RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $1800Goal: $3000

Conservapedia talk:Parodist

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This has real potential[edit]

I think there might be a lot of humor in doing back-to-back plot twists. (something like double agents and triple agents) Technically a "double parodist" would probably involve reverse-reverse psychology, or getting your listeners to act in the opposite way that's so outlandish that their listeners then respond in revulsion. (which, if sustainable, could cause each side to become progressively more extreme — a "parodist feedback loop" if you will — not an inaccurate explanation for U.S. politics). But to make the article as funny as possible, other non-parodist plot twists can probably be squeezed in too. --Toiretni 00:12, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Namespace [edit]

Why is this in Conservapedia namespace? It's just a rehash of deep cover liberal & doesn't mention Conservapedia at all (other than including Schlafly). There is definitely potential for an article on parodists at CP, but this ain't it. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 16:07, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I've deleted most of the previous, which was a rehash of deep cover liberal & not relevant to CP, & replaced with more appropriate content. Still needs more detail & examples. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 16:32, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I disagree with this statement[edit]

"RationalWiki doesn't encourage parody. Not because we want to protect Conservapedia, but because it's funnier to contemplate Conservapedia's stupidity when it's genuine conservative silliness and not parody."

The fact they accepted those contributions by parodists shows how dumb Andrew is.--サトセレ (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)