Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia
What I really can't understand is why is there so much focus here on Conservapedia slamming liberals? This website is advertised as conservative - why not focus more on furthering your own arguments and agendas as opposed to ridiculing others? The Deceit article is a prime example of this. You present that article as if liberals are the only people capable of deceit. How is this socially responsible?
It would seem that Mockery is just as much a part of some Conservatives arsenals as it is the Liberals. As both a Christian and a Conservative, I despise deceit and mockery as being the tools of a weak mind. Opinion is just that but facts are golden. Trashbat 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Granted, I'm sure you could point out websites where liberals in turn do the same things to conservatives. I am not trying to say conservatives are bad people. I just don't think you advance your point of view very effectively by slinging mud - bolster your own viewpoints instead. --Colest 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I agree, this site has a clear agenda to ridicule liberals. Perhaps you should rename this site to www.antiliberalpedia.com--Sm355 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Even as a sysop, I'm a little uncomfortable with implying that all liberals are deceitful, given that my mother is liberal. DanH 19:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Dan, I feel that you are far from alone in your concerns about the direction this site is taking. Your mother's liberalism notwithstanding, the unsourced, extreme and unnecessary criticisms of liberalism do seem to be a case of the lady protesting too much. I suggest that you resign your status until the owner and panel are more clear about what they want this place to be.--Olly 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I'm liberal, and I find it quite amusing, reminiscent of our old friend Richard. As for the second point brought up in this article; for commandment 3 to be enforced, we would have to delete Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Procreation, Fornication, and Bisexuality. --Hojimachongtalk 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
And there goes Fornication! Two down, three to go. Erasmus 17:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I dunno...seems a whole lot lot of discussion (and articles) that say liberals believe this, and they are stupid for doing so. Let's face it, a lot of times political discussion disolves into personal name calling. In your article you generalize about liberals, but take this into consideration: the liberals on here who don't break commandments, contribute to articles, show intelligence, and help make this a better site probably aren't noticed (or at least singled out as liberals). It's easy to take the lowest common denominator and say it's representative of the whole. Czolgolz 14:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Do you see neither the danger in, nor basic wrong-headedness of, sweeping generalisations re. a particular group's character and "typical" behaviours?
The historical precedents for such modes of talk are unfortunate, to say the least. The Jew, the Negro, the Bourgeoisie.....all have been fastened with a similarly reductionist pin at one time or another. Whilst I'm sure you would wish to join with me in condemning this ignoble tradition, your words have a resonance that does you no credit.
If this site attracts ridicule, then you must at least consider the possibility that this is because it deserves it. You have an opportunity here to shape how the wider world perceives your particular branch of Christianity. Unless your intent was to create a general impression of mean-spirited and contrary zealotry, then it is one you have singularly failed to grasp.
- ↑ kuhn-trair-ee - perverse; stubbornly opposed or willful. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contrary
--Robledo 13:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
I put what I've put at another place on CP, with some additions:
Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like? After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. In the words of Barack Obama: "The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states." Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them.
And continuing: This should be required reading for all new contributors here. Let all the newcomers, of whatever political persuation, decide whether they really want to be a part of this project. Sterile 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
- I can't imagine the content page genuinely offending anyone. But offense or not, behavior can and should be scientifically studied. We have hundreds of journals publishing papers on behavior about every aspect of society. What's wrong with studying liberal behavior? I wouldn't object to a study of conservative behavior, styles of arguing, conduct on a website, etc. In fact, I'd welcome it, because we can all learn from it and improve.--Aschlafly 21:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
- Since this is a scientific study, I’d like to know a bit about your methodology.
