Difference between revisions of "Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia"
From Conservapedia
StevenRhodes (Talk | contribs) |
m (Reverted edits by StevenRhodes (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze [[liberal behavior]] and trends. Several important characteristics emerge: | Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze [[liberal behavior]] and trends. Several important characteristics emerge: | ||
| − | # Almost no liberal admits he's liberal, or that he holds a liberal belief, or that he is using a liberal argument. | + | # 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??? |
| − | # An enjoyment and tolerance of deceit | + | # 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 | + | # 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 [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. |
| − | # A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries | + | # A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries. Many liberal editors have violated the 90/10 requirement of the [[rules]], sometimes necessitating blocking accounts. |
| − | # Strident objections to the point in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] quantifying how Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public | + | # Strident objections to the point in [[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 | + | # Over-reliance by liberals on mockery rather than logical argument. |
| − | # There are repeated attempts to convert liberal opinion into a statement of fact | + | # 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. |
Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here. | Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here. | ||
Revision as of 18:11, May 4, 2007
Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze liberal behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:
- 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???
- 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 Bias in Wikipedia.
- A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries. Many liberal editors have violated the 90/10 requirement of the rules, sometimes necessitating blocking accounts.
- Strident objections to the point in 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.
Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here.
