SI
SI
discoversearch

Politics : View from the Center and Left

 Public Reply | Prvt Reply | Mark as Last Read | FilePrevious 10 | Next 10 | Previous | Next  
To: epicure who wrote (186357)3/30/2012 4:05:28 PM
From: Dale BakerRead Replies (1) of 260976
 
When you look back at the last several presidential elections, dorkiness was a common trait among the losers and rare among the winners (Bush Sr. being an exception since he beat a bigger dork then lost to a cool guy).

Speaking of which, this dorks' creation is quite a story. I'll post an excerpt and a link. We literally couldn't make this stuff up if we tried.


Diagnosing the Republican Brain

Fact: Conservatives deny science and facts. But there's a reality check that liberals need too.—By Chris Mooney

| Fri Mar. 30, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

motherjones.com

We all know that many American conservatives have issues with Charles Darwin, and the theory of evolution. But Albert Einstein, and the theory of relativity?

If you're surprised, allow me to introduce Conservapedia, the right-wing answer to Wikipediaand ground zero for all that is scientifically and factually inaccurate, for political reasons, on the Internet.

Claiming over 285 million page views since its 2006 inception, Conservapediais the creation of Andrew Schlafly, a lawyer, engineer, homeschooler, and one of six children of Phyllis Schlafly, the anti-feminist and anti-abortion rights activist who successfully battled the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. In his mother's heyday, conservative activists were establishing vast mailing lists and newsletters, and rallying the troops. Her son learned that they also had to marshal "truth" to their side, now achieved not through the mail but the Web.

Click here to read more from Mooney on the science of why people don't believe in science.


So when Schafly realized that Wikipediawas using BCE ("Before Common Era") rather than BC ("Before Christ") to date historical events, he'd had enough. He decided to create his own contrary fact repository, declaring, "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral." Conservapediadefinitely isn't neutral about science. Its 37,000 plus pages of content include items attacking evolution and global warming, wrongly claiming (contrary to psychological consensus) that homosexuality is a choice and tied to mental disorders, and incorrectly asserting (contrary to medical consensus) that abortion causes breast cancer.

(continued at link in the title)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public Reply | Prvt Reply | Mark as Last Read | FilePrevious 10 | Next 10 | Previous | Next  

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.