is not nearly as interesting as psychological insight. It's easy to look at society and say, "Well, look at that, it's screwed up!" It is much more difficult say the same about the depths of your own soul. At least, to say it with the same gusto.
On an unrelated note, I am listening to brother and co. get high outside. They apparently decided that the spot right outside my window is ideal territory for shooting up and then screaming at each other. Or whatever it is they're doing. Never mind that their crazed, drug-fueled rampage is rudely impeding my meditation on my unnaturally large big toe.
But really, I'm just bitter that I have no one to get high with on this pleasant Wednesday morning. :(
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Conservapedia: The Trustworthy Encyclopedia
So I was casually investigating Einstein's theory of relativity (because looking up insane physics theories that I will never understand is a happy little hobby of mine) when I stumbled upon this fascinating website. Apparently we've all been wiling away our time on the wrong wiki-based encyclopedia all along--Wikipedia is, in fact, ragingly biased, and it is the star-spangled Conservapedia that bravely rises to the challenge of providing reliable, easily editable information.
Among Conservapedia's terms of use, or "Commandments," are the decrees that users must fully cite their sources, must not harrass other other users, and must present their information as hearsay rather than fact. As a result, according to the site, their pages are completely unbiased.
Sounds good, right? Until you realize that the whole deal is an insidious plot to spread hate and injustice, all the while allowing its orchestrators to grin sheepishly and point to their "sources."
Now, I will admit that Conservapedia makes no attempt to hide its... erm... conservative slant. From the patriotic colors to the top-viewed pages (among them atheism, homosexuality, and --I kind you not-- unicorn) to the goddamn name, this haven of knowledge waves its red flag proudly.
Obviously, there is nothing wrong with defending the right side of town, but these guys have bumbled about it the wrong way--outrageous and offensive claims (including an article dedicated to the supposed link between homosexuality and domestic abuse), a complete lack of substantial evidence (in the previously mentioned unicorn article, the author attempts to justify the existence of unicorns by citing a guy who effectively said, on the phone and possibly while drunk, "Sure, why not?"), and the dogged assertion that everything they say is objective and unbiased. Apparently, objective means "Somebody somewhere thinks I'm right," and unbiased means "Fun to laugh at." I've seen coffee stains more thoughtful and well-researched.
That being said, the site is small and doesn't really get that much traffic, so the damage it can wreak on civilization is fairly limited. All the same, the fact that a site like this can not only exist, but can tout itself as a harbinger of truth, speaks volumes of the unlimited freedom of the internet and the lengths people with go to... Ah, screw it. It's just bad.
Among Conservapedia's terms of use, or "Commandments," are the decrees that users must fully cite their sources, must not harrass other other users, and must present their information as hearsay rather than fact. As a result, according to the site, their pages are completely unbiased.
Sounds good, right? Until you realize that the whole deal is an insidious plot to spread hate and injustice, all the while allowing its orchestrators to grin sheepishly and point to their "sources."
Now, I will admit that Conservapedia makes no attempt to hide its... erm... conservative slant. From the patriotic colors to the top-viewed pages (among them atheism, homosexuality, and --I kind you not-- unicorn) to the goddamn name, this haven of knowledge waves its red flag proudly.
Obviously, there is nothing wrong with defending the right side of town, but these guys have bumbled about it the wrong way--outrageous and offensive claims (including an article dedicated to the supposed link between homosexuality and domestic abuse), a complete lack of substantial evidence (in the previously mentioned unicorn article, the author attempts to justify the existence of unicorns by citing a guy who effectively said, on the phone and possibly while drunk, "Sure, why not?"), and the dogged assertion that everything they say is objective and unbiased. Apparently, objective means "Somebody somewhere thinks I'm right," and unbiased means "Fun to laugh at." I've seen coffee stains more thoughtful and well-researched.
That being said, the site is small and doesn't really get that much traffic, so the damage it can wreak on civilization is fairly limited. All the same, the fact that a site like this can not only exist, but can tout itself as a harbinger of truth, speaks volumes of the unlimited freedom of the internet and the lengths people with go to... Ah, screw it. It's just bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
