Unfortunately, no. Conservapedia, the Fox News of the internet encyclopedia world, has been making the rounds of the blogosphere as the butt of jokes for a few weeks now. Apparently, it attracts a goodly mix of a) conservatives, b) mean-spirited trolls and vandals, c) well-meaning non-conservatives who nonetheless want to ensure at least a modicum of factuality, and d) mean-spirited “parody vandals”, who do their best to blur the lines between the ridiculous things some American conservatives think and the ridiculous things liberals think conservatives think.
I thought I had found a particularly inspired case of class d) in this version of the “Conservative” article. As an explanation of the conservative trait of ” skepticism about the idea of progress”, the article asserts that it “runs against the grain of Hegel-based worldviews that assume that merely ripping pages off a calendar gets us closer to the eschatological kewpie doll at the End of Days.” What that means, I’m not precisely sure, but it’s evocative and funny, with a great mix of high brow and kitsch. Unfortunately, it turns out this is actually a particularly uninspired case of class a). The whole discussion is plagiarized from this National Review article. Arg!!! Fooled again! Sometimes it can be so hard to tell a liberal parody of American conservatism from a self-parody of American conservatism.
One thought on “Conservapedia: more interesting than it seems at first glance?”
Secular humanist Darwinist liberal homosexuals claim to have scientifically proven that you can’t tell Conservapedia from Uncyclopedia.
Comments are closed.