Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

Isn't this a bit adolescent? It basically says "I hate liberals." Dkips 12:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

And when I say "I hate white people", does that make me adolescent. Chmorguphaste 12:12, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

In addition to being a bigot, yes. Why do you ask? Dkips 12:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

DKips, nowhere does Mr. Schlafly say that he hates liberals. Their stances and their tactics perhaps, but there's always hope that the people themselves might be saved. SSchultz 23:25, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey, we all love liberals here...but you wouldn't want your sister to marry one. Maestro 23:27, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Maestro, thanks for reminding me of another favorite liberal tactic: draw an analogy to racism, particularly when no logical argument will help. I'll add that now. Lighten up a bit, too: there's nothing wrong with observing style. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of Godwin's law. DanH 23:36, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

pretending to know more than he does

Do you know this for a fact?

resistance to quantifying things

Have you data to prove this, in a quantifiable manner?

Claim that science supports their position

This is an excellent opportunity for you to use science to quantitatively demonstrate that you are not, in fact, pretending to know more than you do. I have a little training in the social sciences; I will be happy to review your essay for you, once you develop it beyond this outline.--All Fish Welcome 23:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

One only need look at how liberals promote Evolution, Global Warming, and other bogus theories to realize that they try to deceive people with fake science. SSchultz 01:16, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

SSchultz, a good many liberals have faith, so your idea that "they" might be "saved" is a bit presumptive to say the least. Further, I don't pretend to know the "truth" about things like global warming or evolution only that the issues are complex and the evidence conflicted- dismissing them as bogus out of hand seems silly and intellectually lazy. As for the rest of the essay, because of the monthilic view it takes of liberalism and the broad strokes of purple crayon used to connect the dots, as it were, it reads like the rants of a disgruntled teenager. As it stands it is decidely anti-intellectual. 10:33, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, you're wrong about the "rants of a disgruntled teenager," and wrong about the remainder of your comments also. You also misspelled several basic words, raising further doubts about your own intellectual commitment as you complain about someone else being "anti-intellectual". You may not pretend to know the truth about global warming or evolution, but many other liberals do pretend to know AND they insist on teaching their peculiar views in public school against the wishes of parents and most taxpayers.--Aschlafly 11:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Snarky and deflective observations about spelling errors aside, simply pronouncing my views as wrong is unconvincing at best; I could [and do] as easily say the same about your views. Your essay is really nothing more than a rant. I judge your claims as wholly unsupported and your replies unfocused and unresponsive. I'd advise you to rework the whole thing if you wish to persuade anyone other than yourself. As it stands, you've earned an "F." This will never do. Dkips 13:10, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

We're not here to please you as a liberal. This is a conservative site and this essay is great. Your liberal POV will just give us additional material to use on this site and in this article. --Crocoite 16:42, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Sources

I'd love to see some sources for these, um, properties, but I doubt that will ever happen without a lot of revert wars and page blocks. However, I think the newest source (here) seems to be in error. CP's (blank) deletion policy? Not sure what that has to do with hate speech. Jazzman831 13:32, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Don't follow you, Jazzman. Are you speaking in code? Pick out one of the style items that you dispute and identify it here, and I'll track down a cite for you or delete it. In Christ,--Aschlafly 13:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

What's the burden of proof on an essay page? Is it subject to the Commandments? If it is not, then I don't think any of the statements should be removed (though I doubt many of them are accurate, on the whole). I guess I forgot that this was an essay page when I complained about the lack of sources. Statement retracted :) Jazzman831 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Jazzman, Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Undelete/Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy. The page history has "New page: American Taliban You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". Accusing Conservapedia or other conservative authors of being a hateful is another liberal style. --Crocoite 13:50, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Crocoite, when I click on that link all I see is a page that says "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Sysops"." When I click on the link within the article, I get a page that says "There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page" and there is no page history. Am I doing something wrong?

No, I don't think you're doing anything wrong. I'm a sysop and I forgot you wouldn't be able to look at that link. I did extract part of that page for you to see where the user put "You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". See how this user accuses Conservapedia of hate speech? --Crocoite 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Even if the link did work, though, how would that show liberal style? Does the author of that statement claim to be a liberal? How do you know his claim is credible? Jazzman831 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

The above user and several other liberals on this site and all over the internet accuse Conservatives of "hate speech" just for expressing our conservative freedom of speech. --Crocoite 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Meh, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's a great example of liberals accusing conservatives of hate speech, but I'm not really bothered by it, since it's an essay. I understand the reference now, though, thanks. Jazzman831 19:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity...

Are self-proclaimed Liberals allowed to look at this article and question the idea that this applies to every Liberal? Or should such people, like myself, just kinda sit back here and laugh at it? Kazumaru 23:28, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

You have free will and can laugh at anything that you can persuade yourself to be funny. No one is claiming that *all* liberals exhibit the same style, or even that *any* liberals exhibit all the style points listed. But people who share common beliefs, as liberals do, tend to exhibit some similar traits in terms of style. Not a big deal, and not something to take offense at. Denying any commonality in style would be more laughable, I think.--Aschlafly 00:05, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

So it's more of a joke than a serious essay? Kazumaru 00:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

How does your conclusion follow from what I said? Maybe you're being facetious at this point. I was clear that liberals, like any group that shares common beliefs, share some similar characteristics of style also. It shouldn't offend anyone to list some of those characteristics.--Aschlafly 00:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

It's a joke but he doesn't know it. Wismike 14:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

Liberal style?

Mr. Schlafly, I have a few issues with some of your "liberal characteristics", specifically that it seems like you yourself exhibit many of them in your discussions/debates. Here are a few of the examples that I have found:

2. Pretending to know more than he does.

example: In your discussion of the Kevorkian speaker article on the main talk page you say "Those many liberals probably received fees ten (10) times greater what the few conservatives received in fees." You have absolutely know justification for this statement.

5. Insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate.

example: I, as well as many others, have noticed that you frequently end discussion of debate topics by accusing whoever you are debating with of being a liberal and refusing to continue the discussion at all.

7. Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy.

example: See the article on "Liberal hypocrisy".

9. Insistence on censoring certain speech.

example: Just look at the large number of people who have been blocked (which might end up including me unfortunately) for holding opposing viewpoints.

15. Claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their science to be flawed.

example: See conservapedia articles and debates on evolution, young earth creationism, etc. Nearly all arguments for young earth creationist ideas contain the phrase "young earth creationists assert" without providing any sort of evidence or support.

So I was wondering what your response to all of this is. Do I have a point or am I missing something? And for the record (and in anticipation of your response) no I am not a liberal, so please do not stoop to calling me one like it is an insult or as if it somehow makes your point for you. I simply feel that if you are going to criticize liberals for these characteristics you should first make sure that you yourself do not engage in any of the same practices. --BillOhannity 14:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the comments. I just added a new point in the article to describe liberals such as yourself who deny they are liberal hoping that it will bolster their weak arguments somehow.--Conservateur 14:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Where in the response given by OHannity can it be concluded that he is a liberal? --Joe 15:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

BillOhannity has provided reason to make this addition to the list:

liberals often argue in non sequiturs

Not one of his arguments disproves or even tends to disprove the points he references.--Aschlafly 15:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

I believe his point was that conservatives also show these traits, not that liberals don't show these traits. If a liberal and a conservative have the same style, then it's not "liberal style," it's just "arguing style". (Just in case it gets pulled in later, as it often seems to, I am hereby officially denying I am a liberal). Jazzman831 21:05, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes that was exactly my point, I'm glad someone actually read what I wrote. I wasn't trying to disprove anything, so I guess it only makes sense that "not one of his arguments disproves or tends to disprove the points he references." --BillOhannity 14:16, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Bill, I found something else you can add to your list: #1 (calling free speech hate speech) is also practised by conservatives, as evidenced here. This list is looking more and more like it should be renamed. Jazzman831 19:21, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your comment, Jazzman. Is someone on equating the institution of free speech with the practice of hate speech, i.e., saying that all free speech is hate speech?

Or are you objecting to any denunciation of a remark as "hate speech", when that remark is protected by the principle of free speech? --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Huh? This article claims that the liberal style (or liberal bias... I don't know everything keeps moving around!) includes "calling conservative free speech "hate" speech". We have an article calling liberal free speech "hate" speech, do we not? If this is not the case then this article (template, whatever) or the liberal hate speech article needs to be clarified, because I don't see a difference between the two claims. Jazzman831 18:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Its just funny

I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. Graham 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Of course you would call it hypocritical. That's because you refuse to accept the authority that Conservatives based their comments on, which the vast majority of their comments rely on. Conservatives use authoritative sources such as the Constitution or the Bible, where liberals say things based on nothing but their opinion as the authority. That is the difference.

Crocoite - Civility?

