Fun talk:Really embarrassing liberals/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 March 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Ward Churchill belongs in this article. That man is a lunatic. Bohdan 15:29, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

We'd be embarrassed of Churchhill... if he were actually in a position that would make him representative of all liberals (or had some, even any, kind of notoriety). We (liberals and conservatives alike) are embarrassed of him, but I don't know if he's worth mentioning. ThunderkatzHo! 15:57, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
That was kind of unclear, so in summary: He's embarrasing himself more than any particular group. ThunderkatzHo! 15:58, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
But is he any less representative of liberals than Wiley Drake (on the conservative page) is representative of conservatives? DickTurpis 16:17, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
Good point. Add him. ThunderkatzHo! 16:39, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

So does User:TK. Quick Comment 15:33, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

TK? He's about as liberal as Zombie Spiro Agnew. -- 16:39, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

How about Holy Joe Lieberman, the Democrat who looooooves Republicans? --Kels 17:20, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Need something more specific than that. Bipartisanship in itself isn't a bad thing. What are his worst offenses? And keep in mind this is a page for liberals. There is a reason why Zell Miller isn't listed. DickTurpis 17:24, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
I agree with mr. Turpis here. Rather than use this page as another way to attack YEC and Christians, why not recognize there are some pretty extreme coots on the far left? Bohdan 17:28, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
Oh, absolutely. I started it when I saw the Con. one - this site is not partisan, so we either would delete it - or balance it. And of course there are liberals who embarass themselves or other liberals just as there are some kooky cons. Not sure if we need an article for moderates, though. Extreme moderates, perhaps? humanbe in 18:00, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm truly amazed[edit]

A good RW article. Unbelievable. Bohdan 17:18, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Gaah, now we have to re-write the entire thing....... Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 17:19, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

What about...[edit]

... that well known liberal Fred Phelps? CP says he's a liberal, so it must be true. Bondurant 07:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Are we then to fill this article with untrue Scotsmen, per Andy's decision as to who is who? Oh noes! humanUser talk:Human 20:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Sexual Antics[edit]

You mean the Kennedys were embarrassing? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 10:01, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

That implies that the media actually reported on their sexual antics. As my parents recall, they didn't. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
It's relative - Chappaquidick could be considered at least a partly sexual antic, and it kept Ted K. out of the White House pretty effectively. He was also rather publicly embarrassing during the (late?) 80s. As far as Jack and Bobby, it is true that we did not find out, really, until much later - but back then, that sort of thing was left "uncovered" wherever it occurred. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Ah, in the good old days when the media was honorable. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:07, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
No, I just mean if I'd been alive in those days and had known someone who'd slept with Marilyn Monroe, my likely reaction would be a high-five or similar. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 00:33, 19 November 2008 (EST)

New Agers vs. Fundamentalists[edit]

One reason that pandering to New Agers is not as bad as pandering to fundamentalists--most New Agers have very little in the way of actual policy recommendations, and those usually amount to "more crystals! more meditation!" rather than "burn the heathens!" If given the choice, I know which I'd take. Researcher 11:43, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Um, okay, but part of the reason is New Agers are so eclectic they don't have a strong political organization nor organization around a specific set of public policy prescriptions. Fundamentalist Christians are very well organized around a set of issues (abortion, creationism...) so their influence is a much clearer danger to the public. But I would be just as creeped out at the prospect of, say, the Transcendental Meditation movement's Natural Law Party, or followers of Alice Bailey and Benjamin Creme, coming into power too. The only difference is fundamentalist Christians are in power, those others have gotten nowhere. Secret Squirrel 11:52, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Cynthia McKinney?[edit]

Yes or no?


Yes, not because of her antics which have been mostly overblown in the media, but for one reason mainly: She is a 9/11 Truther. Secret Squirrel 12:04, 30 October 2008 (EDT)


Really liberals?[edit]

This article is problematic in terms of its loose--or rather non-existent--definition of "liberals." By what definition are Larouche, PETA, 9-11 Truthers "liberals"--do they subscribe to the Democratic Party's platform? Do you think these people voted for Obama? Would ANY liberal politician welcome their support? I have half a mind to take them off the list...PFoster 00:24, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Is the definition of liberal "voted for Obama"? I thought anyone on the left wing was liberal until you got to the totalitarian communists, and even they are liberal by some measures... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 00:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Well, the definition of "liberal" sure as shit ain't "pet dogs should be vegetarians," "Cheney brought down the WTC" or "the Queen is a fascist." So why are they in this article?PFoster 00:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
That sounds like No True Scotsman. Just because you don't agree with some things they say, their politics are different to what they say they are? PETA, I will bet, is almost entirely composed of people who believe in social freedom and economic regulation, the most basic definitions of "liberal". Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 00:43, 19 November 2008 (EST)


Anyone who wears a Che Guevara t-shirt? He's pretty much a leftie icon but was a totalitarian bastard and people don't realise this! It's almost as bad as people wearing Ramones t-shirts and not being able to name a single album. ArmondikoVsshole 08:13, 16 February 2009 (EST)