- How did you identify which users were liberal? What was your classification system? How many posts did a user have to make before being included in the study? Did you compare liberal users to conservative users? How many users had to exhibit a behavior before it was classified as a liberal behavior? What percentage of all users did your study include?--Reginod 09:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
- If it looks, walks like a duck, and quacks like one, I know it is a duck. Same for Conservative's and Liberal's. It is a pretty common sense deal, no? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
- I’m going to go with “no”. There is a much larger political spectrum than liberal or conservative, and, aside from the problems inherent in trying to confine a multiplicity of views to a bipolar spectrum, people can and do hide their true political leanings. --Reginod 09:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Who said anything about criticizing anyone? I'm just saying that it's obvious to me that the management has already judged the editors on this site, not by their edits, but by their political persuations. I'm embarrased for Conservapedia that this essay even exists. If you can't see the problem with this essay, then you are blinded by your own views. (And sure, go ahead, block me. At this point I don't know why any person--conservative or liberal--would truly want to continue to edit here, if the management is this biased. Conservapedia is doomed if it isolates its volunteer editors.) Sterile 08:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
The 6-times criticism
What an extraordinary essay. I realise that everybody is ideologically blinded to a certain extent, but I've seen it on Conservapedia to an eye-opening extent. Frequently 'Liberals' are accused of things that the accusor themselves has done, or has tacitly approved others doing. I could go through the whole list and provide instances of Conservatives doing exactly the same things as Liberals have been accused of doing, but that would be tedious. So I'll just concentrate on a few instances.
- Are Liberals more aggressive than Conservatives (point 1)? Increasingly I've seen sysops using veiled threats along the lines of 'Don't post here again if you know what's good for you'.
- Point 11 states that Liberals cite authorities to support their point of view rather than citing evidence. However, all of the articles regarding matters relating to YEC cite almost exclusively from websites such as creationwiki or answersingenesis. Only this morning I objected to a reference in the Wombat article which didn't at all address the issue it was supposed to be supporting; this has now been changed, and now the citation is for an essay which says that a land bridge might have existed between Europe and Australia without providing any evidence. Although I suppose in accordance with point 4, these editors who are claiming to be Conservative and making these dodgy links are probably actually just Liberals.
- Point 6 appears to be suggesting that Liberals are frequently deceitful, without noting that Conservatives are often deceitful themselves, for example in the case of point 7 which claims that Liberals are objecting to the banning of obscenity rather than objecting to the rather arbitrary notions of what constitues obscenity here.
- The claim that this was a scientific study is either deceitful (point 6) or an inability to provide citations and proper methodology for the study (possibly violating point 11) or maybe even a failure to rely on logic (point 5)
Chrysogonus 17:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Almost no liberal admits he's a liberal.
"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???" Maybe that is why americans self identify (read: admit to being) as conservative 2:1 over liberal, but vote within a few percent every election. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:47, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
- I'm a liberal, and not embarrassed to "admit" it. "Almost no liberal"? I guess you don't read the Nation. And I certainly would not try to make a point by "pretending to be a conseravative"! Back up your claims! Human 00:17, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
- I was just making another point against the wikipedia 6 times as liberal thing. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:18, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
- Let's just get real here, and realize that since most liberals are scared to say they izz one, the 3:1 ratio at Wp really means a 12:1 ratio, and Wp is 57 times as liberal as the American public. But afraid to admit it! Human 00:51, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
- I also see your point, Tim, the trouble is one could argue that it's the moderates who even out the election. If one wanted to ignore the unpopularity of the term "liberal" (I think many started using "progressive" when "liberal" was at its nadir.) Human 16:33, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
- I was just making another point against the wikipedia 6 times as liberal thing. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:18, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
- Let me see if I have this straight. If a person has a conservative position on most issues, but a liberal one on even one issue, he's a liberal. The only way he could be a conservative (by this standard) would be if he held the conservative position on every single issue. And by that reckoning, conservatives still out-number liberals by 2-1 in this country. That's amazing.--Frey 00:06, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- This makes no sense. Some people are just plain conservative, but believe in one or two liberal things. Also, with the gun control thing, who didn't know that Hitler banned gun control? Also, if you look at a political map, conservatives do not outnumber liberals 2:1, the country is pretty much even. Plus, wikipedia, as with conservapedia, is a worldwide thing, and therefore, it can have twice as much liberalism than is in America because there are more liberals in the world. --Rocky
The latest entry is very good, and there's no end to examples. My favorite: liberals claim right and wrong cannot be defined, yet never cease to accuse people of hypocrisy. RobS 22:43, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- Yet hypocrisy is simply saying one thing and doing another - so where do right and wrong figure in?
