6 ms·

The "Blackjack and Hookers" reflex, from Futurama when Bender gets thrown out of the amusement park on the Moon and says "I'll start my own theme park... with b

The "Blackjack and Hookers" reflex, from Futurama when Bender gets thrown out of the amusement park on the Moon and says "I'll start my own theme park... with blackjack!... and hookers!... in fact, forget the park!" EDIT: Basically that's how these projects turn out. Having a theme park was never the point; blackjack and hookers were the point. Having a federated Wikipedia alternative isn't the point; having an encyclopedia where you can push an insane description of a topic and present it as reality is the point. And really, that makes for a shitty encyclopedia. Shitty enough for it to disappear before doing damage to the shared sense of reality society needs? No, but still shitty.

nick238 3y ago
Wikipedia + Blackjack + Hookers - Wikipedia = https://www.conservapedia.com/ https://www.conservapedia.com/
- lolc 3y ago
  Wow I haven't seen a link to Conservapedia in a looong time. Out of curiosity, I clicked. They claim physical reality of the biblical flood: https://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Flood https://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Flood And wow somebody has put a lot of work in this page https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_right https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_right Great resource if you want to know what US bible people care about. They have institutionalised their confirmation bias.
  - hagbard_c 3y ago
    > They claim physical reality of the biblical flood There is evidence of the Mediterranean Basin flooding after breach of a land bridge across what is now the Strait of Gibraltar [1,2] some 5 million years ago. In the same way there is some evidence of the Black Sea rapidly expanding some 8000 years ago [3]. Similar 'catastrophic flood' scenarios have played out elsewhere on the planet which has led to the rise of flood myths like the Biblical flood. While Conservapedia goes heavy on scripture in laying out their proof for a historical basis for the flood (i.e. they are just as biased as Wikipedia tends to be on politically contentious subjects) it is a rational position to state that the myriad of flood myths around the world and along the ages are based on historical flood events. In short, Conservapedia does what Wikipedia does but replaces the 'progressive' bias with a 'conservative' one. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2020/03/the-mediterranean-nearly-dried-up-a-cataclysmic-flood-revived-it https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
    - lolc 3y ago
      Yea these flood events are interesting. But did you read the Conservapedia page? They are very specific about the flood having happened 5000 years ago and say it was a global phenomenon. That was just the first link I clicked on the homepage. I dare you to find something equally implausible on the English Wikipedia homepage. And if you don't find the biblical flood implausible, well, I'm somewhat intrigued why you believe that to be an option.
      - hagbard_c 3y ago
        Looking at Conservapedia from a 'liberal' standpoint is like looking at Wikipedia from a 'conservative' standpoint. Where a Conservapedia article like the one you mentioned - the Biblical flood being based on a recent 'global' flood event - is hard to take seriously by 'liberals' the same goes for Wikipedia articles like 'Non-binary gender' [1] to 'conservatives'. Both Conservapedia as well as Wikipedia treat highly contentious issues - the 'truth' of Bible stories and the 'truth' of gender ideology - as settled facts where in reality both are very much up for discussion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender
        lolc 3y ago
        I asked for something that is equally implausible. So I take it you think people feeling non-binary is equally or more implausible than the biblical flood? Do people not identify as non-binary? Or are they lying about their feelings? Don't give me the "contentious" spiel. I don't care what some reader of Conservapedia may think. I'm asking you.
        hagbard_c 3y ago
        > I'm asking you. No ad-hominems, or rather you are looking at this as a 'liberal' would while I described a scenario in which a 'conservative' looks at the mentioned article and concept. In the "conservative's" opinion what is written there is just as implausible as what is written in the Conservapedia article on the 'truth' of the flood story. Both Wikipedia as well as Conservapedia are biased which is what this was about, not about whether the flood or someone feeling non-binary is true.
  - nyolfen 3y ago
    the guy who runs this was an editor on the harvard law review with obama
- brnt 3y ago
  This is a useful resource but for other reasons than the authors intend.
- levlaz 3y ago
  Interestingly has a similar mobile experience as OP.
- geysersam 3y ago
  That was fascinating!
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"I'll write a new UNIX shell... with blackjack!... and hookers!"
jeegsy 3y ago
> where you can push an insane description of a topic and present it as reality is the point Fair enough and indeed there are many examples. However I think good faith/steelmanning needs to come back in our discourse. It strikes me as an 'insane' description to suggest that the problems with Wikipedia can be properly captured by their resistance to 'insane' descriptions

