|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Phyllis Schlafly
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Most people would just use flash cards[edit]
"She boasts that she breast-fed...every one of her six children and later taught each of them how to read."— Unsigned, by: Cracker / talk / contribs
Hypocrite?[edit]
Shouldn't she take herself at her own word and burn her books, give a male relative her money and lock herself into her kitchen? — Unsigned, by: 82.38.206.148 / talk / contribs 2012-02-26T03:19:05
Percy needs attention. Just three minutes of your time could give a day's purpose & meaning to a desperately lonely man. Please give generously.[edit]
We need to rewrite her article (and mentions of her in other articles) in the past tense. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- At least Fark's got the same idea: http://www.fark.com/comments/9284199/Phyllis-Schlafly-has-information-that-will-lead-to-Hillary-Clintons-arrest But yeah, I get it. We're trying (emphasis on trying) to be more respectable around here, as opposed to other sites I could name. Still, may we go all out when someone REALLY deserving bites the big one? Like say, Steve Drain for example? Chair tater (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to say this much: I believe the respectable tone to hold towards the recently deceased is the exact same one that Christopher Hitchens bravely held on the day that Jerry Falwell died — that of remembering a person for who they were and what they did, and of bringing that exact legacy up. When asked "If you believe in heaven, do you think Jerry Falwell is in it?", he replied "No, and I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to.".
- In other words — allow me to quote Freud on this matter
— the, to me, obvious truth of the situation is as follows:
- We assume a special attitude towards the dead, something almost like admiration for one who has accomplished a very difficult feat. We suspend criticism of him, overlooking whatever wrongs he may have done, and issue the command, De mortuis nil nisi bene: we act as if we were justified in singing his praises at the funeral oration, and inscribe only what is to his advantage on the tombstone. This consideration for the dead, which he really no longer needs, is more important to us than the truth, and, to most of us, certainly, it is more important than consideration for the living.
- Ding, dong indeed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- attacking someone who can no longer defend themselves. Such bravery indeed. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- You mean, not suddenly backing down on already well motivated criticisms that were formulated long before the person died? You don't agree with Freud then, chosing to reserve your much-needed consideration for the dead rather than for the still living. There's now living people, gay and otherwise, who could use your support against the harm inflicted to them by this woman. Or are you somehow under the impression that a shitty person's legacy cannot continue to do harm to real, living human beings long after the original muppet has pined for the fjords? You accuse me of attacking someone who can no longer defend themselves. I rather think you are defending someone who can no longer keep attacking innocents, but who has attacked them (to her dying breath), and the legacy of whom is the fertilization of future attacks against — all the while — innocent people. I'm not celebrating her death, for the record — I'm just saying, don't tell me what was a well motivated judgement of her the day before she died suddenly makes no sense the day after. I think no more of Adolf Hitler the day before or after he blew his brains out in the bunker. I base my loud and public judgement of him on his life, not on his death, which is completely irrelevant to all matters at hand. You want people to honor your memory when you pass, my friend? Act honorably in life. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- hitler was responsible for the death of millions, with many still dying when he finally went. How many people did falwell murder? Please tell how saying some should be in hell is the same as reasoned criticism? how we treat tbe dead is not about the dead its a reflection of how we treat the living. Such attacks and celebrations of someones death represents how much we have dehumanised our opponents that there passing becomes a joyous occasion. It shows and adds to a dreadful polarisation of society that we should strive against. What does it say about us when we cant even pause at the tragedy of others? Is that going to bring us closer together or resolve our difference? I think the opposite. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- You have to understand that neither Hitchens, nor I, actually wish hell upon anyone. The reply was given by Christopher in a dashing riposte to the very suggestion that Falwell had been rewarded with the eternal paradise of heaven for his great deeds. Hitchens got the imbalance of the very question across by assigning an equal measure of banality to the reply as to the premises implicit in the question (that there is a God who rewards and punishes... Hitchens point was, in that ridiculous and childish scenario, Falwell might as well be sent in the other direction). It's a brilliant reply to a moronical and unethical question — no more, no less. As I wrote clearly, I appreciate his tone. Regarding the well reasoned criticism — have you not read our article on this lovely person who is sadly no longer with us to soapbox her hate? Said criticisms should be apparent from that article to anyone with any sense of social justice whatsoever. I also said very clearly on the other page that I'm not celebrating her death — I'm questioning the suggestion that the rational dislike of her that was valid a week ago suddenly don't apply anymore? To me, that is the preservation of her attacks, under the guise of hallowing the dead. How we treat the dead is indeed a reflection of how we treat the living — I assume you have nothing to say on Freud's point, how we partition our care to those who no longer have any need of it, at the cost of helping those still living? I haven't dehumanised anyone — I make perfectly clear on the other page that we will all die. Again, dying is the one thing we cannot blame someone for doing. From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, we will all die. We can, and will, and indeed must hold our fellow man accountable for what they did by cuhoice when they were alive, however. That ethical need cannot be silenced by misguided todesangst, begging us to hush our criticisms. She was an ass, face it. Have some respect for yourself and your fellow man, not just for the ghostly abstraction of the terminus which we will all face. Regarding the tragedy of others, I will say one thing. I'm not exactly bullhorning Andrew Schlafly about this. I believe in leaving the mourning people to deal with their grief. I wouldn't support people forcing their opinions upon the griefstricken. But don't seek me out here to tell me that I have to jump through a hoop and whitewash this person as a saint just because the least important thing to ever happen (in regards to the validity of the criticisms against her) just happened, as it inevitably would one day. I wish for closure and peace of mind for Andy and his family. That being said however, ding-dong!!! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- We can, and will, and indeed must hold our fellow man accountable for what they did by choice when they were alive,
