By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

I could feel brain cells dying from the sheer amount of stupid in the video games article.



Around the Network
Jaicee said:

Here's the Conservapedia entry on video games. As you've probably guessed, most of it's about how playing video games leads to obesity, heart attacks, dropping out of school, mass murder, and, worst of all, atheism in teenage boys and young men.

Not all is lost though, as:

"Video games have been suspected of giving otherwise liberal people some virtual conservative viewpoints. They have also been shown to help people to become more attuned to their surroundings and increase coordination, and in the future may be used to treat people with visual problems and to train soldiers."

Really? Video games make people more conservative? I mean it may happen, but the other way too, depending on the game (like every media).



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Man.... I remember when the Republicans actually were a real pro-business, free market, liberty-loving, personal choice, globalist Party who represented America well on the world stage.

Now they seem to be sort of competing on who can smoke the most drugs and damage their brains while shouting nonsense...



OneTime said:

Man.... I remember when the Republicans actually were a real pro-business, free market, liberty-loving, personal choice, globalist Party who represented America well on the world stage.

I don't!



Love and tolerate.

Yeah I remember in English Sophomore year (so like 2 years ago), one of my friends was talking about antifa or something and pulled up the conservapedia article. He of course didn't realize it (or so he claims) but I read a few sentences and detected something was off.
Wikipedia's adjectives are typically things that are agreed upon by the vast majority of people and often are just facts, like descriptions of something.
Conservapedia's use of adjectives meanwhile is used to belittle ideas and is less objective.



Around the Network
Jaicee said:

Here's the Conservapedia entry on video games. As you've probably guessed, most of it's about how playing video games leads to obesity, heart attacks, dropping out of school, mass murder, and, worst of all, atheism in teenage boys and young men.

...But. None of that except Atheism is me. (Not my fault Theists can't find evidence for their claims.)

badskywalker said:

Yeah I remember in English Sophomore year (so like 2 years ago), one of my friends was talking about antifa or something and pulled up the conservapedia article. He of course didn't realize it (or so he claims) but I read a few sentences and detected something was off.
Wikipedia's adjectives are typically things that are agreed upon by the vast majority of people and often are just facts, like descriptions of something.
Conservapedia's use of adjectives meanwhile is used to belittle ideas and is less objective.

Wikipedia's articles tend to be built from verifiable pieces of information via citations... And if you have a better piece of evidence, you can happily go rewriting an article to more accurately reflect that.
Thus Wikipedia is impartial to progressive/conservative views, it all comes down to the evidence you use as a source.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Wikipedia co-founder is quite disappointed with the heavy wiki left wing bias and wants/wishes for a new version of wiki that's less open and based more on the evidence from the professionals. He even apologizes for what wiki has become and to anyone who's been negatively impacted by it.

Conservapedia is yet just another version of something that already exists that's been tilted politically, to try and maintain the balance. This is just going to continue until the other side backs off (which is highly unlikely), or until everything, absolutely everything, becomes split based on politics.

One side can't afford a split, whether they realize it or not, and the other automatically triumphs overall if that takes place, even though they'd prefer to remain as one. Maybe competition in a free market can solve the problem, for better or for worse. Time will tell.



EricHiggin said:

Wikipedia co-founder is quite disappointed with the heavy wiki left wing bias and wants/wishes for a new version of wiki that's less open and based more on the evidence from the professionals. He even apologizes for what wiki has become and to anyone who's been negatively impacted by it.

Conservapedia is yet just another version of something that already exists that's been tilted politically, to try and maintain the balance. This is just going to continue until the other side backs off (which is highly unlikely), or until everything, absolutely everything, becomes split based on politics.

One side can't afford a split, whether they realize it or not, and the other automatically triumphs overall if that takes place, even though they'd prefer to remain as one. Maybe competition in a free market can solve the problem, for better or for worse. Time will tell.

My words exactly. I stopped donating to Wikipedia because of it.

With time we will see two versions of everything, one for the left and one for the right. The difference is that the conservative side will always be under shut down warning, or being effectively shut down.

Either the world gets divided in two or we will be all under a society under a "ministry of truth" and post cultural revolution living under the left/establishment narrative in a semi dictatorial world.

Today I would put my money in the second option.

As for free market I believe the world post 2008 does not have that anymore at least under the macro view.



EricHiggin said:

Wikipedia co-founder is quite disappointed with the heavy wiki left wing bias and wants/wishes for a new version of wiki that's less open and based more on the evidence from the professionals. He even apologizes for what wiki has become and to anyone who's been negatively impacted by it.

Conservapedia is yet just another version of something that already exists that's been tilted politically, to try and maintain the balance. This is just going to continue until the other side backs off (which is highly unlikely), or until everything, absolutely everything, becomes split based on politics.

One side can't afford a split, whether they realize it or not, and the other automatically triumphs overall if that takes place, even though they'd prefer to remain as one. Maybe competition in a free market can solve the problem, for better or for worse. Time will tell.

Conservapedia is the right-wing version of Uncyclopedia… except with more spelling and grammar errors.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

If conservapedia is supposed to be a more right wing version of wikipedia then I have very bad news for conservative people