Conservapedia:On liberalism

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Liberal Myths)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wigocp.svg This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest and is no longer the focus of RationalWiki today.
Conservapedia (and religious fundamentalism to an extent) was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse.
Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of pseudoscientific claims, authoritarianism, and deceit.
For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the Best of RationalWiki.
Trus me
Conservapedia
Conservlogo late april.png
Introduction
Commentary
In-depth analysis
Fun
v - t - e

Perhaps once a month, the powers that be at Conservapedia apparently decide that they haven't properly insulted those they disagree with (all of whom are, of course, pejoratively labeled "liberal"), so one of them creates a ridiculous anti-"liberal" article or essay. Some of these hate articles are meant as revenge and a parthian shot at some editor or other who has been presenting reasonable alternatives to the sort of hate mongering that is preferred on Andy's blog. These are particularly effective if the offending editor has been blocked and is thus unable to reply. Andy will generally crow about the articles in these cases as "undisputed" or "indisputable." Such contributions provide interesting insights into the persecution complex so prevalent at Conservapedia. What follows is a list of those pieces, and what the RationalWiki community has to say about them.


Articles[edit]

  • Classical liberal. This is the correct kind of Liberal. This version has the slightly too truthful statement; "Both modern American liberalism and conservatism are branches of classical liberalism, as they both seek to promote individual freedom, though in different ways. Other ideologies which are not popular in the US include socialism, communism, and fascism."
  • Deceit. Doesn't have the word "liberal" in the article name, but it might as well. Notice how the overwhelming majority of the article is a list of examples--and they're all liberal. Obviously, no conservatives are capable of deceit. Any attempts to insert examples involving conservatives (e.g. lying to a federal judge) are immediately stricken from the record. More on this here.
  • Deliberate ignorance. Again like Deceit does not include the word liberal in the title. This is the latest in a growing trend of these articles. Andy is in a discussion with someone on a talk page and wishes to insult them by telling them they are in Liberal denial, using Liberal logic or so forth, in this case that they are being deliberately ignorant, he then creates an article on it using that talk page as his only source (which is borderline circular logic). These articles tend to be edited for about two days until he finds a new way of detracting from someone's argument and creates an article on that. Actually, this vandalism is quite amusing.
  • Hollywood values. Here "Hollywood" is defined as something other than the geographical territory or the movie industry. Buried under the Schadenfreude you'll find examples of people getting murdered, which obviously could only happen because of their values (which in Rob Knox's case, was defending his younger brother) and again acting as examples of hypocrisy. This article is a great example of the practical applications of Conservapedia no gossip rule.
  • Liberal. The one, the only, the original article in all its loathing, distortion and venom. First note the tremendous display of conservative intellectualism with its carefully chosen pictures showing liberals as they really are. Then, as you work your way down the bullet points notice the over-simplification, demonisation and extreme stereotyping and never forget that all (or very nearly all) liberals share these traits. This masterpiece would surely be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize in Literature, if it wasn't for all the liberal bias in the awards committee.
  • Liberal bias. The ultra-conservatives' catch-all explanation for why educated people could possibly ignore some of their ideas.
  • Liberal bias in academia. Formally Liberal grading. For all the years of carry on about Liberal bias in universities we have one example, which at no point indicates that the lecture is liberal and conveniently uses the phrase "something politically incorrect" to refer to rape. This entry is special in that it started as a parody by one of our users.
  • Liberal creep. And Andy is a Conservative creep. Oh wait! Liberal creep is when "Liberal ideas sneak into historical accounts". This article shows Andy's inability to connect ideas and his tendency for redundancy. His first example, on his hero Reagan, is an example of media bias. His second, on early scientists' Christianity, is an example of liberal bias in academia. As for Newton's religion and Wikipedia, which he cites as a reason for starting Conservapedia, they have had a dedicated article since 2005.
  • Liberal denial. This article contains a list of "facts" that liberals are in denial of. Andy is at his best on the talk page; everyone who points out his "plainly true facts" are not actually correct are labeled liberals and are told they are in denial.
  • Liberal friendship. Poor conservatives, peer pressured by their liberal friends! Conservatives never pressure their friends to be conservative. Uh-huh. Right. It is difficult to work out whether this article says more about Conservapedians relationships or their logic. Here we can see an example of Reagan, a conservative, having liberal friends. But then don't his liberal friends have a conservative friend? Also, it is never explained how it is mathematically possible that conservatives have many liberal friends while liberals don't.
  • Liberal Hate Speech. In the most spectacular display of hypocrisy the inventors of Gay bowel syndrome and pleasantries are accusing Liberals of hate speech. What is most interesting is that by criticising a member of a minority you insult that whole minority. The best is Alberto Gonzales. Making Speedy Gonzales jokes about him is hate speech against Hispanics, but demand Warner-Brothers apologise for the cartoon and you would be "politically correct".
  • Liberal labels. Oh the irony reading is through the roof. This article is summed up in the first line, "Liberals use words like "conservative" as epithets to disparage and discredit any views opposing Liberalism." It's worth stopping reading this article for minute, scroll up and down a bit, and consider that quote again.
  • Liberal logic. It's hard to make out the point of this article. It contains a list of almost random statements that Andy perceives as liberal arguments, which he labels as nonsensical. None of them are quotes (and all are uncited); instead, they are things he has written himself, which may account for why they are nonsensical. Unsurprisingly, Andy doesn't seem to understand the difference between "emotion" and "logic".
  • Liberal myths. Here we find a loooong list of points which are largely a restating of those found in the liberal denial article and others, gathered together for readers to boggle in amazement at. All of Andy's favorites and more are here in one unwieldy liste de merde.
  • Liberal obfuscation. After being corrected that abortion is only causally linked to breast cancer in that your risk of breast cancer is lower if you had breast fed the child you did not have, rather than admit defeat Andy created this article claiming that liberals use large words to confuse him.
  • Liberal Obsession. This article was created by a user who later turned out to be a parodist. However even when he pointed this out, Andy himself reverted the edit. This is possibly an interesting take on Poe's Law, if a parody is good enough the fundamentalist will embrace it regardless.
  • Liberal quotient. This has to be the most convoluted load of obfuscation to ever come out of Andy's mouth. It emphasizes his lack of mathematical skills, which is fortunate because if he knew what he was talking about, he would have buried it in more drivel.
  • Liberal redefinition. Apparently the fact the English is a living language (instead of a dead one like Latin) is the fault of liberals pushing an agenda. Of course Conservatives never make up new words or expressions that take lists of examples to explain. It also includes "rainbow" as an example for some bizarre reason.
  • Liberal Style. Formerly an essay, but is now its own article. The reason for giving it is own article? It's not an essay (i.e., it's factual, sourcable, encyclopedic material). This list has become very long and it has transformed. Now its main purpose is to be quoted from when having an argument. The way it is quoted is the most interesting part. You won't be spoken to directly and only the numbers are given as though they are ordering Chinese food, e.g, "Notice the way [fill in user name] uses Liberal Style points 6, 8, 25 and a side order of special fried rice". See our responses Conservapedia:Aschlafly on Liberal Style and Essay:Creationist Style.
  • Liberal tools. Fun game: interchange the words "liberal" and "conservative" in this (and any other entry in this list, for that matter) and see if it would resonate to a hard-core liberal audience. Hint: if it does, chances are the original is nothing more than partisan rancor (hence not encyclopedic).
  • Liberal tricks. Silly Liberal, tricks are for...well, you! Oh, those crafty, crafty liberals! They always try to trick you into thinking that Hollywood is cool or claiming that no relationship is loving without casual sex (yes, really). Hey, I bet they also engage in bizarre behaviors like perpetually making obsessive, sweepingly generalized lists about folks they don't like. Oh, wait...
  • Professor values. Apart from the fact that conservatives can't seem to figure out adjectives (Democratic party vs. Democrat party, professorial values vs. Professor values), this ad hominem page links liberal, liberal grading, and liberal bias! One of the heinous things a professor in an example did was be wrong, admit it and then resign. I can see how this is an obvious character flaw in the eyes of Andy: admitting you were wrong and correcting your opinion accordingly.


For more hilarity, see the Conservapedia talk pages on these entries. You'll find respect for opposing views like this[1]:

“”Your question about whether someone can be liberal and a true intellectual is beyond the scope of this essay. It's a rare combination at best.

Essays[edit]

The above pieces are all in the article space, several essays have also been written on liberals.

  • Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession. Yeah, liberals are pretty much sheep that do whatever the celebrities with Hollywood values tell them. Makes sense. Somehow, an editor other than Aschlafly beat him to starting this one. Don't worry though, Andy appears on the talk page and endorses this "remarkable essay." (N.B. This essay was created by someone who was later blocked for being a parodist)
  • Essay: Liberal Falsehoods. Here we see an interesting use of the plural of falsehood, falsehoods. The reason being is there is only one falsehood in this article. This falsehood spread by liberals is the most shocking of all the possible lies the evil liberals have managed to spread. There maybe something out there. Yes people, aliens may exist. No counter evidence is given or even a simple rebuttal about the burden of proof about the existence of aliens. Nor is any evidence provided why the search for ET is somehow linked to nuclear disarmament (personally if we find aliens it might be a good time to stock up a bit).
  • Essay:Liberal hysteria. "[T]he common name for the tendency of Liberals to embrace junk science or crackpot theories..." Yep, conservatives never do that. But, you know, this article is incredibly well articulated, rational, and thoughtful, and certainly not polemical, so it might convince you otherwise.
  • Essay: Top Causes of Rejecting Conservativism. The most interesting part of this article is the underlying assumption that a child that is born, and left in a room with no outside influences, will come out at the age of 18 a conservative and fluent in the Bible. So why waste your time homeschooling them?

Snark[edit]

Either parodies, stubs or articles listed in the liberal category on Conservapedia for no good reason.

See also[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ↑ From the Essay:Liberal Intellectualism talk page.
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia:On_liberalism&oldid=2699689"