- I can't believe you said that. "fellow man", pretty goddamn misogynictic and sexist in this context; "hold responsible" does this mean reopen the FBI investigation of Hillary, or bring war crimes charges against Obama for Libya and drone strikes? The possibilities are endless as a response . You've posted nothing but hate dressed up as psuedo-intellectualism.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 14:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- What in holy hell are you even on about? Suddenly I'm eleven specific things and want X, Y, Z unrelated random strawmen to happen because I uncontroversially hail the golden rule of ethics (treat others as you yourself wish to be treated)? Notice how I've yet to attack your character once. You, however, are lightning fast to fallaciously conclude all sorts of mumbo jumbo about me and my character. Besides, you don't even seem to notice that I clearly wrote "hold responsible" in the context of ethics, not in the sense of "police investigation" — nice equivocation. What'd you think I said, that "we must launch an FBI investigation on everybody" or something? Give me a break. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, the mere fact that you would attempt to fault my use of the ethics phrase "fellow man" as "pretty goddamn misgynistic and sexist" is just a pearl of absurdist comedy richer than all of Tim & Eric. Great job! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- What in holy hell are you even on about? Suddenly I'm eleven specific things and want X, Y, Z unrelated random strawmen to happen because I uncontroversially hail the golden rule of ethics (treat others as you yourself wish to be treated)? Notice how I've yet to attack your character once. You, however, are lightning fast to fallaciously conclude all sorts of mumbo jumbo about me and my character. Besides, you don't even seem to notice that I clearly wrote "hold responsible" in the context of ethics, not in the sense of "police investigation" — nice equivocation. What'd you think I said, that "we must launch an FBI investigation on everybody" or something? Give me a break. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- You have to understand that neither Hitchens, nor I, actually wish hell upon anyone. The reply was given by Christopher in a dashing riposte to the very suggestion that Falwell had been rewarded with the eternal paradise of heaven for his great deeds. Hitchens got the imbalance of the very question across by assigning an equal measure of banality to the reply as to the premises implicit in the question (that there is a God who rewards and punishes... Hitchens point was, in that ridiculous and childish scenario, Falwell might as well be sent in the other direction). It's a brilliant reply to a moronical and unethical question — no more, no less. As I wrote clearly, I appreciate his tone. Regarding the well reasoned criticism — have you not read our article on this lovely person who is sadly no longer with us to soapbox her hate? Said criticisms should be apparent from that article to anyone with any sense of social justice whatsoever. I also said very clearly on the other page that I'm not celebrating her death — I'm questioning the suggestion that the rational dislike of her that was valid a week ago suddenly don't apply anymore? To me, that is the preservation of her attacks, under the guise of hallowing the dead. How we treat the dead is indeed a reflection of how we treat the living — I assume you have nothing to say on Freud's point, how we partition our care to those who no longer have any need of it, at the cost of helping those still living? I haven't dehumanised anyone — I make perfectly clear on the other page that we will all die. Again, dying is the one thing we cannot blame someone for doing. From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, we will all die. We can, and will, and indeed must hold our fellow man accountable for what they did by cuhoice when they were alive, however. That ethical need cannot be silenced by misguided todesangst, begging us to hush our criticisms. She was an ass, face it. Have some respect for yourself and your fellow man, not just for the ghostly abstraction of the terminus which we will all face. Regarding the tragedy of others, I will say one thing. I'm not exactly bullhorning Andrew Schlafly about this. I believe in leaving the mourning people to deal with their grief. I wouldn't support people forcing their opinions upon the griefstricken. But don't seek me out here to tell me that I have to jump through a hoop and whitewash this person as a saint just because the least important thing to ever happen (in regards to the validity of the criticisms against her) just happened, as it inevitably would one day. I wish for closure and peace of mind for Andy and his family. That being said however, ding-dong!!! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- hitler was responsible for the death of millions, with many still dying when he finally went. How many people did falwell murder? Please tell how saying some should be in hell is the same as reasoned criticism? how we treat tbe dead is not about the dead its a reflection of how we treat the living. Such attacks and celebrations of someones death represents how much we have dehumanised our opponents that there passing becomes a joyous occasion. It shows and adds to a dreadful polarisation of society that we should strive against. What does it say about us when we cant even pause at the tragedy of others? Is that going to bring us closer together or resolve our difference? I think the opposite. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- You mean, not suddenly backing down on already well motivated criticisms that were formulated long before the person died? You don't agree with Freud then, chosing to reserve your much-needed consideration for the dead rather than for the still living. There's now living people, gay and otherwise, who could use your support against the harm inflicted to them by this woman. Or are you somehow under the impression that a shitty person's legacy cannot continue to do harm to real, living human beings long after the original muppet has pined for the fjords? You accuse me of attacking someone who can no longer defend themselves. I rather think you are defending someone who can no longer keep attacking innocents, but who has attacked them (to her dying breath), and the legacy of whom is the fertilization of future attacks against — all the while — innocent people. I'm not celebrating her death, for the record — I'm just saying, don't tell me what was a well motivated judgement of her the day before she died suddenly makes no sense the day after. I think no more of Adolf Hitler the day before or after he blew his brains out in the bunker. I base my loud and public judgement of him on his life, not on his death, which is completely irrelevant to all matters at hand. You want people to honor your memory when you pass, my friend? Act honorably in life. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- attacking someone who can no longer defend themselves. Such bravery indeed. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- In other words — allow me to quote Freud on this matter
There's a significant subset of editors here who've spent a lot of time talking / arguing with Andy over the years. His mother's just died, and I - for one - don't appreciate seeing a glib section header repeatedly mocking that death in recent changes.
Say whatever the fuck you like in this section or elsewhere, but keep the headers neutral. Robledo (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not like she's a politician who actually instituted policies that hurt people. Celebrating thatcher dying? Go for it. But schlafly? She was a mean person with bad opinions. That's it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Schlafly single-handedly killed the Equal Rights Amendment. It's a shame she lived to 92 instead of keeling over at age 12. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Phyllis was worthy of Hell like Jerry Falwell was but there is no afterlife. She was just another person working the marks.— Unsigned, by: BluesyT / talk / contribs
- I don't think anyone is worthy of hell, but that's beside the point. No hell exists. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Who says we're not in an eternally recurrent hell right now? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- If this is what hell is like... I might actually start bying into the idea that God isn't such a bad guy after all. *sips bourbon naked* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed the header for you again. Lots of love, Robledo (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- For the lulz (and RC).
Robledo (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not made of stone. I'm going to have to concede that, upon seeing the new "adjusted" headline, you just made me laugh out loud.
Now run along, you little scamp! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not made of stone. I'm going to have to concede that, upon seeing the new "adjusted" headline, you just made me laugh out loud.
- For the lulz (and RC).
- Fixed the header for you again. Lots of love, Robledo (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- If this is what hell is like... I might actually start bying into the idea that God isn't such a bad guy after all. *sips bourbon naked* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Who says we're not in an eternally recurrent
Quotes to add[edit]
http://www.advocate.com/people/2016/9/05/phyllis-schlafly-one-historys-worst-homophobes-dies-92 FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record[edit]
With my initial edits, @Plutocow reverted them because I cited The Federalist. I found two different sources and the edit still got reverted again. Plutocow then said in the edit summary: "This is still whitewashing and irrelevant to her being a racist." The point with the edit is to address the claims of her being a racist (in other words, it's indeed relevant), and my assertions are correct. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Your sources still aren't really great. I can't find anything on the Slate article that goes against Schlafly being a racist (the section is more about whether support from the Klan helped the anti-ERA movement, and notes that her distance from the Klan has more to do with their anti-Catholicism), you're referencing what is essentially an opinion piece from the far-right National Review, and the History vs. Hollywood is clearly a right wing source as evidenced by the last two paragraphs (how factual it is is hard to determine as there is no Media Bias/Fact Check entry for it, but the lack of citations in it is not a good sign). I'll remove it once again for faulty sourcing, and if you want to add it back please consult the talk page first. Plutocow (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, so someone's automatically assumed a racist unless there's evidence to say otherwise? For your information, the sources I cited are factual, regardless of whether they were from a liberal-leaning or conservative-leaning news outlet. All you're doing is attacking those sites in general without at all disputing if there's anything erroneous in those particular articles I cited, which says a lot about you... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- The only one of your sources that says anything about Schlafly not being racist is the "History vs. Hollywood", which is of questionable factuality. You have to actually read your sources before citing them. Plutocow (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Again, you aren't specifically disputing anything about the veracity of that article in particular, only the reliability of the site in general. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- The only one of your sources that says anything about Schlafly not being racist is the "History vs. Hollywood", which is of questionable factuality. You have to actually read your sources before citing them. Plutocow (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, so someone's automatically assumed a racist unless there's evidence to say otherwise? For your information, the sources I cited are factual, regardless of whether they were from a liberal-leaning or conservative-leaning news outlet. All you're doing is attacking those sites in general without at all disputing if there's anything erroneous in those particular articles I cited, which says a lot about you... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Just a funny (and somewhat terrifying) factoid[edit]
So, apparently, in the Hearts of Iron IV mod "The New Order: Last Days of Europe", there is the option to elect Phyllis as president in 1972. An honestly terrifying thought, given that the 22nd Amendment also doesn't exist.. LeGrandePumbloom An Eldritch Abomination from the 21st Dimension 17:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)