Conservapedia talk:Extremism

I'd like to formally draft help for this article.

On Valentine's Day, CP user MetcalfeM brought up an interesting point at cp:Talk:Extremism. He argued that Conservapedia met the three main requirements and all of the 22 characteristics of an extremist organization. We all know that this is true, but I think a gem of an article could be written that showcases specific proofs for each of these points, which are;

(1) character assassination; (Dawkins)
(2) name calling and labeling; (Liberals, Dawkins, Phelps, etc.)
(3) irresponsible sweeping generalizations; (anything Andy has said about atheists and liberals)
(4) inadequate proof for assertions; (Breast Cancer/Abortion, school shootings as a result of atheism, etc.)
(5) advocacy of double standards; (90/10 rule only applied as a tool of suppression)
(6) tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil; (anything Andy has said about non-Christians)
(7) Manichean worldview; (uhh... God vs. Satan? I'm not familiar with the term, but it seems to be that the "problem" is dualism)
(8) advocacy of some degree of censorship or repression of opponents and/or critics; (90/10 rule, labelling, POV blocks, TK's "off the leash" days, etc.)
(9) a tendency to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: whom they hate and who hates them; (Atheists, Liberals, Evolutionists, non-YECs)
(10) tendency toward argument by intimidation; (Conservapedia:Schlafly Rearguard)
(11) use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought stopping clichés; (liberal, atheistic, evolution(ists/ism), etc.)
(12) assumption of moral or other superiority over others; (They're Fundies, 'nuff said)
(13) doomsday thinking; (Revelations? Duh!)
(14) a belief that doing bad things in the service of a “good” cause is permissible; (Crusades, killing infidels, invading Iraq, etc.)
(15) emphasis on emotional responses, and, correspondingly, less importance to reasoning and logical analysis;
(16) hypersensitivity and vigilance; (PJR, Andy, Rob "I'm offended" rants)
(17) use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions; (GOD)
(18) problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty; (political "moderates" and agnosticism is frowned upon)
(19) inclination tow::ard "groupthink"; (YEC here)
(20) tendency to personalize hostility; (Yessir)
(21) a feeling that the “system” is no good unless they win; and (Liberal politicians? AHH!)
(22) tendency to believe in far-reaching conspiracy theories. (Dinosaurs in Chinese lakes, Creationism, Freemasons, etc.)

I added examples from off the top of my head after each point. As you can see, I was only stymied by number 15, and I'm sure there are specific examples for this. Remember, these examples were from off the top of my head.

Please post here if you're interested. --Hoji^die! 23:34, 14 February 2008 (EST)

I have a little of my own opinion here and here --PalMD ^{-Did that sound a little harsh?} 23:45, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Pinto chimes in[edit]

Damn beat me to it, mine looked like this:

(1) character assassination; Dawkins
(2) name calling and labeling; Dawkins, Liberals, et al
(3) irresponsible sweeping generalizations; Liberals, Public school system, et al
(4) inadequate proof for assertions; Abortion and Breast Cancer, et al
(5) advocacy of double standards; Conservapedia Commandments
(6) tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil; Liberals, et al
(7) Manichean worldview;
(8) advocacy of some degree of censorship or repression of opponents and/or critics; Liberal denial article, et al
(9) a tendency to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: whom they hate and who hates them; Too many to list
(10) tendency toward argument by intimidation; Sysops, et al
(11) use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought stopping clichés; In the news, et al
(12) assumption of moral or other superiority over others; Liberals, Atheism, et al
(13) doomsday thinking; Again, innumerable
(14) a belief that doing bad things in the service of a “good” cause is permissible;
(15) emphasis on emotional responses, and, correspondingly, less importance to reasoning and logical analysis; Talk namespace
(16) hypersensitivity and vigilance; See above
(17) use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions; Atheism, Evolution, et al
(18) problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty;
(19) inclination toward "groupthink"; Sysops, et al
(20) tendency to personalize hostility; Liberals, et al
(21) a feeling that the “system” is no good unless they win; Team Contests; and
(22) tendency to believe in far-reaching conspiracy theories. Vaccinations, abortions, et al.

