Feb 17

User:TheLedBalloon/Conservapedia Looks like we are going to sort this out... MrN 04:26, Feb 17

Feel free to contribute, guys. Any contributions would be very helpful, and most appreciated. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:47, Feb 17

Easy, just write a page and maybe a reskin that is Pro-Conservative and Anti-Liberal. Make sure that you cite conservative blogs or at least sound like a Conservative when you write that article or reskin. For some of you, that will mean writing the opposite of what you actually believe, but you can do it. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OMG ED! Eeek! -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 18:51, Feb. 16, 2008

Wow. You know, I showed this to my dad, and he's this really conservative person, and even he thinks this is crazy.-Awesome Sauce 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why, for the love of wOTAN, did Al Gore, after inventing teh intarwebs, permit conservatives on it ?-Vosnul 00:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet they never even read some of the articles I made that poked fun at liberals, in a way I am glad that I don't contribute to Conservapedia anymore. I tried it a few times, but I really didn't like it that much. I try to bring some balance to Uncyclopedia by making fun of liberals, but I also make fun of conservatives as well. Ah well, if maybe I can log on and edit that page, I can cite some of the articles I wrote that poke fun of liberals that show Uncyclopedia is not one sided. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. I think stubborn and stupid tend to go hand in hand. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:27, Feb 18

Well I couldn't edit the article, put I posted in the talk page, links to articles I contributed to that make fun of liberals to prove that Uncyclopedia makes fun of everyone not just conservatives. I hope that they use them to show that Uncyclopedia makes fun of liberals as well and is not one-sided. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

....And, as expected, Andrew Schlafly has come along to open your eyes to the truth that he himself has invented. I told you, stubborn and stupid go together like peas and carrots. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:14, Feb 18

Yeah no sense of humor over there at Conservapedia. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As Uncyclopedia's moral anchor and resident fiscal conservative, I condemn Conservapedia completely. The god character has a lot of explaining to do. --THINKER 15:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not God, but people who think they know what God wants. Jesus died for our sins, I think he can take some jokes aimed at him. Conservapedia, apparently, cannot. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus....died....for somebody's sins....but not mine. Horses....horses....horses...... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Who cares?

Really. We need to be looking at the positive things being said about us from sites that people actually care about. Oh look, here's something good from RationalWiki (of which I am a member of) and what they say about us in contrast to Conservapedia:

Uncyclopedia is a parody encyclopedia full of half truths, outright lies and deliberate distortions.

As such it is very similar to Conservapedia, though on Conservapedia the humor is less intentional.

Ironically, Uncyclopedia in some cases is actually closer to the truth than Conservapedia. This was confirmed when Conservapedia stated that Uncyclopedia had a liberal bias, indicating that it is closer to reality.

--EMC ^[TALK] 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)