|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Examples of Liberal Style==
| + | My heart is inditing of a good matter; I speak of the things which I have made unto the King. Kings' daughters were among the honourable women. Upon thy right hand did stand the Queen in vesture of gold, and the King shall have pleasure in thy beauty. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers and Queens thy nursing mothers |
| − | | + | |
| − | The style of a [[liberal]] often includes these basic characteristics, which include techniques to mislead or simply advance self-serving goals:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | #A never-ending craving for attention (e.g., [[Hollywood]] types and politicians [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Chuck Schumer]])
| + | |
| − | #A high word-to-substance ratio, as in using many words to say little of substance (e.g., [[Obama]] and the [[90/10 rule]] here)
| + | |
| − | #Interrupt others more frequently than conservatives do, reflecting how liberals rely on [[censorship]] to persuade (as [[Obama]] and [[Biden]] did in the debates)
| + | |
| − | #Obsession with the media, and even with the few [[conservatives]] in the media
| + | |
| − | #Feign offense as a way to silence criticism, or censor prayer and [[conservative]] viewpoints (e.g., [[ACLU]])
| + | |
| − | #Pretend to know more than one does; [[Isaac Newton]] admitted that he knew almost nothing, yet a liberal pretends to know much (e.g., [[Al Gore]])
| + | |
| − | #Use a [[double standard]]: racial remarks by liberals (e.g., [[Joe Biden]] or [[Hillary Clinton]]) are just fine, but extreme abuse greets any conservative for that
| + | |
| − | #Insist that theories a liberal likes (e.g., [[evolution]], man-made [[global warming]]) are somehow ''objective'' and indisputable, while what a liberal dislikes (e.g., [[conservatism]]) is ''subjective''
| + | |
| − | #Unjustified praise of [[atheists]] and other liberals as "geniuses", despite little achievement. See also: [[Atheism and intelligence]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Liberal style also manifests itself in various ways in relation to these broad categories:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Conservatism'''
| + | |
| − | #Calling conservative free speech "hate" speech <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy&rcid=279869 Before the article was deleted, it said "New page: [[American Taliban]] You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site".</ref>
| + | |
| − | #Calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." <ref>--Tmcfulton 17:36, 13 November 2007 (EST) [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Democratic_National_Convention]</ref>
| + | |
| − | #Inability or unwillingness to differentiate between genuine conservative arguments and parodies of conservative arguments.
| + | |
| − | #Attempting to portray [[conservatives]] as callous or uncaring; bait them into making insensitive remarks; falsely describing them as angry
| + | |
| − | #Calling others "extremist" or "racist"
| + | |
| − | #[[Bully]]ing conservatives who disagree with liberal views
| + | |
| − | #Believing that [[conservatives]] will fail, and refusing to accept when they succeed, as when [[George W. Bush]] won in 2000
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Debate and rhetorical tactics'''
| + | |
| − | #Demands answers to questions, but after receiving answers then the liberal himself tries to avoid answering similar questions<ref>See, e.g., the stunt pulled by [[Clarence Darrow]] in the [[Scopes Trial]].</ref>
| + | |
| − | #Refuses to admit the truth in debate, even if a conservative compromises in a conciliatory manner
| + | |
| − | #Like to use the phrase "reflects poorly on the site" when talking about the liberal articles on Conservapedia <ref>do a search on [[Special:Search|"reflects poorly"]]</ref>
| + | |
| − | #Uses the term "controversial" to describe what he opposes (e.g., [[classroom prayer]]), but not to describe what he supports (e.g., [[theory of evolution]])
| + | |
| − | #A lack of originality and a predominance of copying and imitating
| + | |
| − | #Like to use the phrase "Silence Speaks Volumes" [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/us/28vigil.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/U/Urbina,%20Ian] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-lois-capps/when-silence-speaks-volum_b_98601.html] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/sen-mitch-mcconnell-his_b_38699.html]
| + | |
| − | #Call something disliked a "conspiracy theory," but don't use that term against wacky liberal theories like [[global warming]]
| + | |
| − | #Respond with "sigh" when presented with repeated examples of harm caused by liberal culture, yet persist in denying the harm despite overwhelming evidence
| + | |
| − | #Declaring that one is insulted as a response to an argument<ref>"One of [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]'s most prominent black supporters [Bob Johnson] said Sunday ''he'' was insulted by the characterization by rival [[Barack Obama]]'s presidential campaign of ''her'' remarks about the civil rights movement." [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/johnson_obama_bet/2008/01/13/64032.html]</ref>
| + | |
| − | #Insistence on talking more and having the last word in a discussion or debate, or [[last wordism]]
| + | |
| − | #Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24193 God and the Presidential Election], [[Bill O'Reilly]], [[Human Events]], December 29, 2007</ref>
| + | |
| − | #Over-reliance on [[mockery]] <ref>Your use of the first amendment sounds like [[Liberal_logic|liberal logic]]. Careful, you're on thin ice trying to utilize that amendment. The only amendment that counts is the second. For the rest of the Constitution, just refer to the Ten Commandments for everything you need to know. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 14:18, 20 February 2008 (EST) [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=391932]</ref> <ref>"adolescent berating of Liberals" [[Talk:Main_Page/archive23#Burma|User:Graham 07:47, 23 September 2007 (EDT)]]</ref> <ref>"I would appreciate a little less paranoia'' [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=45295&diff=298366&oldid=298314#.22General_Betray_Us.22]</ref> <ref>"IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style'" Graham 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | [http://www.conservapedia.com/Template_talk:Examples_of_liberal_bias#Its_just_funny]</ref> <ref>"The toilets overflowed at school today...if only the [[liberal|liberals]] had allowed religion in school, this never would have happened." BillOhannity on October 1, 2007</ref>
| + | |
| − | #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.
| + | |
| − | #Draw an analogy between opponents and racists, no matter how illogical
| + | |
| − | '''Economics''' | + | |
| − | #Support of greater [[nanny state|bureaucratic control]] rather than more [[competition]] to address problems
| + | |
| − | #An obsession with and exaggeration of artificial scarcity, such as wealth, rather than focusing on creating more
| + | |
| − | #Using [[hyperbole]] instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people's emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason.<ref>[http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools]</ref>
| + | |
| − | #Often long-winded and verbose, and in debates liberals often consume more than their fair share of the allotted time, leaving less time for the other side.
| + | |
| − | '''Education'''
| + | |
| − | #Believing that the education of children is for liberals to control
| + | |
| − | #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
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Liberalism'''
| + | |
| − | #Virtually never criticize hateful comments or behavior by a fellow liberal
| + | |
| − | #Ignoring or failing to recognize abstract concepts and denying obvious correlations between liberal beliefs and destructive behavior. eg. [[Hollywood values]] and [[San Francisco values]]
| + | |
| − | #Denial that people can grow out of a liberal viewpoint, such as [[atheism]]. See: [[Atheism has a lower retention rate compared to other worldviews]]
| + | |
| − | #Calling the use of the term '''liberal''' when used in a derogatory context "stupid"<ref>"Stop candying Liberal around like that... It just looks stupid." Graham 19:55, 22 September 2007 (EDT) [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive26#.22General_Betray_Us.22]</ref>
| + | |
| − | #Will often deny being a liberal, or will claim to be a "true conservative", while spouting liberal and [[Democrat]] talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles.
| + | |
| − | #Often declare that an adversary should be "ashamed of himself," while rarely saying that about a supportive co-liberal (such as [[Ted Kennedy]])<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#I.27m_Done Porthos on 27 September 2007 </ref> <ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=47632&diff=327149&oldid=326555&rcid=353756] RidiculouslyLiberal, November 3, 2007</ref>
| + | |
| − | #Willing to give away everything held dear by the majority to avoid serious conflict (such liberals who wish to pull our troops out of Iraq, and embolden the [[terrorist]]s).
| + | |
| − | #Thinking in terms of what someone likes or doesn't like, or has or doesn't have, or belongs or doesn't belong
| + | |
| − | #"Contrariness is creativity to the untalented" - Dennis Miller's general observation about liberal behavior.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Personal traits'''
| + | |
| − | #Unjustified claims of expertise, authority or knowledge
| + | |
| − | #Deny the obvious and embrace the implausible; see examples of [[liberal denial]]
| + | |
| − | #Denial of accountability
| + | |
| − | #Concealing one's liberal views rather than admitting them
| + | |
| − | #Attempting to appear smarter than others, when often the opposite is true
| + | |
| − | #Attempting to appear more reasonable than others, when often the opposite is true
| + | |
| − | #Preference for obscenity and profanity<ref> [http://newsbusters.org/node/11171 When It Comes to Profanity, the Left Can't Help Itself] by [[Matthew Sheffield]] at [[NewsBusters]] </ref>
| + | |
| − | #Silly demands for apologies.<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RPBHO80&show_article=1 Senate Condemns "General Betray Us" Ad]</ref>
| + | |
| − | #Dismissing legitimate criticism as "a joke" <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Liberal_Style&oldid=266960]</ref>
| + | |
| − | #Resistance to quantifying things, such as [[liberal bias]] or [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindedness]]
| + | |
| − | '''Politics'''
| + | |
| − | #Believing that bureaucratic honors or appointments are meaningful achievements, as fights over political office
| + | |
| − | #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.
| + | |
| − | '''Religion'''
| + | |
| − | #Hostility to [[faith]]
| + | |
| − | #Selectively citing the [[Bible]] when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain.
| + | |
| − | '''Science'''
| + | |
| − | #Over-reliance on [[hearsay]], such as the false claim that most support [[evolution]]
| + | |
| − | #Claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false
| + | |
| − | #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.
| + | |
| − | '''Social issues'''
| + | |
| − | #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]]).
| + | |
| − | #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.
| + | |
| − | #Reluctance to admit that anything is morally wrong
| + | |
| − | #Insisting on a mindless equality, as in "if you have an entry for [[Beethoven]], then you must allow entries for vulgar rap artists!"
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == References ==
| + | |
| − | <references/>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{liberalism}}
| + | |
| − | [[Category:Liberalism]]
| + | |
My heart is inditing of a good matter; I speak of the things which I have made unto the King. Kings' daughters were among the honourable women. Upon thy right hand did stand the Queen in vesture of gold, and the King shall have pleasure in thy beauty. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers and Queens thy nursing mothers
