Conservatives have an interesting interpretation of censorship...

PART ONE

In a fairly recent discussion about Net Neutrality, I was presented with the absolutely absurd point by RW poster Seahawks123, that Net Neutrality was somehow tantamount to censorship.  He likened it to the fairness doctrine, another vastly overated "threat" to "free speech" that the Right loves to fear monger about. 

Now, first of all, regarding the fairness doctrine:

1) The Democrats are NOT trying to reinstate it.  I don't know why not.  It could only help civil discourse and foster more open and honest political debate at this point.  (And the fact that the Right isn't advocating for a required rebutal, sort of puts a stake, once and for all, in the idea that the media leans to the left, no?)  But, for better or worse, there are no serious proposal pending to re-instate it.

2) In arguing against it, as is par for the course, the Right can't help but distort what it represents.  All it requires is that the opposition be allowed to say their piece.  WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH THAT?!  It does not (and never did) require equal time.  After three hours of Rush Limbaugh, Clear Channel would have been in perfect compliance just to give some token liberal 10 seconds to quote Joe Peschi from My Cousin Vinny and say, "Everything that guy just said was bullshit."

3) They always say that it impinges on free speech, and thus that's it tantamount to censorship.  But for the life of me, I'll just never understand how making sure someone has the chance to speak somehow constitutes a LIMIT on free speech!  Seems to me that only a coward who KNOWS HE'S WRONG or KNOWS HE'S LYING would fear hearing (or having people hear) what his opponent might say.  Personally, I wouldn't dream of editing out (or moderating) a conseravtive's resonse to anything I've posted here.  If it were thoughtful, I'd just deal with it, and if it were absurd and abusive I'd simply say, "Look at what I have to deal with!"  But, if you're as intellectualy bankrupt as Rush Limbaugh / Glenn Beck / Sean Hannity / Mike Savage / Ann Coulter / etc... I can see why being forced to give even 10 seconds to an opposition voice would cause you to wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.

ANYWAY, the really goofy thing here is that Net Neutrality doesn't work at all like the fairness doctrine.  And it doesn't stop anyone from saying anything or force anyone to give time or space to let anyone else say something.  What it DOES DO is guarentee everyone an equal opportunity to speak.  It says that NO ONE can be cut out.  Well, that's pretty much EXACTLY what free speech is all about, isn't it?!  But the bulk of the Right (as usual) can't wrap their tiny little brains aorund even so simple a concept as this.  This becuase:

1) The Democrats support it.  Therefore they MUST oppose it.  Doesn't matter what it is.  Which is just fucking stupid.

2) The Right Wing Talking heads (who are all paid by the corporations who would lose power and influence under Net Neutrality) oppose it.  Therefore the MUST oppose it.  Doesn't matter what the implications are for US, the prviate citizens. Which is, again, just fucking stupid.

3) Per their talking points, ANYTHING a private, for-profit corporation does is GOOD, and ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the Government does is BAD.  (Which might just be the MOST fucking stupid mentality of all!)

And the sad thing is that I honestly do not believe I am distorting their position here!  As far as I can tell, and I would LOVE for someone to explain to me how I'm wrong, letting private, for profit corporations decide which messages get priority and which messeges get to be access at dial-up speeds is NOT censorship, but a law saying that ALL SITES, regardless of their message, get the same bandwith somehow IS.

IOW: Making censorship illegal, is censorship. 

I'll say it one more time: That is just fucking stupid.  There is simply no other conclusion that can be reached. by a sentient, free-thinking life form.

So let me make this crystal clear: I'm an 100%, unequivocably in favor of Net Neutrality.  And that means that Matt Drudge and Fox Nation and Conservapedia and all the other RW propaganda sites will all have the same opportunity to put their ideas out their as I do. And I'm fine with that.  A-OK, in fact. Because THAT is what free speech, no... that is what AMERICA is all about, and that is what makes America great.  To oppose Net Neutrality is to oppose free speech itself.  So... it's really no surprise that the Right opposes it: If they can't silence thier opposition, and dominate ever corner of a debate, they can't WIN.  And they KNOW this.  So of course they want the power to stick the opposition sites on dial-up speed! 

