Lmao

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you call yourself a “conservative” you’re either a fascist or a liberal that just isn’t quite there yet.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      No no no. This is Adolf Hitler [bad, because National Socialism Volkswagon Bailout Lost The War].

      You’re thinking of Adolf Hitler [good, because Based Chad Hates Immigrants Retvrn To Tradition].

      Two totally different guys.

    • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      3 months ago

      Their opinions on reality are not consistent. They will warp their minds into whatever twisted shape is required if they get to hurt the “other” (whoever that happens to be this cycle)

      • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Their opinions on reality are not consistent.

        I’m constantly reminded of that 90s (I think) country song. “You’ve Got to Stand for Something or You’ll Fall for Anything.”

        Many of them just keep falling for the next lie, even while the previous lies are being corrected. They never stop for a minute and think the place they are getting their info from is bad.

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s an internet encyclopedia built for and by conservatives. Literally everything on there abruptly pivots to barely relevant Bible study.

        • BluesF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m used to UK conservatives. They don’t like poor people, I think religion is really a minor issue for most of them though (after all it does generally preach kindness to the poor).

          • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah I suppose I should have prefaced it with American conservatives. Because American conservatism is thoroughly wrapped up in Christian authoritarianism.

      • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Several parables in the Bible foreshadow the insight of quantum entanglement about paired photons having opposite spin

        Interesting, I wonder what their evidence is for that-

        by contrasting two men in their relationship with God. The Prodigal Son contrasts two brothers, two churchgoers are contrasted in Luke 18:9–14 , and two brothers are further contrasted in Luke 21:28-31

        Just… 2 people being compared?

        LOL

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        In order to understand it you have to understand its creator: Andrew Schlafly: he’s an electrical engineer and lawyer and his mother is Phyllis Schlafly, a lawyer famous for her militant opposition to feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed amendment to the constitution that reads:

        Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

        Phyllis wasn’t just some opponent of that amendment, no she was probably the primary reason it failed.

        In short: there’s no reason why that website should be in any way sane just as there’s no reason its founder should be in any way sane. He really likes to critique physics theories that he doesn’t understand by citing philosophy and theology.

            • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              You’re not using that phrase correctly. “Take it with a grain of salt” means not to commit to the knowledge until it’s verified else where or at least applying basic skepticism to it.

              Wikipedia is a fairly safe place to start with research, but I would never really believe it for current event politics or adjacent topics.

              Conservapedia is an engineered echo chamber that exists because Wikipedia kicked their founders out for vandalism. It only gives credibility to Wikipedia.

              • pingveno@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Exactly, Wikipedia has all sorts of processes and policies around making articles high quality. That includes trying to remove as much ideologically driven material as possible. This would be deleted in seconds (maybe literally).

          • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            3 months ago

            Can you really ever trust one? All of them have an agenda to push, no exceptions. If that agenda aligns with your’s, you’ve found an echo chamber for reinforcement. If not, perhaps you can learn of alternative viewpoints to an identical issue and maybe agree with some but not all of them. Things like wikis are supposed to be open to all opinions on a subject, but like everything good, someone will take it to corrupt.

            • OldChicoAle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              You’re describing literally every discourse community and mode of communication. What you said applies to every book, newspaper, journal, website, forum, wiki, etc. There always some bias in some way. It’s how it works. Humans will be humans. It’s up to the individual to process information and discern what to think

            • Kichae@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              “Never trust other people,” they say. I’m not sure I shpypd believe them, though.

            • sweetviolentblush@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              No exceptions you say? Ah yes, the wiki agendas. I sure love the propaganda of the stardew valley wiki. Super echo chambery and clearly deep state politics

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why do they list Hitler as their enemy, when their own selected Führer obviously idols him?

  • rustyfish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    166
    ·
    3 months ago

    Conservapedia, like the incel wiki, are windows into parallel universes and both are proof, that ours isn’t the worst timeline after all.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        ·
        3 months ago

        They love pretending loke Hitler, the universal symbol for evil, was a socialist. They fuckin’ love fascism and everything he did but they have to pretend like what they’re doing is different.

        They also have no idea what “liberal” means, but that’s the case with most words exceeding six letters.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Similar to socialists being in denial over how antisemitism can get them to go along with fascists. People on the fringes of politics tend not to be able to see themselves for what they are. Communists and Fascists are both authoritarian just with a slightly different grift. But when the fascists play up the greedy capitalist jew angle, the socialists jump on board with fascism along it with the rest of the useful idiots.

          • Kichae@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            Are we playing the “socialism and communism are different things” game today? Because that’snnever fun.

            Authoritarians aren’t communists. They’re just appropriating the term.

            • ReCursing@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Are we playing the anarchists and communists are the same thing game today? Communists absolutely can be authoritarian, anarchists can’t anarcho-communists aren’t but not all communists are true Scotsman anarcho-communists

            • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Authoritarianism isn’t something anyone should want so authoritarians need to make some kind of grift to convince people to go along with it. But it ultimately has the same result. Someone becomes dictator by promising to make a country stronger, while someone else becomes dictator by promising equal, it all ends the same.

              I mean China is obviously a fascist government today (no matter what they call themselves) but where was the revolution that caused this massive shift from the “far left” to the “far right”? There wasn’t one because it’s just authoritarianism, the only change was which propaganda is used to justify authoritarian power.

  • RageAgainstTheRich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    137
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Hitler was a socialist! It was in the name!” “China is communist! It’s in the name!” “North korea is communist! It’s in the name!”

    “Kamala harris is a communist! She is with the democratic party, but that does not mean she is one. 🤡” “Trumps wouldbe-assassin was not a republican. He might be registered as such, but that does not suit my agenda 🤡.” “Everything i read or hear, i see as fact or not based on what helps me most 🤡”

    These people are absolute fucking clowns and it’s impossible to talk or argue with them because they are not grounded in reality. It is exhausting.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Always create an in group and an out group, these labels aren’t meant to be accurate for them, they don’t care, they just want to have a word for those people there who we don’t like and dehumanize them, if they could they’d just use the N word for everyone

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      I can’t imagine being a voting-age adult and not immediately understanding that these people are full of shit? You don’t even need to know what specific words mean to see what they’re doing. It’s so fucking dumb and childish.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I can’t imagine being a voting-age adult and not immediately understanding that these people are full of shit?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–crime_hypothesis

        Try huffing leaded car fumes for 20 years first. Then immerse yourself in Reagan-Era propaganda for the next 20. Finally, miss out on the biggest bull market in history because you put all your retirement savings in canned tuna and collectible gold coins like all your very wealthy online friends told you to.

        Now you’re in your late 60s, your kids and grandkids never talk to you, you’re scrapping by on Social Security after five years of killer inflation, and all you can do every day is sit in a dingy suburban ranch house watching “Mexican Muslims Have Caravaned The Border And Stolen Our Jobs” every waking hour.

        There’s a Trump rally in town. All your friends are going. And the booze is free. Who are you voting for in November?

    • RandomVideos@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Could you imagine of Adolf Hitler named and said thjngs that were lies with the purpose of manipulating people and getting in power? Thankfully, we live in a timeline where he cant lie

  • Fontasia@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    I wouldn’t be surprised if somewhere in the terms of use for that wiki that they clarify that they are not liable for any trust users put in the articles and the tagline “trustworthy encyclopedia” cannot be enforced

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 months ago

    Hitler was just really passionate about giving free healthcare to Jews, LGBT, intellectuals, Romani, slightly swarthy people, etc etc.

  • Glytch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    How is this list organized? It seems like they randomly wrote names down as it came to them.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s a Wiki, so you can just pop in and add a bullet point however you like, assuming you have an account.

      This probably was crafted by a small pool of die-hards who dropped a name on the list any time they found out someone existed who made them mad.

        • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I clicked through to their article on Conservapedia because I was curious what they had to say about it and

          Conservapedia, also known as “The Trusworthy [sic] Encyclopedia”, is essentially an American-exceptionalist and dominionist group blog, disguised as a half-functioning wiki. The website was created by God-King Andrew Schlafly in 2006 because of his belief that Wikipedia is deceitfully riddled with “liberal bias” and “atheist bias,”[note 1] because apparently the best way to solve real or imagined bias is to create a website that is biased in an opposite way. The vast majority of articles go out of their way to blame pretty much everything negative on “liberals” (which they use as a catch-all snarl term for anyone and everyone who disagrees with them on just about any given issue — which happens to be everyone),

          I have to say I find it kind of funny that a site calling itself “RationalWiki” would use language like this. I have my doubts that it is possible to violate Wikipedia’s “encyclopedic tone” guideline any harder.