humanity has a liberal bias

ok, so both wikipedia and youtube now have a liberal bias, apparently. that is why we need conservapedia and qubetv, which are both explicitly conservative. conservatives feel like they are being discriminated against and mistreated by the rest of humanity. well is that not what happens to every minority group? wikipedia and youtube, if they have any liberal bias, have it because the majority of people are liberal, at least the majority of people who post and edit content on the internet. why does humanity have a liberal bias? it is simple. liberalism is about positive change to make the future better than the past. conservatism is based on trying to bring back an idealized version of the past, preserving tradition regardless of whether it has merit or not, and enforcing lockstep discipline among its followers to have them all believing the same things and parroting the same talking points. true, there are some intellectual movements that are conservative, but any objectivist or neoconservative intellectual would not feel very at home among a bunch of young-earth-creationist “movement conservatives”. but liberalism runs into problems because of its nature to try to identify oppressed minority groups and help them out. only people from a minority group can be spokespeople for it, according to identity politics. and anyone who is not from that group simply cannot ever understand the struggles those in that group have gone through, and has no right to ever criticize that group or anything its members do. but other groups of people are not thought of as oppressed minorities, but as oppressors/exploiters. whenever someone mentions how a group of people in important positions of power such as the senate or supreme court is not “diverse” enough, that is part of this problem. another part of the problem is that since liberals reject both extremes of free market capitalism and marxist-leninist communism, liberal economics is a difficult balancing act, trying to correct injustice and help the needy without too much of a dent in economic growth. while most conservatives identify some things as good and others as bad and simply stick to that model, often liberals are in a delicate balancing act, viewing many things from a neutral point of view, as neither good nor bad. that is not always the case, of course; sometimes we liberals can be quite manichean about good and evil, just like the conservatives. we just do it less often. but conservatives try to do what benefits the elites, while liberals try to do what benefits the oppresssed and downtrodden. while conservatives try to claim their ideas have a rational, well-thought-out basis, in reality the basis for their ideas is often a rationalization that they came up with after they already made up their minds. liberals, on the other hand, believe in ideas that have proven to be correct, or seem like they are probably correct; for example, we liberals embrace the idea of global warming because the scientific community embraced this idea first and has united behind it, and scientists are obviously the biggest experts on science. many conservatives believe that certain individuals can be experts on pretty much everything, and they idolize people such as rush limbaugh. usually liberals view their own leading spokespeople as people who are usually but not always correct, and who are still flawed individuals. liberals believe in human fallibility, and do not wholeheartedly embrace whatever some other liberal says is true, just because that person said it. well some liberals are dumb enough to do that, actually. but that just shows how big the tent of liberalism is! because liberalism includes such a wide portion of the population, it actually includes a great deal of stupid people too. conservatism does a better job at appealing to stupid people, however, because the entire conservative movement is managed from the top down as a unified propaganda operation, with one vision, one purpose. although there are some dissenting views among conservative people, conservative voices in the media are monolithic and all voice the same views, because they view it as a propaganda war against liberals and all consult together to develop the same talking points. although some conservatives are actually atheists, for instance, the conservative atheist point of view is never advocated in the media, because conservatives want complete control over what message they are putting out, and do not want anything put out that would undermine the unity of their message. and so the only atheists whose views are ever seen by the public are liberal atheists, because liberalism is based on trying to attract as many different types of people as possible. there are also liberal muslims, and in fact muslims in the united states would be idiotic not to support liberalism and the democratic party, since republicans and the conservative movement have all but declared war on islam and called for its destruction. of course, a person might be a liberal and a muslim at the same time, but no true liberal would ever be a muslim, and no true muslim would ever be a liberal. it is just a marriage of convenience, one of many in the realm of american politics. for example, it is rarely if ever noted that the satanist movement upholds conservative values and has long supported conservative and republican candidates. the communist party of the united states has been offering support for the democrats since the 2004 election cycle too, which is all the more interesting if you point out that this particular communist party is stalinist in ideology, whereas the trotskyist movement in the united states is adamantly opposed to both democrats and republicans. trotskyist ideology rejects marriages of convenience, and calls for its followers to maintain ideological purity by not associating with those with whom they disagree. on the other hand, stalinists believe in broadening their base of support by any means necessary, and they firmly believe in the idea that the end justifies the means. so a stalinist political party in a parliamentary country is much more likely to join a coalition government than a trotskyist political party. and as for why the satanists support republicans? satanists wholeheartedly embrace the ideas of social darwinism and survival of the fittest, and they think unregulated free-market capitalism is the best way to do this. the modern satanist movement was started by anton lavey, author of the satanic bible. satanists believe in radical individualism and selfishness. their views are quite similar to those of ayn rand and the objectivist movement, who also provide some intellectual backing for conservatism. satanists have to keep their public displays of support to a minimum for fear of undermining the conservative movement they support, of course. and they hate