I wonder if Andy Schlafly ever catches on to that . . .
Not at all. What one needs to understand is that it’s actually a fundie christian site, rather than a political conservative site. Fundies seriously believe that their religion = political conservatism, and vice versa. They are incapable of understanding that the two are not equivalent. Consequently, any conservative who’s not also a fundie who goes to post there rapidly gets banned as a “liberal troll”. The actual trolls, however, don’t get banned, because they fake fundie fruitcakery, which is accepted by the actual fundies as real, because they really are that nuts.
Most of us just try to pretend it doesn’t exist. We only get embarrassed by it when threads like this turn up, and all the lefties and moderates think it’s actually representative of conservatism because it fits their preferred stereotype.
Actually, now that I think of it, it’s not really representative of fundies, either, because it’s run by the nuttiest fringe of even them. Even most fundies I know aren’t that bat-shit crazy.
I understand that many fundamentalists take exception to the theory of evolution, but relativity? Really? Any guesses as why they would have a problem with that?
How do they feel about gravity or the Pauli exclusion principle?
Guess: Some idiot mistakenly said ‘relativity’ when s/he meant ‘moral relativism’ and then, rather than correct him- or herself, performed a Palin plunge. Doubled down on the assertion, and came up with problems about relativity, because denying relativity is easier than admitting a mistake.
Just as people who are against animal testing shouldn’t benefit from vaccines derived therefrom, people who deny relativity should not be allowed GPS devices or microwave ovens.
The Geocentric Theory talk page is kind of fun.
Well, don’t forget that “Democratic President Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of “curvature of space” to promote a broad legal right to abortion.” :rolleyes:
Libertarian principles say that Pauli should have the right to exclude anyone.
I can’t see what the difference is between Conservapedia and Landover Baptist.
Granted, the founders of the two sites started with completely opposite viewpoints and goals, but the results are pretty much the same thing.
Poe’s Law indeed.
Conservative can mean “tightly regulated” or it can mean “in keeping with traditional values”. It’s easy to see how Christian fundamentalism is in keeping with both these senses of the term.
Explain it, then.
Like you pretended the Rev. Wright doesn’t exist? Don’t ignore them, kick their ass!
Stereotype, schmereotype. Conservapedia is real, not a figment of your political opponents. Furthermore, their rhetoric is just a particularly extreme form of conservative thought, namely that anything that undermines their positions or makes them look bad is a “lefty” conspiracy.
Don’t tell us, tell them.
But actually, there is a way to torture the definition of “conservative” so that it means “moderate”. Care to flesh that one out for the class?