Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia
|!||This Is An Original Work.|
Contributors should add their signatures to the end section. If published, a notice will be posted and, if desired, contributors will be recognized.
Over 382,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze liberal behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:
- Liberals frequently deny the existence of practices or rules, even though the liberals defend the practice or rule. For example, liberals who deny that partial-birth abortion existed, even though they defended the practice. Why deny the existence of something that one defends? Liberals also deny that classroom prayer is prohibited, even though they defend the prohibition. Apparently liberals think their denial can deflect attention away from the indefensible.
- Liberals, particularly liberal vandals, seem to have a strong desire for attention. This may motivate many of their statements and arguments. Lacking motivation based on reason or faith, they seem to enjoy attracting attention for the mere sake of attention itself. The discussions and debates go nowhere, but their mission is accomplished by having someone pay attention to them.
- Many liberals think that two wrongs, or a wrong and perceived wrong, make a right. Specifically, they feel that vandalism can be justified by claiming that someone was wrongly excluded from a private association or private property. For example, one critic of Conservapedia declared on 5/22/07 that "[t]his site deserves at least 70-80% of the vandalism it receives." Under the conservative view, nothing justifies vandalism and two wrongs do not make a right.
- Many liberals do not recognize vandalism as being wrong. Even some liberals who do recognize vandalism as being wrong do not think it is wrong to help others who commit vandalism.
- Liberals refuse to admit that people who were atheists or deists in their youth can find faith as they grow older. Examples include Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin, but liberals deny this.
- Liberals deny that their totalitarian positions, such supporting gun control or banning homeschooling, were instrumental to Adolf Hitler's power.
- Liberals seem to think nearly everyone else agrees with them, and even seem shocked and offended when they encounter someone who does not. In the United States, conservatives outnumber liberals by a 2:1 ratio, yet most liberals do not recognize that. Ask a liberal, for example, what percentage of people accept the Deluge as recounted in the Bible and the liberal's answer can be off by a factor of ten.
- Liberals are almost always more aggressive than conservatives here, as liberals insist on the last word, insist on continuing debate long after it has become tiresome, and repeat complaints after they have been rejected. That could represent an attempt to waste an opponent's time or a refusal to recognize that there are legitimate reasons to reject liberal viewpoints. Regardless of the reason, this can be observed on numerous talk pages.
- Liberals refuse to allow even the possibility of certain conservative views, and this reflects a liberal close-mindedness that is not shared by conservatives. Liberals categorically declare something to be impossible, such as changes in the laws of physics over time or the feasibility of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Conservatives rarely declare something to be impossible.
- Name-calling, particularly as a Parthian shot, is overused by liberals. In one recent exchange, a critic finished his remarks with "you've just conceded that you are a deceitful liar. Thanks, that's all I needed to know."
- Almost no liberal admits he's liberal, or that he holds a liberal belief, or that he is using a liberal argument. More often a liberal will claim to be a conservative, and try to make a liberal argument sound better with the preface, "Well, I'm a conservative, but I support gun control!" But why are so many people embarrassed to admit they are liberal???
- A surprising absence of reliance on logic. Quite the contrary, logical arguments are often met with ridicule or disdain by liberals today, or a demand to see if any authority can be found who made the same logical argument, in the hope of discrediting that authority. In school 30 years ago it seemed that liberals would be the first to appeal to logic, but apparently not today.
- An enjoyment and tolerance of deceit. Liberal editors almost never criticized deceitful behavior as being "wrong". Liberals generally reject the Ten Commandments, and oppose teaching them to children. Often liberal editors have defended or applauded deceitful behavior here. This is remniscent of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales offering Essjay a position after his misrepresentations were disclosed, until public criticism compelled Wales to change his mind.
- A preference for obscenity. Many liberal editors have complained about Commandment #3 in the rules, which prohibits obscenity. Frequently liberal editors have introduced obscenity into Conservapedia despite the rules, often leading to blocking accounts. This is like Wikipedia's popular pages containing pornography, as described in Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.
- A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries. Many liberal editors have complained 9 times more often than they have made a substantive addition, which violates the rule against 90% talk per 10% substantive edits. In some cases this has even necessitated blocking accounts.
- Strident objections to the point in Examples of Bias in Wikipedia quantifying how Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It is not that anyone (other than Jimmy Wales) attempts to deny that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Instead, liberal editors appear to object to quantifying it, particularly at a multiple of six. But why isn't that claim flattering to them? Conservatives would not object to a claim that they are __ times more conservative than such-and-such. Perhaps assigning a number to the bias makes it difficult for liberals to deny it exists.
- Over-reliance by liberals on mockery rather than logical argument.
- There are repeated attempts to convert liberal opinion into a statement of fact. This can be done by citing a liberal advocate as an authority or by selectively invoking a liberal perception about what "most people think." This style of argument occurs too often, and too selectively, to reflect mere lack of intellectual rigor. It appears to be central to the liberal style of reasoning.
- Liberals often express decidedly liberal viewpoints as "common usage".
- Instead of just correcting a grammatical error, liberals like to dramatically announce their superior ability to correct other contributors.
- When found in an unbeatable position in debate, liberals tend to spout sentences upon sentences of meaningless words whilst saying absolutely nothing of significance for their side of the argument.
Over 466,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here.