Talk:Conservative correctness/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 24 August 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Natural

What is 'natural vice'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Petty theft, for example. It is regarded as a vice, but does not involve any "leaving the natural use" of somebody's body. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there really a point to this page?

For the most part, this page simply seems to be an opportunity to list Conservative views and opinions that the various editors don't like. Maybe it had a point at one time, but it's just another silly list of "shit I hate" now. Phiwum (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, not just shit I hate, but obviously a huge dollop of pure fantasy in the form of strawman arguments. Please, this page is an embarrassment. Do something about it. Phiwum (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Which particular entries do you think qualify as strawmen? PacWalker 09:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's one.

America's Sacred Heroes whether military members or police officers shall never be criticized. Deflecting discussions of police brutality with the emotional "police are heroes and save lives" third-grade level argument.

I'd like to see a clear citation where a respected conservative commentator deflects discussions of police brutality with such an emotional outburst, especially in the current discussion. I haven't seen it. (I'll admit that I won't be shocked if someone on Fox News said something like this, because they certainly are idiots, but I'd like to see it.)

In the meantime, is there any particular limit to this list, or shall we continue to add any conservative argument we have seen or made up to it without end? The page is a pathetic list o' rants, not a good, snarky commentary or analysis that this site ought to aim for. Phiwum (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, you just haven't seen it. I don't have ready examples, because videos are hard to search and locate, but I'll be damned if that wasn't every damn day of the O'Rieley factor for a week or two last year. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

German measles and WWI

One would have expected the name #not# to be changed for propaganda reasons. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, but these things are rarely - if ever - logical. That's precisely why we cover them, after all... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

There is a category of 'right wing politically incorrect English chaps' - Dennis Thatcher, Alan Clarke, Nigel Farage and others - who are 'allowed to get away with such remarks.'

What would the US Conservative correctness persons make of these chaps? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

True, there may be need for a section about "International Conservative Correctness" for UK, Canadian or Australian English conservatively correct terms and phrases. They could also just go under their respective, already existing categories, but with nation of origin indicated.--Petey Plane (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

But, until there is a substantial number of examples, i'd just add them to the already existing categories--Petey Plane (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is - DT, AC, NF are #deliberately politically incorrect# and tolerated. (Enoch P. was not one such.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson... I rest my case, your honour. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Add him to the list if you will. (I [a different newspaper] to the chaps above. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Mediterranean" food instead of "Middle Eastern"!

This is right to use that term. ME food is no identical to Mediterranean food. This is a simple islamist propaganda in Rationalwiki.186.91.98.65 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

OMG! Braes urselfs! Teh Islamistz are coming! --JorisEnter (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Secular humanist" to describe agnostic or atheistic Americans. Coined by Newt Gingrich, he later decided it lacks punch, and revised it as "Secular Socialist."[notes 8]

Secular Humanist as different to atheist and agnostic was explained by Carl Sagan. This comes from Secular Humanist Manifesto, a famous book. You in Rational wiki are atheist hillbillies. And many people think this is christians the only ignorant hillbillies in USA. 186.91.98.65 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Should this particularly egregious Mona-cruft be kept?

So Mona has added this Mona-cruft that currently takes up a significant part of the article. I think we should remove it due to several reasons:

1. Mona herself is clearly an anti-Semite and only wants to detract from that by deceptively editing articles like this
2. Some types of criticism of Israel (like those Mona engages in) are indeed antisemitic
3. It is not only conservatives who point out the anti-Semitism of Mona and her ilk.

So what say you? 107.178.104.44 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to treat her edits any different than of any other user. --Kugelschreiber (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)