Talk:Deep cover liberal

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

After the "Liberal This" and "Liberal That" articles and pretty much everything else on CP that goes above and beyond the normal (adjusted for the 'centre being just to the right of the Galactic Empire' condition) conservative viewpoint such as the "hey, lets not make up dates here" in response to Scotland being populated since 8500 BCE (sic)... Does anyone else think that ASchlafly should be moved up to "strongly suspected"? If it turns out to be a very in-depth hoax, who comes off looking the worse? Armondikov 11:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I think most of us have suspected Andy of being a hoax at one point or another. However, if he is a deep liberal, he's also the best method actor I've ever seen. Almost a year and a half without a single slip-up. The man should get a Tony Award or something. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Just glad it's not just me who's pondering! But even if Andy is under-cover I'm sure many of the others running CP are genuine and may genuinely be more extreme. Armondikov 11:46, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
None of the regulars are psrodst. They are frighteningly real. User:PalMD


Don't we already have agent provocateur and false flag operation? This article might be better off as a section of the former... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:55, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

This article has a punchline though (Andy=DCL), and the rest of it seems like it's only there to serve the punchline. It might be hard to retain that if they were merged. --Toiretni 18:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
OK... but if the only reason for it to exist to bust a joke on Schlafly, it should be moved to the conservapedia namespace, I think? I still think this could be a section under one of the two articles named above, however. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:13, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, if I had time, I'd write Conservapedia:Parodist, but I'm sure someone else can craft a better article than I. There are humorous parallels to counter-intelligence to be had (e.g. double agent, triple agent). Specifically, the suggestion is that Andy is a double-agent, right? That (according to this narrative anyway) he appears to be doing everything he can to find and eliminate parodists, even though he himself is a parodist. While that seems like a contradiction, he's forced to do that so he can appear to be a credible conservative. Thus, the implication would be that he's actually harboring as many parodists as possible, as long as they don't go so far as to be obvious to real conservatives.
... if indeed the other people are real conservatives. See, this could be a fun article. --Toiretni 21:00, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
So start it... by the way, the AS part is just one part of this article, it's about more than just CP/Andy. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:08, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Sure, an "over-the-top complex backstory" could be crafted for others as well, though to be humorous, you have to know the person well enough to weave reality with fiction in a semi-believable way.
The only other one I know well enough is Fred Phelps. Though it appears he's the head of a small church, they're actually a splinter cell of anti-fundie operatives. During their free time, they like to do everything they can to boost troop morale, up to and including free gay sex. --Toiretni 21:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

[citation needed][edit]

If we need a citation for the fact that Hal Turner is in it for the money, it should go on the main article for him, not here. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 09:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

OK, whatever. It isn't so much "need" as "want" we fact tags, usually. As in "moar pleez". ħumanUser talk:Human 16:38, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I was just making sure we had continuity over the site, you'll have to ask someone who actually knows what they're talking about to find proof... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 20:56, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
If you saw my edit comment (after your comment here), I reworded it a bit, just to "agree" with the main article. The reason I was hoping for a quick cite was it was worded as a news flash, ie, something someone just read somewhere. Since it wasn't it isn't, and probably won't. His main article mostly sends people to WP for more info, I think. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:22, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Examples in Fiction[edit]

This article could be spruced up via comparisons with Vonnegut's novel "Mother Night" and others. (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not do it yourself, if you're familiar with the work? 15:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

This is ridiculous[edit]

Since the definition of a "deep cover liberal" includes having ridiculous conservative arguments, that means that the accusation is a favorite of those who just want to say "that guy is ridiculous" without actually having much reason to believe that they really are a deep cover liberal.

Just about every single name in the list is someone who was obviously put there because someone is using "deep cover liberal" as a roundabout way of saying "he's ridiculous". Almost none of them are likely to be deep cover liberals. It's absurd to put nationally known celebrities on the list--there's no way such a person could get away with really being a deep cover liberal with their life subject to the amount of media scrutiny such people get. It is also absurd that someone would be deep cover to the extent of donating lots of money and effort to conservative causes.

(And the phenomenon, such as it does exist, is hardly restricted to conservatives. I've seen plenty of liberal "deep cover conservatives" on the Internet--of course none was a nationally known celebrity.)

I suggest deleting this page because it is mostly misuse. Legitimate uses are covered under agent provocateur and Poe's Law. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's kinda the point. It's incredulity that anyone can be that stupid, they must be under cover and batting for the other side. But, yeah, it's mostly covered in Poe's Law, which does, in fact, say the same thing - a round about way of saying "they're stupid". Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator 20:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Despite being much longer than the list here, the list of Poe's Law examples doesn't include people such as Rush Limbaugh, Jack Chick, Ann Coulter, or Glenn Beck. Poe's Law is being used properly most of the time--it lists people who plausibly could be fakes, rather than being used as a list of people who the writer considers ridiculous. Nobody seriously thinks Rush Limbaugh could be a fake. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Then you've obviously never seen The Last Supper. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Any Rand[edit]

Comments by Slavoj Zizek and Thomas Frank about Ayn Rand (usually mentioned very near Glenn Beck) go in a similar direction as the description of DCLs, in that her over-the-top writings appear almost a parody of ultraconservative/libertarian ideology. Michelle Malkin also goes in that direction, although I consider her covered via Ann Coulter... -- (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert[edit]

Wait a second, he is a no-cover-at-all liberal, why is he on this list? For the lulz snark (to make fun of the idea of the "deep cover liberal")?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's clearly meant as a joke. (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Donald[edit]

1. Subtle or not-so-subtle racist (often anti-Semitic) comments disguised as "Pro-Christian" statements.

2. Extreme religious intolerance.

3. Active persecution of minorities.

4. Unquestioning support of former President Reagan and/or Bush and apparent hatred for anyone who disagrees with them.

5. Making suggestions for policy that actively contradict the U.S. Constitution either literally or in intent.

6. Frequently making outrageous and illogical statements which do more harm to the conservative cause than good (conservatives are sometimes oblivious to this).

It's highly unlikely, but what if Donald Trump is actually just trying to prove to America that the republican party will elect straw evil, and once he gets elected he'll be a liberal socialist, instead of a national socialist...— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs