Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election are now open!

Debate:A Case for Conservapedia

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Kingdamian1.


So, right off the bat, I will say that I do not agree with everything Conservapedia says. I created an account there, which has now been banned for debating, even though I contributed and created articles [1]. And it does not look like I am going to be unblocked anytime soon either. [2] I know, Conservapedia has some content that could raise an eyebrow or two, but unlike many editors here who have also been blocked on Conservapedia, I was in good faith there. Conservapedia is eccentric, but some of their policies kind of made sense to me. Since Conservapedia gets laughed at a lot, I tried to gather here some of their policies which I think are not wacko.

  • Username Policy

Conservapedia does not welcome many usernames and usually prefers usernames based on names. I do understand this policy and it makes sense to me. I do not endorse it, but I do understand it. If you are editing an encyclopedia and your name is "Headless Ostrich", it is hard to be taken seriously.


  • Views on Homeschooling

I was homeschooled/unschooled myself, and I am not going to say that I support homeschooling etc. I think that homeschooling has its advantages and its disadvantages and WILDLY varies from parent to parent to student to student. However, I understand why homeschooled students perform better than public schooled ones (or at least some studies that show this). First, homeschooled children developed the interest in learning themselves, for public schoolers, who started schooling at 7, school and education is often fused. While, students do learn, many of the students learn to pass tests, and when you are trying to pass the test, you are not enjoying studying. I also was watching one of those videos, where people on the street are asked questions, this is purely anecdotal of course, but I noticed that when asked a question, they tried to remember what grade they learned it in and what teacher taught them, instead of thinking about the solution to the question. In other words, school and education were fused and forever interconnected for them. Now, I do not think that homeschooling is superior to public schooling, cause it really depends.


  • BCE and CE

Conservapedia has a rule against the use of CE and BCE as opposed to AD and BC. At first, I thought this was rather harsh, but then I went and read a Wikipedia article on this and it stated that the use of CE and BCE is becoming more common among people who wish to avoid references to Christianity. [3] If that is the case, then this is completely unacceptable. Christian or not, ALL OF US should be able to admit that the western civilization has been significantly influenced by Christianity. Even Richard Dawkins identifies as a cultural Christian. The idea that we should erase references to a religion if someone does not believe in said religion, is absurd. Thursday refers to Thor, Wednesday refers to Odin, Saturday refers to Saturn. I do not think anyone reading this believes in any of these gods or their religions, but we do not try to deny the cultural influence Norse and Roman religions have had over our culture. Also, BC and AD is directly based on Jesus' birth dates, though it has been discovered that the dating is slightly off, about 4 years or so. But that is what it was based on, it is dishonest to pretend that it is based on anything else


  • Liberal Censorship

Now, I know, many readers here are liberal and I am fine with that. However, let us not pretend that safe spaces on campuses, "academic justice" [4], crybaby behaviour against Trump, accusing conservatives of being racist, xenophobic etc is not a form of censorship. And also, let us not pretend that when it comes to politics and different opinions, mostly liberal news networks are objective. I mean a Harvard study found that CNN and NBC coverage of Donald Trump was 93% negative [5]. This is not being objective, this called being an activist group.

Do tell me what you think. Thanks

"However, let us not pretend that safe spaces on campuses, "academic justice", crybaby behaviour against Trump, accusing conservatives of being racist, xenophobic etc is not a form of censorship."
It is certainly not a form of censorship, and by calling it censorship (and having a laser focus on college campus policies) is to demean actual forms of suppression like Arkady Babchenko or the right-wing Christian colleges. See here, which, by showing how many right wingers complain about being censored while at the same time writing about this on multitudes on different platforms. By definition, it's not. I don't see what's so crybaby about being legitimately fearful and critical of Trump's policies as well as the behavior of a lot of his supporters. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
As an addendum, regarding the statement that mostly liberal news networks cannot be objective on the basis that a Harvard study found that 93% of coverage of Donald Trump was negative: This idea is the equivalent of saying that media outlets are biased when it comes to school shootings since 100% of articles/content covering school shootings is negative.— Unsigned, by: 64.29.40.87 / talk / contribs
Comparing a dude who says crude things to literal human massacres is definitely a winning strategy when it comes to convincing people you're unbiased. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)