|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Sadly, No!
| Someone is wrong on The Internet |
|
| Log in: |
Sadly, No!, or SN!, is a humorous liberal blog that prides itself in analyzing and summarizing articles from National Review, Townhall.com, and other wingnut webshites. The blog has been inactive since August 2020.
Overview[edit]
SN! is at its best when it sifts through all of the bullshit and weasel words that those on the far right commonly employ in order to hide a fairly simplistic message. The easiest targets are arguments that rely on stoking the reader's persecution complex or even straight-up logical fallacies.
For instance, Michael Medved once wrote a long essay defending DADT as it applies to gay men but not lesbians. His premise was that gay sex is different from lesbian sex. SN! shortened his article to "I have no problems with lesbians in the military because lesbian sex is hot. Gay men in the military is another matter because butt sex hurts".[1]
On occasion they will attack conservative writers who don't work for blatantly right-wing organizations, such as moderate conservative columnist David Brooks who writes for the New York Times.
Criticisms[edit]
Sympathies aside, the site has two (debatable) flaws. One is that the entire shortening concept can be seen as bordering on the straw man fallacy; however, the original article is nearly always included with the "short" version and it's usually a pretty accurate summary of the original article. The second problem is that though SN usually links to fairly reliable sources to dismiss the columns they're reviewing, occasionally they'll link to other liberal blogs to back up their claims as opposed to linking to an original source. Of course, anyone with sufficient curiosity can find the source material that backs up SN!'s claims, but it's a little shady nonetheless.
Obviously, it's not the place to get your news. Overall, the site is worth checking out for a quick laugh.
Also, the authors seem to have a problem with apostrophes. That's really only an issue for us grammar sticklers.