Trolling for Dummies

07 Feb 2010 04:10 pm
Posted by: Donna

This popped up in my comments section today from my most dedicated troll, Alan:

Donna,

” That said, I must have filled their desire (”need”?) to raise a child since they didn’t give me back to the orphanage. Isn’t choice a beautiful thing, Alan? ”

Certainly your parent’s choice was.

Perhaps I read things that are really not there, but you seem to be a fairly angry person.

I believe that we are all products of our experiences. My child hood could have easily produced your anti establishment outlook, but had an opposite effect.

I am particularly curious about where your economic views came from. Since I work with a few people who are as violently against Christianity as you, I can guess that part. Like you they voted for Obama but are turning against him over his over spending.

This is standard troll fare: Ad hominems, strawmen, and projection, along with a heaping pile of unexamined privilege.

Perhaps I read things that are really not there, but you seem to be a fairly angry person.

So? People get angry. Anger is a predictable human response to a real or perceived offense or harm. The teabag rallies are full of rage-ful people who are incensed that a black man is President. They are also finding out that their white skin won’t protect them from the systematic looting of the middle class by corporate elites but they refuse to put the blame where it lies and instead lash out at “liberals” or other convenient scapegoats. Alan is clearly a bitterly angry man but he, being a member of a privileged group, believes himself to be uniquely entitled, not only to his anger, but to the ability to express his anger without being instantly dismissed or marginalized. He’s certainly justified in feeling that way since politicians and the MSM have been doling out cheap flattery to guys like him from time immemorial. On the other hand, members of non-privileged groups – women, gays, minorities – are expected to conduct themselves with quiet dignity at all times, regardless of how shabbily they are treated or how outrageously they’ve been insulted. Anger is so unseemly, to someone like Alan, when it’s coming from a person he doesn’t perceive to be entitled to it.

I believe that we are all products of our experiences. My child hood could have easily produced your anti establishment outlook, but had an opposite effect.

I suppose that incoherent bit of illogic was meant to insinuate that I had a bad childhood and it damaged me. Alan’s attempt to denigrate and marginalize me is amusing in that he lets it slip that he is pro-establishment. This is useful because right wingers sometimes like to pretend that they are the iconoclasts, valiantly struggling against the powerful twin edifices of liberalism and political correctness. Nothing could be further from the truth. Alan is all about protecting the status quo, because it tells him flattering things about himself while picking his pockets. Sad, but true.

I am particularly curious about where your economic views came from. Since I work with a few people who are as violently against Christianity as you, I can guess that part. Like you they voted for Obama but are turning against him over his over spending.

He’s not curious at all. This is strawmen and faux-victim theatrics. Amazing how every wingnut now has co-workers who voted for Obama but have turned against him because of a sudden concern over government spending. Kinda like how every one of them has a “friend in Canada” who had a horrible experience with their health care system. Alan considers anyone who objects to having religious beliefs imposed on them as “violently against Christianity” so it’s hard to even take him seriously. However, I do feel it’s important to rebut people like Alan, forcefully and often, on the internets and especially in real life. Recognize their third rate psychological tricks for what they are and do not let them derail you.

And Alan, please, try harder.

15 Comments

  1. Comment by Alan Scott on February 7, 2010 9:11 pm

    Donna,

    That was very amusing. I noticed you did not answer my question about why you are so vehemently against capitalism. You don’t discuss details well at all.

    You label whatever comments or people you dislike as not worthy of being taken seriously.

    Example, ” The teabag rallies are full of rage-ful people who are incensed that a black man is President. ”

    That is only what you wish to be true, because as Jack Nicholson said ” you can’t handle the truth “.

    The tea party people are a coalition of separate groups. They are mostly neo-libertarians who see big spending liberals running Washington and printing monopoly money to buy political power.

    Now, if you need to call me a racist, I will offer proof that you are wrong. I voted for a black Republican against the white liberal Governor in the last Pa. governor’s election. By your standards, all of the Democrats who reelected Governor Rendell against my guy Lynn Swann are flaming racists.

    ” And Alan, please, try harder. ”

    You accuse me of third rate psychological tricks. Next to your tricks I may be third rate, but do not deceive yourself, I never post something I do not believe in. I’ve read your columns and I think you need to test your ideas in the real world.

    I have a hard time figuring how you’ve made it through life to this point.

  2. Comment by Brooke on February 8, 2010 8:22 am

    Alan,

    First of all, I don’t think most of us know where our economic views came from unless we just followed our parents as so many do. I may be able to shed a little light on the topic, however I cannot speak for Donna in this.
    Now after taking a full years, in-depth look into American history in high school I realized something very important, that small government and low spending have never done anything good for our country in the long run; it always ends up in some horrible economic crash when conservative views run the government. I personally find the idea of capitalism as the best economic system silly when I see how many people consistently get screwed by it. Then I look to countries, like Denmark or Sweden that have some socialism in their economic philosophy, and and see how well they are running as countries and tell me why I don’t want to see my own country run that intelligently.
    I looked at the world from my own point of view, my parents never introduced me to anything, and saw things for how they are and made a decision to follow the ideas that made the most sense to me. Those being ones that do not screw people and try and look out for everyone’s well-being and happiness.

