They really don't deny that there is bias. It's inherent in the thing. It's inherently full of ignorant Chritian comments because it's an English-language website, as mentioned. Muslim and Orthodox Jewish comments are actually surprisingly common, when they can be found in English.
The site certainly doesn't add fundy quotes from small minorities such as Wicca(which they have) and the irreligious(which they have), just in order to escape bias. When you're inundated with submissions from ignorant Christians, and there simply aren't that many alternatives, that's just what is going to end up being on the site most often. And just what do you expect? A 50:50 ratio of Conservative/Liberal quotes, or 50:50 Christian/Atheist ratio? At some point, you have to recognize that you're using the Golden Mean fallacy, which in itself distorts the truth. In reality, there are simply more ignorant Christian conservatives that spout off stupid things than there are ignorant Liberals that spout off stupid things.
Okay, why were the following entries removed from the Accidental Nightmare Fuel page:
- Sometimes the responses posted are more frightening than the actual quotes. On one occasion, the OP explained that slavery as practiced by the Old Testament Hebrews wasn't analogous to Civil War-era slavery in the American South; it was actually comperable to indentured servitude: a means by which a legal debt paid off through personal labor. (A statement which, while not entirely accurate, is basically true.) In response, the OP was branded a "stereotypical racist Southerner" and instructed by one person to go kill herself so "there will be fewer ignorant people in the world." Scary.
- Then there was Brigged
a person who believed that atheists should plan on how to end all religions and their fundamentalists.
- It's a general rule that for every disturbing quote there'll be at least one disturbing comment. He who fights monsters...
- Then there was Brigged
So it's okay to bash the scary fundamentalists, but not the equally frightening trolls who partake in the bashing? The person who removed the entries gave no good reason for doing so (actually, they gave no reason AT ALL). Can I put them back?
Edited by JadeEyes1 Hide / Show Replies
You can put them back if you want. (And you've also forgotten about the removal of the quote which claims that Biblical values include "obedience is freedom". Whether the submitter was for or against that idea is irrelevant, as it's High Octane Nightmare Fuel either way.)
Why were practically none of the subpages indexed? It's said on the wiki that when adding a new subpage one must index it to the original trope. I did it for you guys (except for Heartwarming, which had no examples) but is there a reason that none of the creators of those subpages did so?
Hide / Show Replies
Whoops, didn't realize we were supposed to do that. Thanks for fixing it.
"Regarding the people making comments rather than the quoted: The sheer number of people who, in their comments, address the person being quoted. It's a quote site, the entire point of it is that these things were said by people elsewhere."
I think most people know that, it's just that they'd probably get banned if they criticized these views on the sites they're posted on, and the outrageousness of the quotes gets people in something of a confrontational mood.
Hide / Show Replies
I think it's also probably a form of catharsis, since many people probably want to give the OP a verbal lashing in the heat of the moment, but know that they'll probably never actually get a chance to respond to them.
. . . You Will Fail.
"At first glance, the site seems to mock conservative Christians exclusively, but it only seems that way because they tend to be the loudest (in English-speaking countries, anyway). Stupidity of any religious or political persuasion is fair game and the site's history has had a respectable number of quotes from antitheists, liberals and other non-conservative and non-Christian fundies."
Sounds like a variant on [[Fox News Liberal]]—they occasionally put a quote from someone besides Christian fundamentalists, therefore they can deny any bias.
And here's the counterargument to support the quoted paragraph—the site is even handed and will quote any type of offensive, hateful, or stupid thing said by any type of fundamentalist, as shown by (list of examples goes here). However, 99% of all hateful and stupid things said by human beings are said by Christians. The site demonstrates this—99% of all their quotes are by Christians, and since they will (rarely) quote things said by non-Christians, it follows that they are completely unbiased, right? (Note: I am being sarcastic. There is some obvious question begging in this argument. Not that this will stop this argument coming from fans of any satire savvy enough to occasionally aim a potshot at their own side.)
Hide / Show Replies