Fun talk:Liberal

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, (new)

Numbers was teh phunny[edit]

But their contribution totally messed up the page formatting so I copied it here. humanUser talk:Human 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we move this article to a "Fun:"...[edit]

And make a REAL article about Liberalism. That'd be fun, amirite?— Unsigned, by: 66.233.55.145 / talk / contribs 19:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from an annoy editor, moved to talk page[edit]

Here is a question: Why is this site such a childish piece of garbgage? As a classical liberal, I find the petty snipes to be personally insulting. It makes this entire wiki seem like it was written by the shrill wonkette kids as opposed to clear-thinking adults. Rational, intellectual people have major legitimate disgreements on things such as "positive rights" and the ethical and moral justification for income redistribution. Just sayin'. (ISP only).

Hello, Sir BoN. As a classical liberal/libertarian myself, I understand your frustrations. However, RW as a whole is not that way, and they often differ on what rationialism is. I agree with you that there isn't moral or ethical justification for income redistribution. However, if you want to give your opinion, create an account and spout off on the debate or essay pages. Thanks.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this editor may have missed the "parody" indication at the top of this particular article.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The balloons? One can miss that?Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should make them bigger. Тytalk 19:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Way too biased[edit]

This article sounds extremely sympathetic to liberals: instead of just making fun of them, it insidiously makes fun of the right-wing criticism they can be subjected to; meanwhile, the article “Conservative” is genuinely deriding conservatism… I suggest the former be rewritten as a critique of liberalism, to keep balance. The current state of affairs makes this wiki look left-leaning while it should be denouncing lies both from the right and the left.

(If you ask me what a funny bashing of liberalism would be, here’s an example of what I have in mind – although this one may be in a more hardcore tone – : http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Liberalism. Nods.gif) — 193.200.150.152 (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We aren't a balanced wiki. Тайговорить 15:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL at the cartoon.[edit]

P.C. Lobe

Global Warming Panic Center

Work Ethic Molecule

Funny stuff Moonshot926 (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agreed intill I found out they were serious. look it up.

Betrix5068 (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Move to funspace[edit]

When compared to conservative this article is terrible, at least in mainspace. It ought to be moved to funspace and a new, good article created in its place to reflect a more politically balanced website - I THOUHT TIHSS WAS RATIONALEWIKI. I've fulfilled my duty as an editor by bringing this issue forward and further move that someone else does both of these things to save me the trouble of having to do anything else. El TajDon't make me do stuff 21:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure fine whatever, I agree, have a sweet. ТyrannisPlead 21:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)