christianity, but oh well... they enjoy having a marriage of convenience with the republican party, just as the stalinists offer their support to the democrats. and what about nambla, the north american man boy love association? well, oddly enough, nambla is a very liberal organization in its ideology, and i daresay it takes liberalism a bit too far. everything in moderation! and what about the creator of the “girls gone wild” pornographic videos? republican. republicans actually get a surprising amount of support from the pornography industry, probably because the pornographers have a dislike of feminism. pornographers also dislike religious fundamentalism of course, but a lot of them see the christian threat as more contained than the feminist threat. also, perhaps the pornographers give the money to republican candidates as a form of political blackmail; the pornographers will keep silent about their support unless those candidates come out in favor of censorship, and then they will accuse the politicians of being hypocrites for taking donations from them. of course, in the last few years since dubya took office, more and more pornographers have been switching parties to support democrats instead. but there are some who support republicans just because of 9/11. mainly the support of pornographers for republicans has probably always been about an insurance policy against the intervention of the religious right, and also perhaps an embrace of the idea of smaller government that is less activist than one run by liberals. liberals, of course, believe in social progress, and believe that humanity progressively improves its ideas over time, coming up with better new ideas and discarding worse old ideas. that is why liberal judges tend to re-interpret old texts like the constitution and bill of rights. they correctly view those documents as being written by hypocritical people who owned slaves, who considered women as the property of men, who only allowed white landowning males above age 18 the right to vote. so, any traditional interpretations that say that certain freedoms do not really apply to certain groups of people ought to be reconsidered, and that is the basis for the outcome in the roe v. wade decision. now, as a liberal, i am open-minded enough to see that the roe v. wade decision was wrong, and the case was incorrectly decided, but has not been reversed because of political considerations, for all of these years. i do not view the liberal pundits on my side as infallible or anything like that. and i know that some conservatives are kinda like me, in that they do not swallow all of the poison kool-aid of the republican party propaganda machine. but their ideology is based on the principle of the preservation of the status quo. we liberals may have invented political correctness, but we can also throw it away as a flawed idea that turned out not to work. it is not a sacred cow for us, because we have no sacred cows in liberal-land, other than not insulting groups of people for things that are not their fault, and not calling for violence without justifying it. why else would cindy sheehan hate hillary clinton’s guts? rosie o’donnell and donald trump hate each other, and they both hate president bush too. liberalism is a big tent, when it comes to hating individuals! just not groups of people. for that, turn to conservatism. and what about other fringe religious groups besides satanists and the religious right? well the raelians are a cult started by a french guy who claims to have met some space aliens, they claim to have cloned several human beings, and they support democrats. the unification church, or “moonies”, worship rev. sun myung moon as the messiah, and they support republicans. the church of scientology, like the church of the subgenius, is neutral and nonpartisan. and most pagans and wiccans support the democrats, of course. as for the jews? the jewish people still support democrats over republicans, oddly enough, even though muslims have the same preference for democrats. at least the jews and muslims can agree on something! they can both agree that they hate president bush. that is the liberal bias of the human race as a whole. most people in the world are quite poor by united states standards. while conservatives claim that their economics bring the best pareto efficient outcomes for everyone, conservatives often refuse to correct for negative externalities and other forms of market failure. only liberals are willing to do what is necessary to save capitalism from its own worst excesses, in order to keep the whole system working. conservatives simply believe that the problems will solve themselves if nobody intervenes in the marketplace, and then ignore whatever happens in reality. it is odd that they have a completely different view when it comes to foreign policy compared to economics, and do not believe that problems magically solve themselves in foreign policy. no, instead, conservatives base their ideas of foreign policy on the premise that one ought to get some allies and then defeat the enemies. everyone is either with us or against us, an ally or an enemy. nobody can ever be neutral, to a conservative. so conservatives do not believe that problems magically solve themselves in foreign policy; they believe that the only way to solve foreign policy problems is use of military force as the first resort. war is always preferable to peace. liberals, on the other hand, detest war and would like to get rid of it altogether if possible. we liberals honestly sometimes hope all the people of the world could put aside their differences and just get along, or at least we could sit down with a former enemy and talk with them and put aside our differences with just 1 enemy nation, at the very least. liberals believe the best way to save lives is not to kill people in the first place. conservatives believe that sometimes you have to kill people to save the lives of other people, and that sometimes is acually very often. so oddly enough, conservatives have no moral absolutes, because the most evil thing of all, the killing of another human being, is something they are okay with, under the right circumstances. conservatives base their morality on pretending to believe in moral absolutes, without actually believing in any moral absolutes at all. for them, every rule has an exception. as for liberals, who knows? we are so diverse. nobody tells us what we have to believe in order to be liberal. we do not take orders from anyone. we act on our own accord, not under direction from above. we are not dittoheads. and neither are most people. so in any system where the majority of people rule, liberals win, unless the process is rigged and wealthy people spend lots of money on propaganda to brainwash people into voting against their own best interests. yes, propaganda... you can’t live with it;