Utterly Repulsive

At this moment, I can't think of any other words with which to describe the new lows to which the Brothers Schlafly have sunk. Then again, given the fact that they were squeezed from between the thighs of Mad Cow Phyllis Schlafly and maybe it's possible they were doomed to being misogynistic morons from the word go.

Now, Roger does occasionally come across as the voice of reason, especially when arguing with Andy about the merits of Relativity. However, be under no delusion that Roger isn't as deranged as his whack-job brother. You need only take a stroll through his blogs, Dark Buzz and Singular Values, to see that this man's worldview is as twisted - if not more so - than Andrew's. He seems to save his special crazy for the latter blog, where he proclaims "Mohammedans" were responsible for the Crusades, the Church promoted science during the Dark Ages, and women are more gullible when it comes to climate change.

However, in the last few days, these two have doubled up to show us just what repulsive individuals they are. And by default, Conservapedia as a whole. The very fact that the comments below are allowed to stand on Conservapedia, is a clear indication that the remaining administrators wholeheartedly support Andy and Roger, or are too cowardly too to protest. Either way, their silence damns them.

Now that I've got that little rant off my chest, perhaps it's time to actually tell, Dear Reader, what I'm having a frothy about. Let's start off with Roger. Now, in fairness, he is the spawn of Phyllis "Marital Rape Doesn't Happen" Schlafly (seriously, read the link - this is a woman who says, "you can't rape someone whose body is yours by right."), so maybe he's a bit confused, having grown up with all those strange sounds coming from his parents room at night. Plus he's divorced, so maybe the ex-Mrs Schlafly held a different view on just what constitutes sex and assault.

Even so, how deluded, sick and twisted must anybody be to describe marital rape as a "communication problem?" In fact let me quote the whole passage, to put it in context: (screen-cap here, in case censorship happens)

Where people believe that marital rape is a crime, but not as serious a crime as rape by a stranger, there is often a belief that because the spouses are well known to each other forced intimacy within a marriage is not as traumatic an event as other forms of rape. Marital rape is difficult to define. Many wives see it as just a communication problem. Rape by a stranger, a highly traumatizing event itself, is usually a one-time occurrence. Marital rape occurs between partners that could have known each other for years and could be repeated. The wife may feel a sense of betrayal, and see the relationship coming to an end.

What the fuck? This is written by an apparently well-educated man, living in a civilised community, and yet his mindset is clearly barbaric (and I wish to apologise to all Barbarians for associating them with an animal like this.) So it's a communication problem, is it Roger. How many girls have you been with who said no, when they meant yes? Because that's what the little communication problem boils down to right? And that sexy little nightie she had on, meant she was just asking for it, right?

What's even scarier is this man is actively dating and one only wonders just how many dates it takes before "forced intimacy is not as traumatic as rape?"

Now, let's have a look at the second half of this inhuman duo, Tweedledumber, aka Andrew Schlafly. Once again, a little background info is necessary.

Firstly, Andy is orgasmic about the Tea Party, as even Republicans aren't conservative enough for him anymore. Not an hour goes by before he's ejaculating  some new 'Tea Party is in the lead!" tripe on the Main Page of Conservapeda. (which has lost any pretence at being an encyclopaedia and has become simply a place for Andy to copy/paste right-wing fundie news reports) Now, one Tea Party candidate is Rand Paul, for whom Andy appears to have a massive hard-on.

Now there were recent news reports about some supporters of Mr Paul assaulting a woman. It turned out she was an activist from MoveOn.org, which was obviously reason enough for one Paul supporter to wrestle her to the ground, and whilst she was pinned down, another supporter, one scumbag called Tim Profitt, stamped on her head and neck. There was one bit of good news in this, in that Profitt was fired as a member of Paul's election staff. This was before Profitt then went on record saying that "she initiated it," "she was a professional at doing this" and that "she should apologise to him." So, although Profitt is clearly an animal worthy of some discussion, this isn't about him, although at least he's in good company here. Oh and here's a video, showing what happened.

Now, rightly or wrongly, Paul's opponent decided to use footage of the assault in an election campaign. Now it's time for Andy to show just what a despicable, repulsive creature he can be (screen cap, in case of censorship):

Liberal Jack Conway's latest desperate gimmick to try to catch up to conservative Rand Paul: exploit a video of a stomping of a MoveOn.org activist who showed up in Kentucky to try to embarrass Dr. Paul. Notice how the MoveOn.org person is a Massachusetts native.

Now hang on a minute here. One of Paul's supporters assaults a woman and the only outrage is that his opponent uses it to highlight the thuggery going on in the Tea Party? Andrew Schlafly has no problem with the fact that heavily built man was almost jumping up and down on a woman? However, it's not hard to read between the lines here - he's basically accusing her of "asking for it." As echoed by slimeball Profitt, she was a "professional" who had driven/flown from Massachusetts to Kentucky to protest, and as such was fair game to be assaulted.

Once again, the long arm of Phyllis can be seen in all this - a woman wasn't at home, baking cookies, well, then she was just asking to be beaten up. It isn't really too much of a leap to go from that mindset, to "she was wearing a short skirt, so she was asking for it," to "she said no, but I knew she meant yes."

Reading Conservapedia often annoys me with its crass ignorance and stupidity. Occasionally it makes me laugh. But this is one of the few occasions where I've been left repulsed by the animal-like ignorance of these two so-called educated, civilised "men."