Talk:Liberal hate speech

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


How is Limbaugh a person with disabilities? And how is hating Ann Coulter the same as hating women? I hate many men, but I don't hate men as a concept. Seems deceitful overgeneralization to me.-Baruch 18:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

  1. deaf
  2. drug addicted (per ADA); incidentally, Limbuagh did not become drug addicted by use of street drugs, the physicians over-perscribed medication; this is a serious question some people have about modern medical ethics.
  3. back surgery which led to the drug addiction
  4. persistent weight problem. Rob Smith 18:00, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm not defending the liberals attacks on Coulter, mind you, but it seems to me that it's not hate speech. I read over your homosexuality articles, and you seem to agree with me that people have an overbroad definition of what constitutes a hate crime, and hate speech. However, this article is guilty of the same overgeneralization! In your own words, speaking out against a gay man isn't hate speech; just so, speaking out against a woman isn't hate speech against women. Would you like me to correct this article accordingly?-Baruch 16:10, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
For the time being, for the most part we have examples of hate speech directed against individual persons, and not necessarily against broad groups. But it's still hate speech. And I will produce enough evidence to fit the broader defintition. Likewise, we will not let go unexamined the regular 'class hate' liberals & communists employ. Rob Smith 18:00, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Unfortunately, most of what has been directed towards Coulter is indeed hate speech. They seek to apply false motives to her words, then repeat forever those falsification until people cannot tell what is false and what isn't, like the "Faggot" and "Jersey Girls" incidents. It is an organized leftist plan to marginalize and discredit her.

Definitions of Hate speech on the Web:

  • type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.

  • Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:49, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

TK, I fixed your erroneous tabbing. But you miss the critical point: such speech must be because of race, ethnicity, etc., not just incidentally related to such traits. By your definition, saying "homosexuality is a sin" would be hate speech. That's a result that neither of us want.-Baruch 16:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Nor is it, apparently, a court of reason. I'm fighting a losing battle, so I'll go back to contributing. I'm here for the class, anyways, but maybe you guys should take some time to look over your reasoning.-Baruch 17:28, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Hate Against Women

How can you justify this entry:

In August 2007, Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards viciously attacked social commentator Ann Coulter, calling the petite embodiment of women's aspirations for equality in the marketplace of ideas a "she-devil"

When Ann has been quoted as saying:

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." PastafarianBeliver 12:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)

This is all the Liberal Hate Speech they could find?

When you consider the stuff that comes out of Conservative Mouths every day about every minority in existence (Including the ones listed on this site), it really makes you wonder why they even bothered making this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirreality (talk)

Which party is racist/sexist?

I've been noticing how conservapedia has been accusing democrats of be racist/sexist more and more frequently, but the two candidates for the democratic nomination are a woman and a black man. While the candidates for the republican nomination were all old white men. Now hating anyone for something they cannot control is one of the most vile and base things you can do. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both had staffers who have said some things they should not have, but the point is that they are the candidates. I'm interested in other peoples opinions. Rellik 18:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Colin Powell Removal

The quote has been up with a fact tag for over a week now. If a citation can't be provided by tomorrow morning, I am going to delete the quote. I think common practice should have the removal of examples or quotes when a fact tag is attached for at least 7 days. --Jareddr 11:52, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Howard Dean

I don't see how the Howard Dean entry is an example of hate-speech directed against African-Americans, though since my edit was reverted I assume some people do. From my POV, it seems to be aimed against the Republican Party, rather than African-Americans. Not least since the quote was from a speech he gave in front of the African-American caucus according to the supporting citation. Now I know Mr Dean has a history of self-destructing on the campaign trail, but even he isn't *quite* that stupid! I realise that any quote is open to a degree of interpretation, so if someone reads it as offensive hate-speech, I respect that, but I'd prefer if they explained their POV --J00ni 12:13, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

The implication that I saw from Dean's quote was that Republicans are racist, which by and of itself is a lie. Karajou 12:19, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
I totally agree with you on that point, and disagree with Dean's implication (since in my experience racism transcends political affilliations). However I still don't think that what he said counts as an example of hate-speech against African-Americans --J00ni 12:22, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Dean also referred to the hotel staff as being African-American in his little joke. That's a stereotype of them as being subservient, always carrying someone else's baggage; they've been portrayed that way in many books and films over the past 150 years. When Dean says that Republicans could only fill up the room with "people of color" by using the hotel staff, he's playing in to that stereotype. If you kept the joke, yet replaced Dean with Karl Rove, then the hue and cry of racism would make the front pages of every paper in the country. Karajou 12:39, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Firstly on the Karl Rove point, as I am not American I cannot fully relate to your analogy - but I think I see your point.
Whilst I see your point about black subservience, I think it is a somewhat tenuous link, and not hardly qualifying as 'hate-speech' (though perhaps a hypocritical inherent racism on Dean's part). And judging by the fact that Dean was not lynched by the audience, it would seem that they did not make the connection you suggest. Perhaps this would be better as an example of Liberal Hypocrisy than hate speech --J00ni 12:48, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I think you're both right, Jooni & Karajou. Specifically, it's liberal hypocrisy about speaking. Liberals claim to be upholding a standard when they criticize others, yet they violote the very same standard they profess to uphold.

Perhaps it would help to assemble half a dozen or more examples, and place them in a table. Liberal examples on the left (no pun intended ;-) and conservative on the right. We can compare the reaction or backlash to the remarks, based on their actual content. But I'm guessing the reaction will be skewed by the side the speaker is on much more than what they actually said. --Ed Poor Talk 18:05, 8 July 2008 (EDT)


The subhead "Against white males" was reverted and "Others" restored. Can it be substanitated with a citation to a law that white males are a "legally protected class" as the article's intro defines it? Likewise, the catchall "others" belongs at the bottom of the list as an afterthought being that it doesn't really even meet the qualifications as strictly here defined. Rob Smith 15:13, 18 February 2010 (EST)

It was established, I believe, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, that reverse-discrimination of that sort is against the law, so in that way white men are a "legally protected class." I am unsure if a racially motivated crime against a white person can be prosecuted as a hate crime. CarlS from MN (Talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (EST)
Good question. Even with a judicial ruling, the Bakke decision was not enforced by the Clinton administration. But the question is on enforcement of legislation, not enforcement of law written by judicial activists. As to the courts, Bakke appears to be headed toward reversal anyway with the appointment of Sotomayor Sonia_Sotomayor#Race-based_decision. Rob Smith 15:30, 18 February 2010 (EST)

Too many poor examples?

After reading this article, it seems like there are a lot of really disgusting remarks liberals have made that counts as hate speech. There are also many examples of liberal quotes that just aren't very nice. I think the article would be better off if we prune some of the not-so-bad ones, so that readers can immediately see the truly uncivilized manner in which libs conduct themselves. That Sharpton and Hillary Clinton quotes, for example, are horrifying and should be given greater prominence. JSaxon 10:31, 6 August 2010 (EDT)


Isn't this supposed to be more or less a list? Why do we get a quote from Palin's speech announcing her stepping down from governor? Or from anyone in response? If the person reading this is sensible, then they can probably understand why this is hate speech. They don't need reminders about why a particular comment is hurtful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elerico (talk)

I am not seeing the offense. Edit the section as you see fit.--Jpatt 22:35, 7 April 2011 (EDT)


A "Conservative hate speech" page would be ten times as long, and you all KNOW IT. The hypocrisy of this entire website is mindblowing. Do you people have ANY self-awareness at all? Are you even capable of the feat? I doubt it. At least it isn't your fault. Scientific evidence shows that the likely reason you're even conservative at all is because Conservative ideology is the only one simple enough for you to understand. Doesn't make it any less frustrating for the rest of us, though.--ChecksAndBalances (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2016 (EDT)

A large portion of social science cannot be replicated (see: Physical sciences, social sciences and reliability). Put that in your liberal hate speech pipe and smoke it! If only liberal social scientists were more competent and had greater integrity, all that pseudoscientific bunkum they publish could be prevented.
See also: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party. Conservative (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2016 (EDT)