Talk:Deep cover liberal

From RationalWiki

After the "Liberal This" and "Liberal That" articles and pretty much everything else on CP that goes above and beyond the normal (adjusted for the 'centre being just to the right of the Galactic Empire' condition) conservative viewpoint such as the "hey, lets not make up dates here" in response to Scotland being populated since 8500 BCE (sic)... Does anyone else think that ASchlafly should be moved up to "strongly suspected"? If it turns out to be a very in-depth hoax, who comes off looking the worse? Armondikov 11:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I think most of us have suspected Andy of being a hoax at one point or another. However, if he is a deep liberal, he's also the best method actor I've ever seen. Almost a year and a half without a single slip-up. The man should get a Tony Award or something. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 11:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Just glad it's not just me who's pondering! But even if Andy is under-cover I'm sure many of the others running CP are genuine and may genuinely be more extreme. Armondikov 11:46, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

None of the regulars are psrodst. They are frighteningly real. User:PalMD

[edit] Merge

Don't we already have agent provocateur and false flag operation? This article might be better off as a section of the former... ħuman 17:55, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

This article has a punchline though (Andy=DCL), and the rest of it seems like it's only there to serve the punchline. It might be hard to retain that if they were merged. --Toiretni 18:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

OK... but if the only reason for it to exist to bust a joke on Schlafly, it should be moved to the conservapedia namespace, I think? I still think this could be a section under one of the two articles named above, however. ħuman 19:13, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually, if I had time, I'd write Conservapedia:Parodist, but I'm sure someone else can craft a better article than I. There are humorous parallels to counter-intelligence to be had (e.g. double agent, triple agent). Specifically, the suggestion is that Andy is a double-agent, right? That (according to this narrative anyway) he appears to be doing everything he can to find and eliminate parodists, even though he himself is a parodist. While that seems like a contradiction, he's forced to do that so he can appear to be a credible conservative. Thus, the implication would be that he's actually harboring as many parodists as possible, as long as they don't go so far as to be obvious to real conservatives.

... if indeed the other people are real conservatives. See, this could be a fun article. --Toiretni 21:00, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

So start it... by the way, the AS part is just one part of this article, it's about more than just CP/Andy. ħuman 21:08, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Sure, an "over-the-top complex backstory" could be crafted for others as well, though to be humorous, you have to know the person well enough to weave reality with fiction in a semi-believable way.

The only other one I know well enough is Fred Phelps. Though it appears he's the head of a small church, they're actually a splinter cell of anti-fundie operatives. During their free time, they like to do everything they can to boost troop morale, up to and including free gay sex. --Toiretni 21:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] ^{[citation needed]}

If we need a citation for the fact that Hal Turner is in it for the money, it should go on the main article for him, not here. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 09:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

OK, whatever. It isn't so much "need" as "want" we fact tags, usually. As in "moar pleez". ħuman 16:38, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I was just making sure we had continuity over the site, you'll have to ask someone who actually knows what they're talking about to find proof... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 20:56, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

If you saw my edit comment (after your comment here), I reworded it a bit, just to "agree" with the main article. The reason I was hoping for a quick cite was it was worded as a news flash, ie, something someone just read somewhere. Since it wasn't it isn't, and probably won't. His main article mostly sends people to WP for more info, I think. ħuman 21:22, 11 October 2008 (EDT)