But we, as liberals, know that (1) We have nothing to fear from these clowns in a open and honest debate and (2) that if we were put on EQUAL footing, that we'd actually have MORE of a say than we do now.  We know what a rude awakening it will be for the bulk of the Right to discover just how much in their favor even the parts of the media that are relativly critcial of them really are.  So yeah: To me it's no suprise that they find the idea of REAL free speech terrifying.  It would only make them look like stupid, uneducated hypocrites - something their complicit corporate media has thus far been unwilling to do, even though it's about as difficult as putting on a hat.

(There's a PART TWO to this, but it's late, and I've got sh...tuff to do.  So I'll do that part tomorrow.)

How stupid are these people?

LOL, I couldn't resist!

Is she still a serious contender for 2012? Seriously? She hurt McCain! She's as divisive a George W. Bush, and yet somehow even stupider! I read recently that Dick Cheney is being considered for 2012. I'd LOVE that. Obama versus Cheney. It won't be Reagan-Mondale, but Obama would mop the floor with him. And Sarah Palin? Are you kidding?! Can you imagine the debates? He'd tear her apart! But who else do they have? Mike "I let Maurice Clemmons out of prison early" Huckabee? Oh, if there is a God HE will be somewhere on the ticket... And we'll "Willie Horton" the stuffing out him! (That'd be fun, huh?) Mitt Romney? Who was pro-choice before he was pro-life? For Gay rights before he was against them? Good like selling HIM to the bible-humpers down south! Newt Gingrich? (See "Dick Cheney!") Cheney and Gingrich are among the most depsised politicians in America. Is ANYONE here concerned about 2012? Seriously? I'm only concerned about Congressional seats. And even there, the 'Pubs could hardly make a dent in the off-year. They'll gain some in the Mid's, the opposition party always does, but I predict that the gains for them will be small. And yet, somehow Fox will still trumpet how a 2-seat gains in the house represents a "mandate against Obama" or some nonsense like that!

But anyway, like the title suggested... HOW STUPID ARE THESE PEOPLE?!

Here a few examples that should make you laugh. (Or throw up.)

Here a bit about that douchebag Andrew Shafly over at Conservapedia, re-writing the Bible. A few gems from that waste of donor organs...

"Professors are the most liberal group of people in the world, and it's professors who are doing the popular modern translations of the Bible,"

LOL. Yeah Professors... who also happen to be the smartest, most well-infomred people in the world as well. Curse that darned "research" and "inquiry" and "analysis" and "evidence." What liberal codswallop!

"The phrase 'theological conservative' does not mean that someone is politically conservative," said Schlafly.

This is a lie. There may be not causality, but the fact is the correlation is 1-to-1, 100%. because it only Conservatives like Shitfly who use the Bible to defend their positions (because, it's not like more American concepts like FREEDOM or LIBERTY or even LIMITED GOVERNMENT will work!) and since Liberals are generally smarter and for more prone to resort to LOGIC and REASON, it is only Conservatoive like Shitfly that look foolish when the Bible is turned against him.

The inablity to tolertate any questioning of your beliefs is a common, almost universal, mental illness among Conservatives, and Shitfly is ehxibit numero uno in that.

Here another one, about the utter failure of Glenn Beck movie in every major market. It did well in the rural south, that Mecca of fine America culture, but flopped in New York, Boston and D.C. (Big surprise, huh?)

Now, HOW STUPID is Glenn Beck? How about the TICKET PRICE?: He charged TWENTY DOLLARS PER TICKET! How out-of-touch with middle America do you have to be to charge DOUBLE the price that makes more and more Americans switch to Netflix every year? It must be nice to make so much money that $20 to see a crappy movie seems like a reasonable price!

I really wish the Democrats would hire some more sleazy campaign managers. They really need to drive home just how out of touch the Righties are. They calime to be "populists" but THEY'RE the real "elitists."

Conservapedia and the Conservative Brain

For those that aren't familiar, Conservapedia claims to be a kind of conservative balance to Wikipedia. Apparently they realize that they'll never win the argument on anything that is approached rationally and objectively, so they've set up their own repository (suppository?) of "knowledge." And yes, I'm sure the irony is lost on them that if you can't win a rational argument, then YOU'RE WRONG. But, like I've argued before that they evaluate evidence based on their ideology, rather than evaluate their ideology based on evidence and the mere existence of this site is practically the case in point.

Now, to be fair, this site is such a steaming pile of wet, runny dogshit that most conservatives are in fact embarrassed by it. They don't even try. They make less of an effort to appear like a legitimate encyclopedia that Fox does to appear like a legitimate News channel. It's bad. It's so bad, it's not even good for a laugh. They've gone beyond Coulter, and even beyond Colbert. If it were a liberal site SPOOFING conservatives, I'd say they went to far even for that purpose and the humor has been lost in it's heavy handedness.

But just for fun, I figured I'd dignify one of their entries with an objective, academic response. And I think I've found the perfect entry for this futile exercise:

LIBERAL

From Conservapedia:

A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical
standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal
standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses
many words to say nothing. Liberalism began as a movement for individual
liberties, but today is increasingly statist,
and in Europe even socialistic.

Hoo-boy, where to begin?

A liberal (also leftist) - improper and unnecessary conflation of terms. (-1)
rejects logical and biblical standards - logical is matter of unsupported opinion (-1). There is nothing logical about the bible. (As implied here.) It contains both logical contradiction and implies statements of fact that have been disproven scientifically. (-1)
often for self-centered reasons - opinion, not supported. evidence? (-1)
There are no coherent liberal standards - evidence? (-0, for now, but remember this one!)
often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention - irrelevant. opinion, not supported. evidence? (-2)
who uses many words to say nothing - There is no sin worse than hypocrisy. (-1)

The last bit is almost accurate. We'll let it pass, despite lack of supporting evidence presented.

The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and
political movements in history is a story not told often enough...

A cute quote, and properly cited, but irrelevant to the definition of liberal. (-1)
Plus: There is no sin worse than hypocrisy. (-1)

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and
practices:

Wait... I thought...

There are no coherent liberal standards

I guess we'll have to deduct a point for each of these, two if they're false or misstated to boot...

• Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion (-1)
• Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events (-2)

and (-1) for being un-American and violating the first amendment and every parent's right to raise their child in the religion of their choice without gov't interference. (Asshole.)

• Support for gun control (-1, although not this liberal!)
• Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[2] (-1: You betcha!)

But another (-1) for not recognizing that 'obscenity' is a matter of opinion, and the courts deciding what is and what isn't is tantamount to the gov't censoring speech.) (Asshole.)

• Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation. (-2: Progressive taxation has been around since the beginning of time and was endorsed by every Conservatives' favorite economist, Adam Smith, for very liberal sounding reasons!)
• Government-rationed medical care, such as Universal Health Care (-2, for the 'Rationing' bullshit.)
• Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education (-1: You bectha!)
• The denial of inherent gender differences (-2: for 'inherent.' We don;'t reject 'inherent' differences, only the arbitrary, societal contrived ones.) (Asshole.)
• Insisting that men and women have the same access to jobs in the military (-1, but it's close to a -2!)
• Legalized same-sex marriage (-1: You betcha!)
• Implementation of affirmative action (-2: Hey moron: it's already been implemented. I think the word you're looking got is "maintenance" or "keeping in place.") (Idiot.)
• Political correctness (-3: Liberals hate this shit too. And -1 more for hypocrisy, because Conservatives practically invented this shit!)
• Support of labor unions (-1: You betcha!)
• Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex.[3] (-3: This goes beyond misstatement. This borders on slandering teachers across the country as child molesters at worst, pornographers at best.)
• A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended (-3: the extra point for hypocrisy: WHO said 'it's just a damned piece of paper'? Plus, each judge has his own opinion about 'what was intended.' So this is saying nothing more than, 'They interpret it differently than we do' or 'they have a different agenda.' Whoop-de-frickin'-do. Not exactly a profound revelation, moron.)

