?

Log in

No account? Create an account

JUMP BACK | BE FORWARD

Put that in your tailpipe and exhaust it

I tell you, folks, if you aren't checking in on a regular basis with Conservapedia (a.k.a. Wikipedia for Stupid People™), you're missing out on some of the surest comedy on the internet. From their terrifying obsession with homesexuality to their astonishing illustrations of what passes for 'debate' amongst right-wingers, it's a treasure trove of goofy.

LGM brings us their latest high point in hilarity: a list of hallmarks of the liberal style. Pick your favorite! Here's mine:

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.


THINK ABOUT THAT. Seriously, THINK ABOUT IT.

Comments

( 16 SHOTS LICKED — LICK A SHOT )
brandawg
Nov. 30th, 2007 02:18 pm (UTC)
Oh, man, I know where I'm getting my next set of examples when I teach logical fallacies next year!
minnesattva
Nov. 30th, 2007 02:20 pm (UTC)
I like "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." Difficult to prove, but impossible to deny!
ludickid
Nov. 30th, 2007 02:24 pm (UTC)
Oh, man, I know, I LOVE that one. It would be my favorite if it ended with "Think about that." Not only is it super-stupid ("Damn liberals are always denying things we know are true just because we can't prove them"), but what kind of an example is that? What conservative point is furthered by the 'fact' of more men working at gas stations?
minnesattva
Nov. 30th, 2007 02:29 pm (UTC)
I know! Not only is it a stupid point (and are gas-station-employee demographics an NSA secret anyway?), but it's deliciously random for a group of people that otherwise just harp on the one point, over and over: Wikipedia doesn't do a good enough job of telling us what everybody knows! Verily, the internet is lacking a compendium of things that people don't need to look up if they already know them!
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
ludickid
Nov. 30th, 2007 03:24 pm (UTC)
Re: (also)
So, wait, the argument is that men are smarter because they can get jobs working at gas stations?
asataylor
Nov. 30th, 2007 02:48 pm (UTC)
Honestly, people.
I can't believe that wasn't written by the Colbert Nation.
drownedinink
Nov. 30th, 2007 03:21 pm (UTC)
Man, I actually skimmed through their article on homosexuality and, I have to say, with no exaggeration, that's the most concentrated bit of homophobia I've ever been exposed to and I grew up in rural Virginia. That they have an entire article dedicated to "proving" that gay people are more likely to commit murder is just incredible.

Seriously, what the fuck did we ever do to these people?

ludickid
Nov. 30th, 2007 03:25 pm (UTC)
You're not...you know, usual!
rum_holiday
Nov. 30th, 2007 03:38 pm (UTC)
Assuming criminals are on the other side of the political fence, without evidence.

It can't be my favorite because I don't even understand it.

I'm wishing now to slip back into my pre-caffeinated morning coma. I'm so depressed.
ludickid
Nov. 30th, 2007 08:45 pm (UTC)
I think what they're saying is that liberals always assume criminals are conservative, which isn't true at all. What we assume is that conservatives are criminals, which is entirely different.
rum_holiday
Nov. 30th, 2007 08:49 pm (UTC)
See, I had caught a serious case of teh dumb by the time I got to that one. Thanks for clearing it up.
calamityjake
Nov. 30th, 2007 03:53 pm (UTC)
Liberals have style because they're gay.
lauri8
Nov. 30th, 2007 05:00 pm (UTC)
So the author of example 33 has somehow learned to spell "non sequitur" without the slightest idea of its meaning.

This disconnect is almost heart-rending. Such earnestness! Such passion! Such ignorance!
oilyrags
Nov. 30th, 2007 08:53 pm (UTC)
Homesexuality IS terrifying. Why if we let men marry houses or women marry condominiums, who knows what that slippery slope could lead to?
flying_blind
Dec. 1st, 2007 05:31 am (UTC)
Good Christians being duped into thinking it's OK to marry their double-wides, that's what!
brandiweed
Dec. 1st, 2007 04:12 pm (UTC)
Mind you, with Conservapedia it's hard to tell how much of it is genuine right-wing nuttery and how much of it is smartasses satirizing right-wing nuttery...
( 16 SHOTS LICKED — LICK A SHOT )

Profile

flavored with age
ludickid
Gun-totin', Chronic-smokin' Hearse Initiator
Ludic Log

PROPRIETOR

Leonard Pierce is a freelance writer wandering around Texas with no sleep or sense of direction. If you give him money he will write something for you. If you are nice to him he may come to your house and get drunk.

Latest Month

December 2016
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow