Subscribe via RSS Feed

Are You a Liberal?

[ 77 ] November 30, 2007 |

Conservapedia has the scorecard. Give yourself a point for each entry that sounds familiar. Take a celebratory drink for those in bold. Give yourself two points if you have no idea what the fuck they’re talking about.

The style of a liberal often includes these characteristics:

1. calling conservative humor “unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia.”
2. overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution
3. unjustified praise of atheists and other liberals as “geniuses”, despite little achievement
4. calling the use of the term liberal when used in a derogatory context “stupid”
5. denial that people can grow out of a liberal viewpoint, such as atheism
6. denial of accountability
7. insisting on a mindless equality, as in “if you have an entry for Beethoven, then you must allow entries for vulgar rap artists!”
8. concealing one’s liberal views rather than admitting them
9. calling conservative free speech “hate” speech
10. pretending to know more than he does; Isaac Newton admitted that he knew almost nothing, yet a liberal rarely admits that and often pretends to know more than he does
11. resistance to quantifying things, such as liberal bias or openmindedness
12. preference for obscenity and profanity
13. insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate
14. over-reliance on mockery
15. over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy
16. hostility to faith
17. insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans
18. believing that the education of children is for liberals to control
19. believing that conservatives will fail, and refusing to accept when they succeed, as when George W. Bush won in 2000
20. reluctance to admit that anything is morally wrong
21. bullying conservatives who disagree with liberal views
22. draw an analogy between opponents and racists, no matter how illogical
23. claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false
24. often declare that an adversary should be “ashamed of himself,” while never saying that about a fellow liberal (such as Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton)
25. willing to give away everything held dear by the majority to avoid serious conflict (such as the appeasement of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, or those liberals who wish to pull our troops out of Iraq, and embolden the terrorists).
26. using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people’s emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason.
27. often long-winded and verbose, and in debates liberals often consume more than their fair share of the alloted time, leaving less time for the other side.
28. attempting to control the rules of evidence used in a debate. For example, claiming that Young Earth Creationism is false, and then refusing to allow supporting evidence by claiming that the scientists are religiously motivated.
29. attempting to control the definitions of words through political correctness. For example, referring to Israel as “occupied territories” or suggesting that Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are not part of Al-Qaeda.
30. Dismissing legitimate criticism as “a joke”
31. Denying something widely known to be true but difficult to prove, such as observing that men are far more likely to work in gas stations than women.
32. Will often deny being a liberal, or will claim to be a “true conservative”, while spouting liberal and democratic talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles.
33. using non sequiturs in argument, such as responding to the point above that liberals over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy by citing an example of conservatives’ observing liberal hypocrisy. But their example does not help their argument. Quite the contrary, use of that example tends to prove that liberals do over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy (relativism). Think about that.
34. selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain.
35. believing that bureaucratic honors or appointments are meaningful achievements.
36. silly demands for apologies.
37. can’t understand the difference between identity (e.g., color of one’s skin), perspective (e.g., Judeo-Christian) and bias (e.g., Bias in Wikipedia).
38. inability or unwillingness to differentiate between genuine conservative arguments and parodies of conservative arguments.
39. “Contrariness is creativity to the untalented” – Dennis Miller’s general observation about liberal behavior.
40. Assuming criminals are on the other side of the political fence, without evidence.

Comments (77)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. HeartlandLiberal says:

    I am so glad I had already finished eating lunch while sitting here at my desk catching up on latest news/blogs.
    I still feel a slight urge to throw up just a little bit.
    The sad thing is this kind of ‘thinking’, and I use the term loosely, is characteristic of many of my relatives (on both sides of the family) back down South in Alabammy.

  2. Luke says:

    Oh, man, that was so bad I couldn’t read all of them in one sitting.

  3. I used to think Dennis Prager was the stupidest person alive. Now I think anyone who contributed any item to that list is the stupidest person alive.

  4. “This page has been locked to prevent editing.”
    Wouldn’t you know it. I was going to add #41, “Not being brain-damaged,” just to see how long it would last, but I guess I should have known better.
    Just like “freedom” and “democracy,” I don’t think wingnuts quite get what a wiki is supposed to be about.

  5. Sweet mother of god.
    It’s no surprise that personal slights and resentments shape people’s politics but usually the connection isn’t quite so direct. Check out the cite for #1 on the list — it’s to a comment on a Conservapedia discussion board. Not to mention #27 — you gotta wonder how long the debate-team member who submitted that one has been stewing over it.

  6. acallidryas says:

    Wait, I’m confused… does no. 32 mean that all Republicans are actually liberals? And I wonder how hard they worked to compile all these characteristics, since no. 32 and no. 8 both point out how good we liberals are at hiding our liberal points of view.
    Oh, and I cannot wait for the evo psych (or should that be intelligent design psychology) explanation of why more men work at gas stations than women.

  7. Hogan says:

    Back on the African savanna, it was the men with their greater upper-body strength who fed the water buffaloes, while the women stayed in their huts and made plastic religous figures to mount on their horns, or antlers, or whatever the hell water buffaloes have.

  8. It is eerie, how well they described me. I do love me some profanity.

  9. HumboldtBlue says:

    “17. insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans”
    Are the finally owning up to abandoning Nawlins? Or is this a reference to Johnstown, circa the 1960s?
    And who has censored description of floods? And why is ‘Flood’ capitalized?
    Why am I doing this to myself?

  10. tim quick says:

    “Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.”
    -Plato

  11. Kathleen says:

    At the rick of over-reliance on mockery, dear god that is funny.
    I’ll admit that, despite the general sentiment, #33 is my fav. I am going to start ending everything I say with “Think about that.”
    33. using non sequiturs in argument, such as responding to the point above that liberals over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy by citing an example of conservatives’ observing liberal hypocrisy. But their example does not help their argument. Quite the contrary, use of that example tends to prove that liberals do over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy (relativism). Think about that.

  12. D. Sidhe says:

    Bonus points to whoever dreamed up #27 for cramming as many words as possible into it. Liberals are long-winded *and* verbose! *And* they spend too much time talking!

  13. Chilly says:

    Still, I love 31 because its so truly stupid–why would the statement “men are far more likely to work in gas stations than women” be “difficult to prove?” Aren’t there things like numbers and observations and data ‘n stuff we could draw on? Like employment stats?
    “That’s like asking the square root of a million — no one will ever know.”
    –Homer Simpson

  14. Julia Grey says:

    Still, I love 31 because its so truly stupid–why would the statement “men are far more likely to work in gas stations than women” be “difficult to prove?”
    The example is so whack, I’m sure the writer just had an argument with someone on the subject of gas station personnel. A someone who was obviously just fucking with his head.
    And just as obviously his poor little head is still spinning.

  15. Slim says:

    Fucking tools. What loser took the time to come up with that list?

  16. Rob says:

    That list is “unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of [Conserva]pedia.”
    Well, it would if such degradation were possible. Unfortunately, it’s not possible. Not that Conservapedia authors aren’t addicted to self-degradation . . .

  17. pss says:

    I do believe you are supposed to give credit to “The Onion” when you post something from their website!
    What’s that you say? That list wasn’t from “The Onion”?
    Bwhaaaa haaa haaa!!!!

  18. parsec says:

    As for #40 I always look for the (R) after his name.

  19. ewan says:

    Fucking tools. What loser took the time to come up with that list?
    Lies don’t sting. One must see some truth in this to have this reaction.

  20. Julia Grey says:

    Lies don’t sting.
    Bullshit. Lies ALWAYS sting those who are lied about, because they are, you know, L.I.E.S.
    Once again I suspect the eight-year-old singing, “Sticks and stones…”
    Grow up.

  21. sara says:

    Their minds would be blown if they knew that most gas station workers are transgendered.
    I can point to a M/F unisex bathroom in one gas station near my home!

  22. Hogan says:

    Lies don’t sting.
    At least half the entries on that list are based on the premise that lies do indeed sting. Even if they lack good judgment on the question of what counts as a lie.

  23. Mike says:

    “Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.”
    This is Schiller. (I confess I know this only because, when I was much younger, Isaac Asimov was my favorite writer.)

  24. MobiusKlein says:

    The most wingnutty part in there:
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness
    How to quantify if you are open minded or not, all based on a list of wingy specials:

    When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
    Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative is impossible?
    Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?
    Do you think that there must be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?
    Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
    Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
    Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?
    Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?

    Any time you declare something ‘impossible’ you lose an openmindedness point. And a wingnut strips it’s threads.

  25. Brian Hurt says:

    If Conservapedia didn’t exist, the Onion would have had to invent it.
    Or maybe they did. I’m not clear on that.

  26. ACS says:

    D –
    I played a drinking game to that. Now I’m unconscious, and may die. THANKS A LOT, JERK!
    – ACS

  27. Linda says:

    Nice that the conservatives held Czechoslovakia dear so much that they left it to Hitler for a new playground. Another reason why I don’t like them.
    Anyhow, if I was to drink at every point which I’m not getting, I’d be unconscious. I wonder whether the author hadn’t played another drinking game before assembling the list. Think about it.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site