So far they're down 9 points from the opening paragraph, 13 for calling out what 'a liberal generally supports' after declaring that 'there are no coherent liberal standards.' And 11 more for either misrepresenting the liberal position and/or adding hypocrisy to the mix. (So we're doing C+ work so far, and we're barely started!)

The then have several sections which do nothing to further define liberalism, but rather seek to defame it:

• Liberals and Uncharitableness - citing studies that show that people of faith give more money per capita that atheists, even when Church giving is taken out of the equation. Now I can't comment on the study itself yet, though I'm going to look into. This section loses a point for declaring that this data is due to their "reject[ion of] biblical morality (and therefore conservative Christianity ) and hold to moral relativism" Their is so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to start. (-1 for the unsupported assumption, -1 for the conflation of 'biblical morality' in a general sense with 'Conservative Christianity' and -1 for the whole 'moral relativism' thing. Liberals generally DON'T hold that philosophy. It's basically just a stupid smear that Conservatives use, as well as a word they don't really understand the meaning of anyway. So: -3
• Liberals and Superstition - -1 for assuming that religion and it's attendant rituals, are necessarily different from superstition. -1 for the continued assertion that one can't be any manner of christian unless they're conservative.
• Liberalism in North America today - -1 for the lie that the media tends to be liberal. I've presented my evidence. Where's yours? Talk about begging the question. (-1 for logical fallacy.) This section includes the statement:

Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social
justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic
virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics.

At first, I'm almost inclined to say, "Thank you," but he implies that this belief is not, in fact, the case. In any case, -1, because no liberals actually believe this, and -1 again for hypocrisy, since it's far closer to the delusion that conservative have about themselves. Just substitute the last five words with "secular humanists." (shudder)

• Liberal Rankings of Congress Members - (-1) It basically accurate, but irrelevant, since they don't include the ranking, or even a link to it. (-1) Because the National Reviews ranking have been shown to be flawed, and are constructed to name whomever in on the Democratic ticket as the 'most liberal.' John Kerry in '04, Obama in '08. What, did Kerry move to the right or something?
• Liberalism in Europe today (+1) for admitting that 'liberal' is sometimes used as a 'term of abuse.' (-1) for not adding 'by Conservatives.' (Asshole.)
• Historical Liberalism - (-1) for "In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the U.S. failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq." This is bullshit. We are all on board until Bush decides to go on that stupid, illegal boondoggle in Iraq. And to that we were ALL opposed. Another (-1) for "Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion." which continues to contradict "There are no coherent liberal standards."
• Original meaning: Classical Liberalism - This section is fine. Go figure that it's the shortest section in the whole article!
• Alternative meanings of 'liberal' - The first definition is basically crappy. The rest is fair enough. Again - very short section.
• Liberal Organizations Some of these are questionable (How can the ACLU be called 'liberal' when they've defended religious groups and Conservatives?! This is a Conservative smear, and it's a stupid one.) But we'll let it pass. In general the organization mentioned are ones I'm happy to be affiliated with and support.

So how did they do?

The Opening paragraph and first section lost them 23 points, and the individual section lose them another 12, just with the very little [mis]information they provide. So they're down to a 65 (D work) just on deductions. And given the lack of depth and actual definition of the term, not to mention the complete and utter lack of objective and neutral voice, another 5 point deduction is well earned. And I'm deducting another -1, for the cartoon, which is not accurate and is completely devoid of wit.

59 - FAIL.