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? Masterbratac 17:34, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
- You may be the only one who doesn't realize that was added by an apparent liberal, User:Conservinator, blocked soon afterwards on June 14th. Then look at point #13, which is appropriate.--Aschlafly 17:49, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
- If it's inappropriate and the editor who added the point was blocked, why is it even there? Also, it would be nice if the data on "liberal edits" were easily accessible. (That part isn't really related to this, though) Masterbratac 17:57, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
- You know, reading number 13, if I recall, Jimbo never did take action, and stood behind Essjay. It was Essjay himself who finally resigned because of the public pressure. Rob Smith 18:10, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
- Masterbratac, in response to your question, that was the apparent liberal's only edit that was not reverted, perhaps because the Sysop who did the blocking felt it was only an essay.
- FYI, you can view the history of any page and then see who inserted each change.--Aschlafly 18:12, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
- I didn't "blame" anyone. I merely pointed out the irony of the statement. I don't see how noticing this translates into being fooled. As to the last point, knowing the username of an editor would not necessarily tell me whether that editor is conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between. In this particular case it might, but only if I realized that the name was derived from the word "terminator" - which I didn't, until I read it several times. Masterbratac 18:39, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
- Masterbratac, let's be frank. Your comment, "Am I the only one who sees the irony here?", was a negative and critical one. It's no big deal. You were fooled by an apparent liberal. We all have been. Just recognize it. Then ask yourself, what else are liberals fooling me about? I've been fooled too, but then I learn from it. Think of the famous expression, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
- How was I fooled? What did the editor fool me into thinking? Did I say anything other than that the statement was ironic? Masterbratac 18:48, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
- Masterbratac, please suit yourself. If you don't think you were fooled, then so be it. I believe in free will. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:50, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
LOL I love this. Someone makes a booboo trying to support this website and trying to bash "liberals," people with half a brain notice the booboo, so now all of a sudden the powers-that-be throw the author under the bus and claim "well he was just a liberal fifth column anyway, we all were fooled." Give me a break... This is too rich hahaha... Jros83 13:42, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
Over-reliance by liberals on mockery rather than logical argument.
A conservative friend of mine suggested that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, who most folks, I assume, would place firmly in the conservative camp. I am a liberal.
If the LBR (Lying Buffoon Rush)(More on this Later) is typical of conservatives, I would suggest that your camp places much more store in mockery.
Constant references to John Edwards as "The Breck Girl" along with many implications that he is effeminate, "Dingy Harry", "Leaky Leahy" and anyone who talks to Mrs. Clinton must submit to the "Testicle Lockbox" are perfect examples of his sophomoric mockery.
I now make a point of going to Limbaugh's web site once a week or so and send an email to my friend pointing out the lies, half-truths and just general immature ranting the he treats his alarmingly high audience too. In deference to his never ending nicknames for some people I believe he should have one to. Lying Buffoon Rush, or LBR seems appropriate.
My friend, by the way, in addition to being conservative is a deeply religous man, which I am not. So, on most social issues we are a long way apart. What is interesting is we agree almost 100% of the end point on any social issue but disagree almost 100% on how to get there. I reckon the important point, though, is we keep talking. But for the fact that he is a good Baptist, we would probably go for a beer afterwards!!--TraJSmith 22:59, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
- Your post caused me to remember why Air America failed: Liberals, in general, have no real sense of political humor! What you have failed to come to grips with is that Limbaugh is an entertainer first, political commentator second. His show, since I began listening to him in Sacramento, California, way before he was ever syndicated, has always been more about poking fun at ourselves, as well as Liberals. What others take as pomposity, is Rush "doing" a modified "Ted Baxter" impression. If you are too young to remember who Ted Baxter was, see the old Mary Tyler Moore show....the original one, set in Minneapolis. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 04:48, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
- TraJSmith, thanks for your comments and other edits. You make a valid point here, but TK rebuts it well. Rush is primarily an entertainer, and he seeks to build his audience among non-conservatives who like mockery. You seem to have taken to it yourself, and come up with mockery in response!
- As intelligent as you are, TraJSmith, I'd encourage you look beyond entertainment for answers. A start might be to consider why you (probably) oppose allowing students to begin a class in public school with a prayer. There is little doubt that prayer is helpful to students, yet liberals oppose it with a vengeance in the classroom, the font of knowledge. That contradiction in liberal thought leads to many other contradictions and even deceit, I'm afraid.--Aschlafly 08:44, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
Reckon I have to disagree with both of you.