Pinto's5150 ^Talk 23:48, 14 February 2008 (EST)

You cooked this wild scheme up before I posted here? Great minds think alike, to use a horribly clichéd saying. Would you like to work together in this endeavor? --Hoji^die! 23:51, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Sure. Yeah, I almost posted that on CP with my sock, but I figured I'd keep the sock alive for a little longer. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 23:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

In the foolish hope that MetcalfeM is not, in fact, a lvl 3 sock of a current RW user, I went and "advertised" to him. --Hoji^die! 23:57, 14 February 2008 (EST)

So I take it you were Mahoney? Pinto's5150 ^Talk 23:59, 14 February 2008 (EST)

What? No, I was the other spambot vandal. --Hoji^die! 00:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Volunteers[edit]

I'll help with tough ones after the boycott is over. Ping me to remind if you want any help. human 11:19, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Das ist sehr gut! I'll "ping" you post-Boycott. --Hoji^die! 12:14, 16 February 2008 (EST)

So far, I have...[edit]

(why not cut and paste everything from here down to the article page now?) human

I moved all the good stuff over tot he article. human 15:41, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Point 5[edit]

(moved from mainspace, which was moved there from talk) Er, to prove the double standard you just need to show that people who did not break the rule were blocked, and other people who did not break the rule were not blocked. Redifining the rule to be 50/50 only really confounds your argument. I say leave "90/10" as literally "90/10" and then show the people who were blocked without being in violation of the letter of the law. The way it is now, a CPer could argue that the spirit of the rule is being violated or not violated, which is really true, since CP gets to define "quality". Lurker 15:15, 28 February 2008 (EST)

(Sorry about missing your comment when I moved the big chunk over). Good point. The second section makes no real point other than that CP sysops are not technically in violation. In fact, 90/10 is a poor example of double standards, it's "another issue". Better example: the second (?) commandment, the one about citing work. human

19:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Much better. There's an edit war on cp:liberal friendship, started by the fact that HelpJazz added an uncited tag to cp:liberal grading, and another user tried to use this as a reason to put one on liberal friendship. Or you could point to every single article that Andy edits, then look at any time someone disagrees with him and adds a reference. Lurker 19:27, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, that talk page was a classic of the ~~kind~~ baramin. Probably as good as any ref we could have for Andy's citation double standard. human

19:55, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Point 9...[edit]

"a tendency to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: whom they hate and who hates them"

...needs work. Whether the list is true or not, that's not how they identify themselves. A better argument I think would be when Andy refers to his blog as "the alternative to Wikipedia" or "free of liberal bias".

What version of CP are you reading? The above is exactly how CP operates; not defining what they're for but rather what they're against. A negative definition if you will. Warren Terra 21:04, 28 February 2008 (EST)

My point was that, even though the desctiptions are accurate, they don't identify themselves like that. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 19:41, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Source of Conservapedia's list[edit]

Conservapedia's list of extremist traits is a wholesale copy from John George and Laird Wilcox and their book American Extremists. It's not Conservapedia's own list. That book was one of several mainstream books that hit the market right after the Oklahoma City bombing to appease a book buying public who were shocked, shocked to learn there were real homegrown American extremists out there. Laird Wilcox is known to be an across the board ideological skeptic and the list is one which could equally apply to extreme anything - extreme conservatives, extreme liberals, extreme anything else. It's actually a very good list, and yes just about every point is easy to spot on Conservapedia. Secret Squirrel 20:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)

MetcalfeM[edit]

MetcalfeM is not a sock of another RW user. I am in fact MetcalfeM and for the record, I wasnt banned after bringing up my thoughts on CP being an Extremist organization. I just got shit from Assfly and Bohdan MikeyMike 21:54, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Really? Here is what I said to you in my two responses:

"I disagree. "

and

"So... how exactly does conservapedia have these characteristics?"

Yeah, I was really *terrible* wasn't I? TmtamesP 21:58, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Are we being funny? Smart @ss. MetcalfeM 15:25, 3 March 2008 (EST)