Fun talk:Really embarrassing liberals

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Malcolm X[edit]

I cannot think of a meaningful definition of "liberal" that includes Malcolm X, who spent the bulk of his activist career attacking the hypocrisy and shortcomings of American liberalism. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Modern conservatives don't consider him a "conservative". Ergo, he is a liberal. Here's your meaningful definition. :D --ZooGuard (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Are terrorists and jihadists liberals then? (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Weeell, there's a number of people with a fixation on a certain Kenyan Muslim terrorist sympathizer in the White House... Joking aside, my proposed rule was limited to American political figures, but it wasn't supposed to be taken very seriously. --ZooGuard (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Malcolm X was not remotely a liberal. At all. He detested liberals. For some of the same reasons MLK criticized them.---Mona- (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Why is PETA on the "batshit crazy" list? There's no substantive reasons given, nor sourcing. I want to edit that out.---Mona- (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Because CorruptUser (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I took ALF out, and I'm removing PETA if that also unsupported link is all you've got. I just finished reading Green is the New Red and a lot oc convetnional wisdom about animal rights activists is utter bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Umm, did you look at the extensive citations in the PETA article? There is a substantial section on "nuttier actions." Did they really say Ben & Jerry's should use human milk to avoid dairy cow abuse?
Regarding that Mother Jones article, I find it interesting that the whole "pork grease on ammunition" bit is an echo of one of the propaganda canards that helped foment the Sepoy mutiny,Wikipedia where the paper wrappings of muzzle-loading rifle cartridges were said to be greased with a mix of pork fat and beef tallow. (The manual of arms required the troops to bite the cartridge to open it...) SmartFeller (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I followed the citation. The PETA person says: '"We're aware this idea is somewhat absurd, and that putting it into practice is a stretch. At the time same, it's pretty absurd for us to be drinking the milk of cows," she said.' Pretty obvious she was calling attention to problems with using cow milk by way of PR stunt. In any event, I still so no reason for including PETA in a "batshit crazy" column.---Mona- (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
As if it was the only instance of them trolling with stupid shit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
PETA could believe that releasing tortured animals into the wild is a better alternative. In any event, it needs documentation.---Mona- (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Which is fucking brainless, cause the critters ain't accustomed to living in the wild and will croak.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, PETA may believe that torture in a lad is less awful than release to a death in the wild. Or, that making it too costly for labs to torture animals is better for all animals. That all may or may not be wrong, but it is not "batshit crazy." In any event I must turn to other things right now. If I later see the return of groups I find unmerited I'll simply edit in other, documented information.---Mona- (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The first one is stupid (starvation, predators, exposure), the second one completely delusional (they don't have the resources to do that).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
That is false. Animal rights activists have caused companies industries to close down. Again, read Green is the New Red. That is why the government bought a law to have them prosecuted as "domestic terrorists" for mere property damage. Anyway, without DOCUMENTATION of something virtually all reasonable people would agree is "batshit" they do not belong on that list.---Mona- (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

DOCUMENTATION Unsourced claims that a group can be dismissed as "batshit crazy" must be supported by reasonable sources. If there is none, the group does not belong on a list that deems them entirely beyond the pale of all reasonable people.---Mona- (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in our PETA article documenting both the inane publicity stunts & the appalling treatment of rescue animals. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
What some might deem inane publicity stunts is wholly insufficient for listing in a BATSHIT CRAZY list. No reason to put ALF there, either, not without documentation jsutifying it. Moreover, I've made some edits of egregious shit in theCynthia_McKinney article, and that can't constitute support for her inclusion. So it's simple: Folks that want these things to remain have to provide reasonable support, or after the protection is lifted I will keep deleting them. ---Mona- (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
More to the point, PETA is a radical group and is not "liberal" in any meaningful sense of the word. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Aging Hippie. That is also entirely true. PETA is radical, and not liberal. Many of them would barf at being called that. I do. But if they are nevertheless to be included on a list of "batshit crazy," let's see documentation of views that it.---Mona- (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This was the first thing I got when I googled "PETA + Batshit + Crazy. Google, how do they work? CorruptUser (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Another user earlier mentioned we already do. That you dislike our reasons doesn't make you the arbiter of RW content.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Medea Benjamin[edit]

Why'd you removed them, Mona?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Because she doesn't belong there. There are no compelling reasons given.---Mona- (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona the whole point of this article is satire and fun. Things don't need to be cited. Spend your time and effort on mainspace. Tielec01 (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


"Liberalism is based on the precept that a government should tend to the peoples' needs."

No it's not. Liberalism is based on the precept that individuals have rights, which the government have to respect and protect. Social liberalism does tend to people's needs, but only insofar as they are considered rights, while classical liberalism doesn't care about needs at all.

This statement should be struck in its entirety, as 1) it's untrue. 2) There is no equivalent/opposite statement in the equivalent "Really Embarrassing Conservatives" entry. (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is this in funspace?[edit]

It seems like it could easily be regular article, possibly with a different headline. Could this be turned into a non-funspace article (with some editorial work, obviously)? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)