It's there - sort of - under "batshit craziness" Secret Squirrel 09:42, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Given you guys included Loose Change...[edit]

Would Zeitgeist the 2007 movie listed as even more batshit crazy than Loose Change? (It's FREE if anyone missed it) K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 21:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed for discussion[edit]

*Pandering to New Agers (although embarrassing, isn't this a lot better - safer, healthier in terms of democracy, than pandering to dominionist fundamentalist Christians? [1])

There's no mention of who is doing this, doesn't belong here as it's just a general complaint. DogPMarmite Patrol 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You add put Prince Charles in the list, he does this a bit. Totnesmartin 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Chuck is a liberal? New Age woo is not purely a liberal thing, as a casual glance at any of the Daily Mail Femail pages would prove. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 19:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Joe Biden[edit]

Should he be under "General media idiots" like Sarah Palin on the conservative counterpart as well? Thieh"6+18=24" 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's his verbal gaffes rather than his policies that make him embarrassing, then yes, boyo. Totnesmartin 17:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, Ward Churchill, PETA, etc...[edit]

...not liberals. Radicals. Discuss. TheoryOfPractice 14:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular difference? From what I can tell "radical" just means "extreme", as in your far-right/extreme-right is also radical-right and ditto with left or liberal or conservative or whatever (radical centre, perhaps?). It seems like it's just an issue of semantics more than what their ideologies actually are. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 15:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
"Radical" doesn't just mean an extreme view of a particular ideology--it means embracing an entirely different ideology. There are fundamentals of liberalism--the existence of the state, the centrality of private property, etc. that many radicals like some of those listed above and others are fundamentally opposed to. You can't be a "liberal" in any meaningful sense of the word and call for the state to be torn down: "the state" is what liberalism is based on. Same with private property. Liberalism puts the individual human first--PETA puts the indivdual animal on a par with humans; there's nothing in liberal ideologies that could account for that--it's a far leap from "we should be humane to animals" to "animals are the same as people." That just doesn't fit into anything that any political scientist would understand as "liberalism." The bi-polar liberal/conservative divide with radicals being seen as extreme versions of those two things tends to blur and homogenise political thought and to obscure real and important differences. Communists, socialists and anarchists aren't just liberals "plus"--their core beliefs exclude liberalism and often mean seeing "liberals" as as much of an enemy as anyone else...TheoryOfPractice 15:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I assume this was just an excuse to get that off your chest then. :p Scarlet A.pnggnostic 15:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with TheoryOfPractice on some of his points. I have known people who are so extreme in their beliefs that it goes, almost, to the contrary of liberalism itself. PETA, for example, would like it illegal to eat meat because it kills animals, which is contrary to the liberal ideals of individual liberty. Then again, of course, this article is mostly SPOV.The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not racist[edit]

Black's Flag "White Minority" is a parody,which is common in punk [Poe's Law] and "Guilty Of Being White" is against racism coming from blacks.They aren't racist. — Unsigned, by: Bobnickmad / talk / contribs 15:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked the lyrics and Black Flag said "white pride" and "you're an American" [1]. When we are not talking about violence, in 97% of cases, that is what racism means. The other 2.48% of cases involve blacks critical of jews. (These are merely superficial guesstimations based on observations.) The "Guilty Of Being White" lyrics don't sound exactly racist, however. Maybe a little exaggerated to speak of group reparations as if these are equivalent to a prison term. ~ Hoechemin 23:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
"White Minority" was sung by a non-white hispanic,it was probably intended to piss off racists coming at their shows.A non-white singing "white-pride" is pretty clear irony.

In the case of "Guilty of Being White" it's a bit exagerated,but then again it's directed at black racists and not all black people.

(Gay) sex worse than murder?[edit]

Is the section ordering of any significance? We have "sexual antics" above "criminal acts". "Barney Frank and his live-in boyfriend's day job as a pimp." Mmm not feeling the embarrassment there. Perhaps I haven't been hanging out at Conservapedia enough. "Dan White, former San Francisco city supervisor who killed Mayor George Moscone and fellow supervisor Harvey Milk." While not personally "embarrassing" to me, that actually sounds kinda bad. Maybe this is just to document what we imagine others would find embarrassing. ~ Hoechemin 22:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

These "list" type articles are a running disaster. They started out funny, but now they (and they're not just political lists) are just invitations for people to type random shit that adds nothing to the site. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to CP[edit]

There really is a lot of overlap between this entry & cp:Liberal hate speech. This item, in particular really takes me back to the early days of RW 1.0 and an edit war at CP.

Che Guevara worship - particularly those who wear the t-shirts and buy the posters without even attempting to understand the poltics of the man. nobsdon't bother me 21:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. Some of us don't see the difference. Mysticism is mysticism, and it doesn't really matter whether you drink kool-aid because you're expecting the aura of the great Goddess in UFOs to snatch you off the planet or you drink kool-aid because you're expecting Jesus to snatch you off the planet. Both are a dangerous basis for public policy.