The Five Greatest Entries On Conservapedia

I love Conservapedia. In case you’re unfamiliar with this gift to the internet, Conservapedia is just like Wikipedia except they “do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort” the entries. Also, much like Wikipedia, they do not allow facts to distort the entries (but they spread lies and half-truths in a much funnier fashion). I encourage you to go the site and experience it for yourself. In order to start you off, here are some of my favorite entries that truly show how Conservapedia is the only “encyclopedic resource on the internet that is free of corruption by liberal untruths.”

5 - George W. Bush – It says a lot about George W. Bush’s eventual legacy when a conservative encyclopedia has about a page dedicated to the man.

Conservatives love him. Really.

They simply couldn’t find that many good things to say about him, I guess. They talk about Afghanastan and then reluctantly admit that things might not be going so well anymore. They talk about Iraq, bypass that whole “no WMDs” thing, and then go on a tirade against Democrats for wanting the end the war. They talk about the economy and mention that, “Bush has presided over a period of general economic growth.” There's a little on his family, a little on his faith, and a quick mention of the fact that polls show Bush has the lowest approval rating in history (but it also mentions that the Democrat-controlled congress has a lower approval rating than Bush so, you know, fuck you liberals).

4 - SEX! – Take a look at Conservapedia’s Anatomy category. It seems pretty complete, but there are a couple of important body parts that are kind of missing: the penis, the vagina, and the anus.

Not cool according to conservatives.

There’s an entry on breasts that starts by talking about breastfeeding and breast cancer and then goes into the types of clothes females should wear in order to properly cover their boobs. According to Conservapedia, women can only expose their nipples in public if they’re breastfeeding; it doesn’t say anything about whether or not it’s kosher to squirt in public.

But let’s talk about sex, shall we? There’s a reproduction category that provides brief descriptions of all the main players (except for the penis and the vagina, of course). The only place penises and vaginas are mentioned, in fact, is in the Human Reproduction entry. Have a listen:

“To reproduce successfully, both parties need some degree of sexual arousal - often achieved by foreplay. For the human male, this means a faster heartbeat, the emitting of pre-ejaculatory fluids, the scrotum tightening and retracting towards the thighs and increased blood flow towards the penis - causing it to enlargen, stiffen and rise upwards.

It's like this but not as sexy.

In females, the heartbeat increases, the nipples erect(rise) and vaginal lubrication fluids are emitted from the Bartholin glands, to facilitate intercourse. Eventually, to reproduce, the penis (the male reproductory organ) enters the vagina (female reproductory organ). The male slides the penis in and out until the friction causes an orgasm. The male orgasm is accompanied by several muscular contraction, causing semen to eject through the urethra into the vagina.”

That’s hot. I was masturbating while reading that. Speaking of, guess what word isn’t mentioned even once on Conservapedia? That’s right, masturbation. I guess real conservatives don’t jerk-off. And why would they need to? It sounds like their foreplay is top notch.

3 - Pokemon – Did you know Pokemon is nothing but evolutionist propaganda? Conservapedia does. Pokemon also endorses “non-Godly magic forbidden by the bible [that leaves] children copying the actions of the anime vulnerable to demonic influence.”

Liberal Propaganda.

It also promotes cross-dressing. And, of course, it promotes animal cruelty, something the rest of Conservapedia apparently has no problem with.

The weirdest part of the Pokemon entry is the last bit, where it mentions that the Vatican’s down with Pikachu. No further comment is given. It’s as if the editor's head exploded while attempting to update the entry.

The rest of the manga entries are pretty tame but I noticed they stayed away from Yaoi. I imagine it’s because man-boy love mange hasn’t come on their radar yet.

Also, don’t think that Pokemon is the only pop-culture phenomenon that supports evolution and evil magic. The X-Men also gets called out for promoting the foundations of evolution. And what about Harry Potter? Oh…wait…apparently Harry Potter “includes some aspects that parallel Christianity” and it also “teaches the nobility of meaningful sacrifice.” I think my head’s going to explo…

3 - Universal daycare – It’s such a short entry but I think it successfully sums up Conservapedia. Verbatim:

“Universal daycare is government-provided babysitting for parents who are unable or unwilling to care for their children during the work-day. It also refers to feminist and Communist projects to prevent parents from raising their own children, the rationale being that the government gets a chance to indoctrinate children with ideas which the parents would prefer not to put into their minds.”

A graduate of universal daycare.

In other words, universal daycare is a way for feminists and communists to indoctrinate the children of lazy-ass parents. Why feminists and communists? Well, for that we’d need to go to the short entry on Communism and Feminism that states, “Communism and feminism have some goals in common.” The entry doesn’t really state what those goals are; it just gives a Lenin quote and then says that since “feminism is based on a fallacy [it’s] inextricably linked with socialism.”

Yeah, Conservapedia hates feminists. Part of the justification for the hate can be seen in the Feminist Style entry that states feminists “typically have one or more of the following characteristics” and goes on to list things like a “lack of a sense of humor”, a contempt for housewives and Ann Coulter, an opinion that "all men [are] potential rapists,” and the inability to concede defeat. The best part about the list? Almost all of the entries have a “citation needed” note.

1 - Everything related to homosexuality – Conservapedia’s Homosexuality category is like a goatse-portal of hate. It’s hard to pick one entry and say, “This is one of the ten greatest entries on Conservapedia.”

God hates fat kids, too.

Where does one begin? The Homosexuality entry is the most referenced, well-put-together article I’ve ever seen despite the fact that it’s solely dedicated to proving homosexuality is a reprehensible sin. But then there are so many entries that make you go, “Seriously?” Like Homosexuality and Smoking, Lesbianism and Obesity, and their entry on "Ex-Homosexuals" that attempts to paint supposed “Ex-Homosexuals”* as a persecuted group. Then there is an entry on NAMBLA that classifies the organization as part of the “homosexual agenda”, a scathing entry on San Francisco’s gays and their gay PDAs, and an entry that attempts to prove that there’s nothing wrong with being homophobic because "homophobia" is a term invented by liberals to advance the homosexual agenda. The Log Cabin Republicans entry is on a mission to prove they’re not real Republicans and, just when you thought it couldn’t get any more ridiculous, there’s an entry that attacks Sarah Bernhard, making Conservapedia users the only people in the universe that pay any attention to Sarah Bernhard.

And it’s not just the main entries.

Get your gay hands off of God's rainbow.

References to homosexuality pepper a lot of articles on Conservapedia that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Like the entry on rainbows where, after talking about the scientific and biblical significance of rainbows, the entry ends with a quick, “The rainbow has also been used as a symbol of homosexuality.”

I wonder who updates all of the homosexual references. Ex-homosexuals? Closet homosexuals? Conservatives with asperger syndrome? One thing’s for sure, Conservapedia’s obsession with homosexuality is creepier than Wikipedia’s obsession with Sonic the Hedgehog.


*Speaking of, a friend of mine claims that ex-homosexuals are the best fucks. He says that they know how guilty they’re going to feel about cheating on their girlfriends/wives/etc that they fuck like animals in order to get the most of their “momentary lapse of reason.” Sounds good to me! If I were gay I’d fuck as many ex-homosexuals as I can, I love a good aggressive romp.

Labels: conservapedia, humor, politics

follow JayRodriguez at http://twitter.com