I note that we're not allowed to "bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions" on our user/talk pages, but it is okay to do so in encyclopedic articles? --Jenkins 09:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm just one big example of Liberal Deceit.

Some of these guys genuinely don't know how much they seem to pardoy themselves. Graham 09:55, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

In fact, any of the last few discussions I've had with him he has ended prematurely. What he had said basically amounted to 'Your a Liberal and Liberals don't have an ability to logically deduct' or something along them lines. Anyway, its all innane. Crocite basically took all I said out of context, though I am flattered to be included in this. What he doesn't realise is that he himself uses many of the debate tactics listed in this. Graham 10:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I totally have to go over some of your recent discussions with him later on. Looking over the list, I can see your point - many items on this list are being used by some of the "top contributors" here, it seems. --Jenkins 10:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

You know that there is a very strong possibility we could be banned for having this discussion? Blocking here is arbitrary, at the whim of a certain admin you may or may not have irritated. Perhaps we should stop mentioning it and look to less controversial articles. Although discussion is the best antidote to the insanity of articles like this, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mc Carthyism, Liberal Intellectualism etc. perhaps it would be best to concentrate on less controversial articles and on the articles which don't make conservapedia seem like a parody of itself. Graham 10:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree, although I have trouble finding articles that I can contribute significantly to and which are uncontroversial enough. But I have asked a fair share of uncomfortable questions in the past few days, so I figure I better get a few edits under my belt to save my reputation... see you around then, I guess/hope? --Jenkins 10:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure thing buddy Graham 10:42, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Athiests?

Are all atheists Liberals? Tubesock 13:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)

No, of course not. Not all smokers get lung cancer, and not everyone in jail committed a crime. But the vast majority of atheists are liberals, particularly on social issues.--Aschlafly 14:13, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Citation needed

thats not a real response to the question, as that is a bad relationship-Greenmeanie 01:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Protected

I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days. WKirkwood 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)

no, athiests deny that, not liberals-Greenmeanie 01:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Dude, it's spelled "atheists" ("i" after "e", except after "c" ...). And, by the way, most liberals do deny that the God created the world in six days.--Aschlafly 09:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

"Science" proved that wrong, Andy. _{pun intended} +_+ _{always tired} Kektk 23:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Confused

Ignoring, for a second, the content of the article itself... Why is this a plate? Barikada 13:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Content

"# calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." [3]" Hooray for grammar!

"# overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution" vs "insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"

"selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain." Because we can never quote the Bible. Ever. 'cause that's wrong. We're infidels.

And finally, #42: Identity is the colour of one's skin. I love you guys. Barikada 13:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Sooo....

Is it safe to assume that these are supposed to be things that only Liberals do, or can Conservatives occasionalyl do them, as well? --RJest 17:51, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Neville Chamberlain Was A Conservative

Can someone please fix? Thx. Aboganza 23:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Prove he was a conservative first. Thx. Karajou 23:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

"...a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"

as my mother - a very wise woman -once said, "just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right. Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else thought it was a good idea?" What is the relationship, in this case between the alleged "massive flood" and what a majority of Americans (the same majority that believe in UFOs and a living Elvis, perhaps?) think? Aboganza 23:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)

No one is claiming that majority opinion makes something right. But when something is right and supported by majority opinion, and liberals censor it anyway, then it is a double outrage.--Aschlafly 23:26, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Point four... The new one.

Because no Conservative has ever done anything destructive. Ever. Barikada 21:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Deletion suggestion

That nothing links to a page is not justification for deleting it. People may find it by searching for it in the "FIND" box.--Aschlafly 21:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Controversial

Iconoclastic controversy, Global Warming Controversy, Creation-evolution controversy, Muhammad cartoons controversy, Abortion controversy, Easter controversy, Intelligent design controversy, Video game controversy. DannyRedful 16:11, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Grammer

shouldn't the first letter of every sentence be capitalized and I was wondering if those external links could be changed to referenced??? Just trying to help. respond to me on my talk page. --AmeliaJ 17:37, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Missing ref tags

I would make the change myself if I could; Point #8: "Silence Speaks Volume" has a few links next to it that do not have ref tags. Point #31 has ref tags, why not point #8? Thanks to whoever fixes this. ~ JonG ~ 01:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Better word than "unjustified", use "unsubstantiated" instead.

Concerning: "#unjustified claims of expertise, authority or knowledge"

A better word instead of "unjustified" is "unsubstantiated" there.

Good suggestion. I'll make the change.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2016 (EDT)