Submitted to a Candid World

By now we’re all familiar with Poe’s Law - the rule that, without a winking smiley or other extrinsic sign of hilarity, it’s impossible to tell the difference between a legitimate creationist’s beliefs, and parody.  Conservapedia has, to the dismay of those few who take it seriously, provided a tempting target to test Poe’s Law, and to test its corollary - the idea that fundamentalism is easy to fake, to destructive effect.

Namely, since the Conservapedia leadership so quickly trusts and promotes creationists to positions of power (and so readily bans non-creationists, as “non-Christians”), a confident web actor can ape creationist views (pun intended) and easily weedle his or her way into the upper echelons of Conservapedia society.  Three times, this saga has three times played out to Schlafly’s dismay (once, twice, thrice), as a parodist/vandal posing as a creationist used the implicit trust emanating from their professions of fundamentalism, and the administrative powers that trust entailed, to wreak havoc on Conservapedia in the wee hours of the morning.

It’s easy to despise these actions as juvenile, puerile, and damaging to the liberal cause, as they potentially reinforce creationist persecution complexes and fears of “lib’ruls” everywhere (one homeschooler/sysop famously told the LA Times, about non-creationists, “they’re out to destroy us” - how sad to prove the paranoia Andy had inculcated into her correct).  And perhaps that’s the right approach.

But, on the other hand, abuse on the part of Conservapedia “vandals” of the implicit trust that flows from the creationist label serves the useful purpose of eroding the conception that theocracy works, and underlines the importance of meritocracy and non-ideological markers of competence in any organization.  In short, it poignantly illustrates the importance of maintaining the church-state divide.  Boorishly, perhaps.  But effectively.

I do not endorse it, though.