| Line 34: |
Line 34: |
| | #attempting to control the definitions of words through [[political correctness]]. For example, referring to [[Israel]] as "occupied territories" or suggesting that Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are not part of Al-Qaeda. | | #attempting to control the definitions of words through [[political correctness]]. For example, referring to [[Israel]] as "occupied territories" or suggesting that Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are not part of Al-Qaeda. |
| | #Dismissing legitimate criticism as "a joke" <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Liberal_Style&oldid=266960]</ref> | | #Dismissing legitimate criticism as "a joke" <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Liberal_Style&oldid=266960]</ref> |
| − | #Denying something widely known to be true but difficult to prove, such as observing that men are far more likely to work in gas stations than women. | + | #Denying something widely known to be true but difficult to prove, such as observing that men are far more likely to work in gas stations than women.{{fact}} |
| | #Will often deny being a [[liberal]], or will claim to be a "true conservative", while spouting liberal and democratic talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles. | | #Will often deny being a [[liberal]], or will claim to be a "true conservative", while spouting liberal and democratic talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles. |
| | #using non sequiturs in argument, such as responding to the point above that [[liberals]] over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy by citing an example of conservatives' observing [[liberal hypocrisy]]. But their example does not help their argument. Quite the contrary, use of that example tends to prove that [[liberals]] do over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy (relativism). Think about that. | | #using non sequiturs in argument, such as responding to the point above that [[liberals]] over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy by citing an example of conservatives' observing [[liberal hypocrisy]]. But their example does not help their argument. Quite the contrary, use of that example tends to prove that [[liberals]] do over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy (relativism). Think about that. |
| Line 42: |
Line 42: |
| | #can't understand the difference between identity (e.g., color of one's skin), perspective (e.g., Judeo-[[Christian]]) and bias (e.g., [[Bias in Wikipedia]]). | | #can't understand the difference between identity (e.g., color of one's skin), perspective (e.g., Judeo-[[Christian]]) and bias (e.g., [[Bias in Wikipedia]]). |
| | #inability or unwillingness to differentiate between genuine conservative arguments and parodies of conservative arguments. | | #inability or unwillingness to differentiate between genuine conservative arguments and parodies of conservative arguments. |
| − | #"Contrariness is creativity to the untalented" - Dennis Miller's general observation about liberal behavior. | + | #"Contrariness is creativity to the untalented" - Dennis Miller's general observation about liberal behavior.{{fact}} |
| | + | #Assuming criminals are on the other side of the political fence, without evidence. |
| | | | |
| | ==References== | | ==References== |