  3. Comment by Timmys Cat on February 8, 2010 9:02 am

    I’ve read your columns and I think you need to test your ideas in the real world.

    Ummm, over the the weekend I swore to myself to stop. Ah cats.

    Alan honey, your reel world is “300” and anything Chuck Norris does. Hostess here shares a great deal of herself, yet you choose to prevaricate. (look it up) If these opinions offend you, why do you keep coming back? It seems all you want to do is is pick a fight.

    You are a punk.

  4. Comment by Alan Scott on February 8, 2010 12:51 pm

    Brooke,

    ” Then I look to countries, like Denmark or Sweden that have some socialism in their economic philosophy, and and see how well they are running as countries and tell me why I don’t want to see my own country run that intelligently. ”

    I compliment you on your logic. It is difficult for me to dispute your facts , but I’ll try.

    Denmark and Sweden are much smaller than the US. I don’t know that what works there will work here. They have less diverse populations, which makes consensus easier.

    They also live under our defense umbrella. Most of Western Europe can spend more on social welfare programs. If we try to do their level of social spending, we will have to deeply cut defense. You can’t do both. Great Britain has found that out for half a century.

    Lastly, just like our medicare and SS, I believe at least in Sweden that their social programs have sustainability issues. That part I’m not sure on and will have to verify, but, when you constantly increase the dependent class, the producers don’t produce as much. Why should they?

    Timmey’s Cat,

    ” It seems all you want to do is is pick a fight. ”

    This might be the first time you got something right. I hate bad arguments. I hate people putting things out there of questionable quality.

    If you guys really have good ideas, I should not be able to shoot them down. Call it peer review. I do Donna a valuable service by finding flaws in her logic and allowing her to improve them.

    ” You are a punk. ”

    If you can’t prove it, it is not true.

  5. Comment by Appleblossom on February 8, 2010 1:27 pm

    Until I saw the response to Brooke, I did not think that Mr. Scott was a troll.

    Now I must regretfully consider him a troll. Anyone who says “it is difficult for me to dispute your facts” obviously is not trying for constructive debate.

  6. Comment by todd on February 8, 2010 1:48 pm

    “Most of Western Europe can spend more on social welfare programs.”

    Denmark spends 1.6% of GDP on defense while the US spends 3.3% of GDP. In economic terms, the US is spending more from its economy, but not so much that it would mean we could not have the same social system. The real difference is that in Denmark people are willing to pay for high quality social services and have high expectations on them so they tend to be very good. 80% of the working population belongs to unions yet it still has one of the most attractive business climates of any country in the world. Denmark also has something the US doesn’t come close to, it has the lowest level of income inequality of any country while the US income inequality is at the same level of many third world countries. This all demonstrates it is possible to have a country that can defend itself, protect labor, have generous welfare system, and be a good place for business but what it can’t simultaneously have is huge income disparities.

  7. Comment by Alan Scott on February 9, 2010 9:01 am

    Appleblossom,

    ” “it is difficult for me to dispute your facts” obviously is not trying for constructive debate. ”

    If I ever get into a discussion with you, please remind me never to be self deprecating or polite.

  8. Comment by Get Real on February 9, 2010 11:35 am

    If you guys really have good ideas, I should not be able to shoot them down. Call it peer review. I do Donna a valuable service by finding flaws in her logic and allowing her to improve them.

    That’s adorable.

  9. Comment by Appleblossom on February 9, 2010 11:39 am

    You were not being self deprecating. Possibly polite but still you were not willing to engage in constructive debate.

    You are a troll. Sad but true.

  10. Comment by Alan Scott on February 9, 2010 4:02 pm

    Appleblossom,

    ” You were not being self deprecating. Possibly polite but still you were not willing to engage in constructive debate.

    You are a troll. Sad but true. ”

    Instruct me, please. How can I engage in constructive debate ?

  11. Comment by Get Real on February 10, 2010 9:56 am

    Instruct me, please. How can I engage in constructive debate ?

    For starters, go somewhere else.

  12. Comment by Alan Scott on February 11, 2010 5:17 pm

    Get Real ,

    ” For starters, go somewhere else. ”

    Are all liberals as nice as you ?

  13. Comment by Donna on February 11, 2010 5:45 pm

    Alan, Get Real is a conservative troll just like you.

    Except he posts from Scottsdale.

  14. Comment by Get Real on February 12, 2010 12:47 am

    Are all liberals as nice as you ?

    I was afraid that I was too subtle. I was basically saying, “If you want constructive debate, this isn’t the forum.”

    (I’ll save you the trouble of doing some reverse DNSing, Donna. This post is from Phoenix.)

  15. Comment by Alan Scott on February 13, 2010 10:36 am

    Get Real,

    My apologies for misreading your intent. I am so used to being attacked here that, it was a knee jerk reaction. Actually I am looking for a more friendly forum. Most of the ones I’ve been on have become inactive lately.

    Donna,

    I’ve been called a troll so often by liberals that it has no meaning for me.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment

Democratic Diva is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner.