Liberals Behaving Badly


Every now and again, Andrew Schlafly feels the need to vent his spleen at the liberal masses that are apparently threatening his way of life. Of course, given that the only true conservatives are Mummy Schlafly, Saint Ronald and himself (we’re not sure about God – that whole forgiveness thing counts against Him), this means that there’s an awful lot of venting to be done.

In this example, he’s turned his beady eye on the behaviour of “liberal” editors on his “encyclopaedia” (Here‘s a screencap just in case). Here too, “liberal” basically means “anybody who’s ever disagreed with, or queried, anything Andrew Schlafly ever wrote.” The strange thing is, is that when you have a close look at his complaints, it would appear as if Andy and his minions are, in fact, liberals too. Go figure.

It’s worth noting the opening and closing statements of this essay. The opening sentence reads, “Over 382,000 edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze liberal behavior and trends.” The closing sentence reads, “Over 466,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior.”There must have been some busy little editors to make 84,000 edits in the time Andy put this together.

Obviously it was in the days before Terry Koeckritz was around to block everything in sight, as he plays his own game of Shut-Down-Conservapedia. You’d also think that with a few hundred thousand edits to assess, Andy would be able to put together a fairly sizable body of evidence to back up his claims.

As expected, however, there’s not a footnote in sight. It must be one of Terry’s “self-evident truths” – which is Conservaspeak for “Andy said it; it’s therefore the truth and if you disagree, then you’re liberal and my administrators can block you and silence your dissent.” But, Conservapedia doesn’t deal in censorship, of course. (Insert cynical laughter here). Anyway, let’s have a look at what Andy’s found and see if they hold up to passing scrutiny.

  • Over-reliance by liberals on mockery. I am so happy Andy put this in, and I’m moving it to the head of the queue, because now I can call him out for the sleazy little hypocrite that he is. Remember this choice comment, made by Andy, whilst debating aspects of the First World War, came up with the following gems: “Nearly every one of your postings here includes a puerile, sneering remark. You’re almost certainly a liberal who’s here to push your misguided ideology rather than genuinely help anyone learn.” and “Put another way, Clement, how many hours and weeks and years of your own time have you donated to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them?” ‘Nuff said. This also applies to his ‘lack of logic’ comment when it comes to arguing. blogsurfer.us

  • “Liberals deny the existence of practices or rules…” This is simply another reason for Andy to soapbox his pet projects, especially classroom prayer. I’m not 100% sure about the American policy, but it boils down to the fact that Any is pissed because he can’t pray out loud in front of a class of kids. This not only shows how selfish he is – wanting to impose what he wants, and not worrying whether the class want to hear his nasal whine, but also his complete ignorance of the fact that this hypothetical classroom would also potentially contain Jewish, Hindu and Muslim students. Would Andy be prepared to pray for them too? More like have them confined to their own classrooms… preferably in a different country. He also sees this as his right being “censored” – another epic fail on his part.

  • “Liberals, particularly liberal vandals, seem to have a strong desire for attention. “ This from the man who regularly trumpets the number of page-views on the main page, as well as crows about having “the world’s largest” American History and Economics classes. Ho hum.

  • “Many liberals think that 2 wrongs make a right.” This is just another chance for him to bleat about his site – which is a public wiki, open for anybody to edit – being “vandalised”. Given that on Conservapedia, “vandalism” also means “inserting the truth, which we don’t like, into articles” that claim can just as easily apply to any of his minions – Block editor for adding factual information = Wrong 1, Revert factual edit, thus censoring information = Wrong 2. Result = the distorted conservative world-view is intact = Right.

  • “Many liberals do not recognise vandalism as being wrong.” Again, in the absence of proof, a comment like this can be treated with the contempt it deserves. I challenge him to find one “liberal” who says that smashing windows, or painting somebody’s dog lime green isn’t wrong (ok, the latter is funny too, but still wrong). I assume he’s referring to “vandalism” of his “encyclopaedia”, an open wiki. If somebody physically pours a cup of coffee into his server, it’s vandalism (or an act of god!). Rearranging a few defenseless electrons is not vandalism, no matter how paranoid you are.

  • “Liberals refuse to admit that people who were atheists can find faith as they grow older.” Once again, show me the money, Andy. I can also say that Conservatives refuse to admit that people of faith can renounce that faith, as they grow older. Also, the cynic in me says that late in life is a pretty good time to find faith – you’ve done all the naughty stuff already and just in case, you know.

  • “Liberals deny that gun control and banning homeschooling were instrumental to Adolf Hitler’s power.” Ho hum again. Now he invokes Godwin’s law to push his agenda. No proof, no historical basis and no need to discuss this further.

  • “Liberals think that nearly everybody agrees with them, and are shocked when they encounter somebody who does not.” Actually Andy, liberals love it when we come across somebody who thinks contrary to them – it gives them a chance to debate, share views and learn – you know, all the things you’ve outlawed on Conservapedia, because you’re either too thick or too insecure to debate your beliefs. The reason we’re shocked is that we’re confronted with such batshit inanity trying to pass itself off as “thought”. Extra: “Conservatives outnumber liberals by a 2:1 ratio” Yes Andy, and that’s why John McCain’s in the White House.

  • “Liberals are always more aggressive than conservatives, and insist on the last word, even when their complaints have been rejected.” Andy, of course, never deals in last wordism, even though one can argue that Conservapedia’s habit of blocking people who are winning an argument is the ultimate form of last-wordism. Oh, and as for aggressive – 2 words: TK and Karajou, you know – the guys you chose as “administrators” and who are supposed to “nurture” the school kids who use your “encyclopaedia”.