nick238 3y ago

Wikipedia + Blackjack + Hookers - Wikipedia = https://www.conservapedia.com/ https://www.conservapedia.com/

lolc 3y ago
Wow I haven't seen a link to Conservapedia in a looong time. Out of curiosity, I clicked. They claim physical reality of the biblical flood: https://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Flood https://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Flood And wow somebody has put a lot of work in this page https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_right https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_right Great resource if you want to know what US bible people care about. They have institutionalised their confirmation bias.
- hagbard_c 3y ago
  > They claim physical reality of the biblical flood There is evidence of the Mediterranean Basin flooding after breach of a land bridge across what is now the Strait of Gibraltar [1,2] some 5 million years ago. In the same way there is some evidence of the Black Sea rapidly expanding some 8000 years ago [3]. Similar 'catastrophic flood' scenarios have played out elsewhere on the planet which has led to the rise of flood myths like the Biblical flood. While Conservapedia goes heavy on scripture in laying out their proof for a historical basis for the flood (i.e. they are just as biased as Wikipedia tends to be on politically contentious subjects) it is a rational position to state that the myriad of flood myths around the world and along the ages are based on historical flood events. In short, Conservapedia does what Wikipedia does but replaces the 'progressive' bias with a 'conservative' one. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2020/03/the-mediterranean-nearly-dried-up-a-cataclysmic-flood-revived-it https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
  - lolc 3y ago
    Yea these flood events are interesting. But did you read the Conservapedia page? They are very specific about the flood having happened 5000 years ago and say it was a global phenomenon. That was just the first link I clicked on the homepage. I dare you to find something equally implausible on the English Wikipedia homepage. And if you don't find the biblical flood implausible, well, I'm somewhat intrigued why you believe that to be an option.
    - hagbard_c 3y ago
      Looking at Conservapedia from a 'liberal' standpoint is like looking at Wikipedia from a 'conservative' standpoint. Where a Conservapedia article like the one you mentioned - the Biblical flood being based on a recent 'global' flood event - is hard to take seriously by 'liberals' the same goes for Wikipedia articles like 'Non-binary gender' [1] to 'conservatives'. Both Conservapedia as well as Wikipedia treat highly contentious issues - the 'truth' of Bible stories and the 'truth' of gender ideology - as settled facts where in reality both are very much up for discussion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender
      - lolc 3y ago
        I asked for something that is equally implausible. So I take it you think people feeling non-binary is equally or more implausible than the biblical flood? Do people not identify as non-binary? Or are they lying about their feelings? Don't give me the "contentious" spiel. I don't care what some reader of Conservapedia may think. I'm asking you.
        hagbard_c 3y ago
        > I'm asking you. No ad-hominems, or rather you are looking at this as a 'liberal' would while I described a scenario in which a 'conservative' looks at the mentioned article and concept. In the "conservative's" opinion what is written there is just as implausible as what is written in the Conservapedia article on the 'truth' of the flood story. Both Wikipedia as well as Conservapedia are biased which is what this was about, not about whether the flood or someone feeling non-binary is true.
- nyolfen 3y ago
  the guy who runs this was an editor on the harvard law review with obama
brnt 3y ago
This is a useful resource but for other reasons than the authors intend.
levlaz 3y ago
Interestingly has a similar mobile experience as OP.
geysersam 3y ago
That was fascinating!

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"I'll write a new UNIX shell... with blackjack!... and hookers!"

jeegsy 3y ago

> where you can push an insane description of a topic and present it as reality is the point Fair enough and indeed there are many examples. However I think good faith/steelmanning needs to come back in our discourse. It strikes me as an 'insane' description to suggest that the problems with Wikipedia can be properly captured by their resistance to 'insane' descriptions