I've never really understood what the purpose of Conservapedia is. I don't see rightwingers cite it as a source or recommend to each other that they learn from it in the way I'd post a wikipedia article informatively. I also don't see them using it to logically destroy or troll libs. There's seemingly no broad push to lionise it as the last bastion of free speech like they do Rumble/Kick/Truth Social/Twitter. It's the most Old Man Yells at Cloud website since Timecube. Every article reads like a boomer version of
.It's like the ACP version of prolewiki. Entirely designed out of petty grievances of being correctly called out as wrong all the time.
It is pretty funny that it could also be read from the standpoint of 'Mao and Stalin didn't do enough', because right wingers are just that politically illiterate
incredible to see a random blogger on there (PZ myers) alongside barack hussein obama and hitler...
what's he done to rile them up? blog about evolution? not become a reactionary shithead because of elevatorgate?
It's entirely because of his defense of evolution in debates and pushing back against teaching creationism in schools alongside people like Dawkins (also a biologist by training and who rose to atheism fame in large part by dunking on creationists). This all happened in the 2000s especially under the Bush admin and by 2016 or so was in the rear-view mirror already so they're reaching back for the old hated enemies.
And con-pedia in particular hates these types of people from the 2000s because those were their original enemies that drove them to create that thing. One of their original big fights with wikipedia and later the liberal rationalwiki was over evolution and pushing biblical literalism and there's a lot of drama there.
How much transphobia and Islamophobia need Richard Dawkins to spur before it get out of the liberals list?