  • “Liberals refuse to allow the possibly of certain Conservative views” Ah, finally we get to Andy saying “open your mind”. Of course, with the examples he quotes – changes in the laws of physics and the feasibility of Reagan’s Star Wars debacle, Andy shoots his own argument in the foot. Also, how about Conservatives allowing the possibility of certain liberal views like evolution. Open minds work both ways, but I haven’t seen much “open-mindedness” there, Andy.

  • “Name-calling, particularly in a Parthian Shot, is over used.” Once again, Andy fails at understanding human nature. Any normal person would question why they were the subject of so much derision (hint: it’s because your stubborn idiocy drives them to distraction), but not Andy. “It’s not me, it’s them” appears to be his motto. Also his example is classic, “you’ve just conceded that you’re a deceitful liar.” Andy, that’s not name-calling, that’s the truth. Oh and “Moronic vandalism”, “Liberal Multi-culturism” and their ilk aren’t name-calling, right?

  • “Almost no liberal admits he’s liberal.” No Andy, because most sane people don’t compartmentalise everything into liberal and conservative. The world isn’t all black and white. Besides, given your definition of liberal, most people probably would deny being a liberal. Liberals also don’t feel the need to run around advertising the fact that they’re liberal.

  • “A surprising absence of reliance on logic.” This from somebody whose debating style goes something along the lines of, “You say Obama isn’t a Muslim? I bet you want to censor classroom prayer and are pro gun control too. Open your mind. La-la-la-la-la I can’t hear you. Terry, please block him for me.”

  • “An enjoyment and tolerance of deceit.” Yeah, about as much as Terry Koeckritz. Seriously though, Andy’s definition of “deceit” can’t be found in any dictionary and if you’re referring to parody, well, let’s face it – he’s responsible for some of the best parody on Conservapedia. As for tolerance of deceit, have you read your Obama article lately? Or are you still bitter over Bugler – you know, the rude, obnoxious, insufferable boor (with apologies to FretfulPorcupine) that you welcomed to your bosom. If it was deceit, it was only because Bugler was pretending to be everything you seem to hold dear – and you ignored everybody who told you he was a parodist. Face it, he would have been the perfect addition alongside Terry Koeckritz, Brian McDonald and John Patti. That wasn’t deceit Andy, that was holding a mirror up to yourself. Ugly, wasn’t it?

  • “A preference for obscenity.” Andy, one could argue that your whole “encyclopaedia” borders on the obscene, not to mention the fact that your actions and stupidity would make a nun swear. Again, in the absence of proof, we can disregard this claim. Besides, your spam filters don’t allow profanity, so what are you moaning about? What is obscene, however, is you allowing Ken DeMyer to constantly invoke Hitler in his stupid arguments and splash idiotic composite pictures on the main page. If you had half a brain, you’d realise just how much damage he (Ken that it, not Hitler) does to Conservapedia’s image.

  • “A preference for complaining, rather than submitting new entries.” Nothing sums Conservapedia up better than this statement. In Andy’s mind, he wants a horde of happy little helpers typing away and never querying anything – his own personal Ministry of Truth. You see Andy equates “querying” with “complaining” and cowers behind the 90/10 rule so that he doesn’t have to defend his ludicrous positions. Now that he’s enlisted Terry Koeckritz and John Patti as his personal censors, Andy’s echo chamber is almost perfect.

  • “Strident objections to the point that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public.” This is another epic Andy fail (I remember this from hearing him on NPR’s “All Things Considered”). It’s such a sweeping statement, made with absolutely no foundation, that people were bound to query it. This has gone down, along with his “95% certain” as the foundation of Schlafly Statistics. Also, Andy can’t seem to grasp that, unlike Conservapedia, Wikipedia is geared towards the whole world – not just the viewpoint of a demented New Jersey fundie – which is probably more liberal than most of America. Of course, that said – President McCain, anybody?

  • “When found in an unbeatable position in a debate, liberals resort to long answers, saying nothing of significance.” Please show me one example where a so-called liberal has been in an unbeatable position in a debate on CP. Just one. Oh and I think you mean “losing” – unbeatable implies that the liberal is winning the debate. Which brings me to the Conservative person of that sentence: “When found in an unbeatable position in a debate, conservatives resort to blocking the editor and reverting his comments.”

  • “Attempts to convert liberal opinion to fact, by citing a liberal advocate…” There’s only one response to this: Ken DeMyer’s quote-minded disasters (I can’t even call them “articles”) on Evolution, Atheism and Homosexuality. No, I’m not going to link to them.

  • “Liberals express liberal viewpoints as “common usage”. This generally means that if Andy hasn’t heard of it, it must be “liberal” and “wrong”. In a similar vein, according to Terry Koeckritz, “Conservatives express conservative viewpoints as self-evident truths.”

  • “Instead of just correcting an error, liberal’s like to dramatically announce their superior ability.” This again from the man who regularly updates the number of pageviews and claims to be teaching the largest classes in the world (and who will argue that big classrooms are good!). Then again, Andy also has a thing about people claiming expertise (that’s also a liberal trait, it seems). I guess it’s because even though he claims expertise in everything from linguistics to molecular biology, he really is a  simpleton, who can be trounced by anybody with a little knowledge. Hence his attempts to discredit people by having them branded liberal, before they can discredit him. Still, at least Andy agrees that liberals have superior abilities, especially as his precious homeschoolers still can’t get the hang of “there” and “their”.

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Administrators, Andrew Schlafly, Conservapedia and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Liberals Behaving Badly

  1. Steve says:

    I saw a great entry on CP yesterday:

    Someone called Obama a “mulatto,” which some editors said was derogatory. Schlafly agrees, calling it “Liberal vandalism”… despite being a shot against a democrat.

    Inside Andy’s little brain, anything bad must be liberal. Even insulting a liberal is somehow liberal vandalism. Brilliant!

    http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama#liberal_vandalism:_mulatto

Comments are closed.