Sure, it is fairly easy to tell when Limbaugh is being overly pompous for the sake of humor, or spinning the facts rather than prevaricating. I think he tells the worst kind of lies, being half-truths. I am not going to provide a long list now, although that would be possible. In terms of liberal humor, I suggest you try John Stewart, who exclusively pokes fun at the powers-that-be, without any attempt to present himself as a “truth-telling machine.” Another interesting thing about Stewart is when he interviews folks from the other side, is always respectful.
By the way, TK, not only am I old enough to remember MTM, I remember her as Mrs. Laura Petrie. Indeed, as another pal of mine says, “I’m so old, I remember when Joni Mitchell was good”
Andy, I must disagree with you as well. I gather my news primarily though The Economist (slightly right of center), the New York Times and NPR (both slightly left thereof.) To be sure, this does not make me the best informed man in America, but I would suggest I am better able to detect irony and sarcasm better than the average ditto-head. I will drop the appellation LBR when I no longer constantly read of the Breck Girl.
You are correct, though, in that I am against school prayer. A moment of silence when students would be allowed to pray silently is fine. Similarly, I am against having every church service begin with a plea from a scientist to reconsider evolution. Religion and Churches fill an important role in our society and should not be discouraged. However, education is equally important. The rules of phonics, and the inability to divide by zero apply regardless of your conception of God. While there is conflict between, say, YEC’s and geology and biology, I have faith (!) that kids will ultimately resolve the conflict. After all, we love our parents and at some point we realize they weren’t always right.
Enough for now. Let me figure out how I can write a brief analysis explaining Deferred Tax Credits to non-accountants. --TraJSmith 22:44, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
- TrajSmith, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful and insightful comments, and your edits on this site. Many students around the world benefit from you.
- The Economist, which once published a letter of mine and to which I subscribed for years, is slightly conservative (free market) on economic issues, but heavily atheistic and liberal on social matters. In short, it is like England itself, even though most of its subscribers are Americans. It also has a cartoonish way of reporting on America, with media icons getting too much superficial attention (e.g., Schwarzenegger).
- The opposition of liberals to any and all prayer in the classroom is where their logic breaks down, and the illogic spreads to other issues. If everyone in the class wants to pray, as is often the case, there should be no objection. Yet liberals do object, because they don't want recognition of God anywhere near the font of knowledge.--Aschlafly 22:53, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
- Liberals oppose prayer in the classroom as the US Constitution explicitly says that government and religion WILL be separated forever, for better or for worse. Since the school is a government institution religion has no place whatsoever in PUBLIC school. Liberals do not oppose teaching of religious concepts, as I know several teachers (as liberals) who find it important to introduce several world religions in their World History courses. They talk about it as if was topic for the expansion of the mind; i.e. knowing they exist but not suggesting a single one.
On a tangent to this whole thing this whole article groups all liberals together. I know several people who are liberals but should never ever be placed in the same group. Like with all groups the loudest get heard; but the loudest are generally poor representations. None of my liberal friends (or me for that matter) fit all of these things (barely any). On the converse if I took the loudest conservatives (people like Rush, O'Reilly, and Hannity) I would assume all conservatives are loud mouth, over generalizing, old fashioned, old white men, but knowing people, this is not true. Most are compassionate normal people with their beliefs and values (which I respect as much as my own [a lot]). Snotbowst
- You say, "Liberals oppose prayer in the classroom as the US Constitution explicitly says that government and religion WILL be separated forever." Really? Give us that "explicit" quote. It's not there. Please admit that.--Aschlafly 22:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
- Government and religion SHOULD be seperated. History proves the two do not mix well. Andy, you wouldn't like the fundmentalist theocracy you more than likely dream about. We'd become like Iran or Saudi Arabia where the religion is so merged in with the politics that even they don't know where the one ends and the other begins. And it doesn't work too well over there. Besides, obviously, you support Christianity as the best choice in a government with religiosity, so in effect a vast amount of citizens would be alienated. Also, please don't tell me you're the type who thinks Christianity is just somehow superior so therefore we would never wind up like Saudi Arabia. Really, you can't be that naive. Jros83 13:39, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
seriously folks all of you who are dreaming of the day that our government and christianity (or any religion) merge at functional level, you know not of what you dream of...