Talk:Extremism

2009-01-17T19:10:11Z

Nederlander:

==Overstreet on the JBS==
The Overstreet reference to the John Birch Society may give a misimpression. Even [[Chip Berlet]] in his 1991 ''Right Woos left'' says this of the JBS:

:The JBS has in recent years tried to avoid anti-Jewish or racist rhetoric, instead basing its theories on the belief that all major world powers, including the U.S. and the Soviet Union, are controlled by a covert group of "Insiders," such as members of the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg banking conference, or the Council on Foreign Relations. [http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left]

Berlet repeats the same language no less than twice in other chapters. So given popular conceptions of the "extreme right," it may not be fair to label the JBS as such in the opening sentence, and we should reconsider the placement of the Overstreet material. This Overstreet quote is dated 1964 anyway, and appears obsolete & deprecated (per WP:ATTFAQ). Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:40, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Conservapedia is an extremist organization ==

Anyone care to disagree? Conservapedia has all the hallmarks, as listed on the article, of an extremist orgainization.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
:I disagree. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 20:13, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:See point 3 in [[liberal style]], explaining how [[liberals]] try to call their adversaries "extremist". Nice try, MetcalfeM, but it won't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 14 February 2008 (EST)

I am not actually a liberal. I live in a liberal country and have ''some'' liberal views however I do not agree with many liberal POV and consider myself a moderate.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

:So... how exactly does conservapedia have these characteristics? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:25, 14 February 2008 (EST)

: See points 6 and 12 in [[liberal style]]. MetcalfeM, you fit them to the tee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:41, 14 February 2008 (EST)

(2) name calling and labeling; Anyone disagreeing is labeled a Liberal.
(5) advocacy of double standards; Many editors use unsourced material and main page quotes the odd journalist in contradiction of commandments yet anyone else is unable to do the same
(12) assumption of moral or other superiority over others; Atheists are considered immoral (I am an atheist yet I am a very moral person)
(22) tendency to believe in far-reaching conspiracy theories; Liberal biasis in media and liberal deceit ideology by this site shows this
(10) tendency toward argument by intimidation; People are often threatened with bans if they carry on.
(8) advocacy of some degree of censorship or repression of opponents and/or critics; fairly straight forward this one.

Also, i would have no problem admitting liberalism, I admit I have left leanings however there is a lot of liberal ideology I do not agree with. Here you are guilty of name calling/labeling.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

I totally agree with MetcalfeM on this issue. Building a wiki that sports your own ideas rather than, for example, those based on scienctific research is fine (no-one is forced to surf to this place, at least not to my knowledge); but when it comes down to it just be a man and admit to your beliefs in stead of just saying "you=liberal=filthyliar". If you seriously believe that conservapedia's acticles on homosexuality for example aren't an example of extremist (far-right) point of view, pray tell, what is?

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Extremism