A few trait I have noticed among left-wing debaters:

1. They introduce skin colour into every argument.

George Bush is not just engaged in a campaign of terror against Muslims, he is engaged in a campaign of terror against "brown-skinned people". I never understand what skin colour has to do with anything, but I am becoming afraid that the left-wing debaters do.

2. They say "Nicaragua" and genuinely believe that the discussion is over and that they won because of it.

I do not even have an idea of how that would work. But I have heard that argument a lot.

3. They speak of "income" as if it was not related to "price".

I think left-wingers honestly believe that while workers create wealth, it somehow originates from the rich and can be given back to the true owners, the workers, without affecting the rest of the economy. Hence there is a disconnect between how much a left-winger would be willing to pay for a good X and how much he thinks a labourer who works for the company that produces good X should make.

4. They always find the worst possible examples for their arguments.

For example a left-winger will happily argue that the government can be trusted to watch over everything and then go to a demonstration against George Bush's "illegal" war.

5. They accuse right-wingers of being Nazis.

And the particularly funny background of this is that they always manage to do so when talking about subjects were the left is very much on the same side as the white supremacists and/or where it is very obvious that the comparison is extremely suspect. For example, a left-winger can look at Saddam Hussein, a nationalist dictator with a moustache who was known for gassing people, and George Bush, and then, without even a hint of irony, suggest that George Bush reminds him of Hitler.

6. They have their very own definitions of rich and poor.

In Germany a family of five making over 2000 euros a month in social welfare is "poor" while a family of five with one income of less than 1600 euros a month is "rich". Seriously.

7. They only fight for safe causes.

You will find left-wing demonstrators protesting absolutely anything that can be safely protested against: George Bush, Israel, the greedy rich etc. But they WILL never protest against anything where opposition is dangerous. They will tell a Jew that he must not kill "Palestinians", but they will not tell an Arab nationalist that murdering Jews is wrong. Ironically, their ideals seem to match exactly the behaviour that keeps them clear from danger.


I found that left-wingers that do not exhibit at least some of the above are as rare as anti-war demonstrators protesting a war against Israel.

*sigh* I'm really starting to think I really am a republican Though I still hold to a lot of my normal beliefs, those guys were insane. I admit 'some SOME' of what they toted made a LITTLE bit of sense, but most of it was drivel...

I admit 'some SOME' of what they toted made a LITTLE bit of sense,

Can you discuss which ones?  Just curious.

Funniest thing in that thread:

You've obviously never worked for any larger Corperation. -Bart

You've obviously never been wealthy -Brad

"Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still" -Dale Carnegie

Andrew:

You've made some very astute observations there.

I have been trying to be polite in that thread but I've reached a conclusion about the general psychological condition of most of the people there. They're cowards.

Not cowards in the specific sense of valor in war but cowards in the sense that, like you said, they pick safe targets that require little sacrifice on their part.

I repeatedly asked the question: What specifically have you done?  If the country is going to hell in a hand basket as you say, then what are you doing about it? Either you're a coward for doing nothing or perhaps you don't really take the issue quite as seriously as you claim.

We see that whether it's global warming or Bush.  I mean, for example, if Bush is really the most evil person in the world, worse than Hitler, than how can these people sit back and do nothing but complain on a website? If I thought my government had been taken over but an evil fascist dictator, I'd be organizing armed resistance or something.  Something.  Not sitting on a forum or carrying some stupid protest sign.

Which means these people are either a) cowards or don't really believe what they're saying.

As long as they carry protest signs and live I know they are wrong. Sometimes you can get to them by taking what they say at face value.

I am often told that the Arab-Israeli conflict is due to Israeli/Jewish racism and that the Arabs have nothing against Jews and that the war would end if Israel would just end its racism. I have now started to propose a bet to these people, and I am myself perfectly willing to do my share in it:

I propose to the left-wing debater in question that if HE will dress up as an obvious Jew wearing a pro-Israeli t-shirt and walk through an Arab city (sometimes of his choice), I will don a pro-"Palestinian" t-shirt, pretend to be a Muslim or supporter of Arab nationalism, and walk through Tel Aviv.

Whoever survives longer wins.

It's a bluff, of course, as I have already seen people do that in Israel and survive. (I never doubted that anyway.) I just hope that no left-winger will ever be stupid enough to do it!

But, ironically, most seem to know more than they allow to influence their opinion and refuse.

Turns out the difference between a conservative and a liberal is that a conservative can rely on his idealism.

The answer is as much as a).

A liberal who claims that Jews hate Arabs but not vice versa does NOT believe what he is saying. He knows that he would die if he would put it to the test.

And a liberal who claims that Bush is Hitler and then sits back doing nothing is simply waiting for somebody else to act against the new Hitler. Our sitting liberal can then be on the liberation committee, as the "People's Poet" or something like that.

Another point can be made that if they really wanted to expand their perspective or change people's minds, they would express their views in a mixed forum instead of in a 'sheltered' forum. It's easy to be a proud alcoholic in the company of other alcoholics.

We see that whether it's global warming or Bush. I mean, for example, if Bush is really the most evil person in the world, worse than Hitler, than how can these people sit back and do nothing but complain on a website? If I thought my government had been taken over but an evil fascist dictator, I'd be organizing armed resistance or something. Something. Not sitting on a forum or carrying some stupid protest sign.

That's a high threshold. People can really believe in something and not take major action. Christians, for example, really believe in Hell, and are not all cowards, and yet they don't take drastic action to defend their children or convert the unbelievers. That's just human nature. Most people whose government actually is taken over by evil fascists don't do anything about it, either.

Second, it may be that somebody is organizing an armed resistance, but is not doing it on the forum. The forum would be very helpful in getting them together with others of like mind.

--

The most interesting thing about this post is what it reveals about the nature of an Internet troll. You would never guess that a troll is someone like Draginol. You imagine people with nothing better to do than argue, or people who are solely animated by political hatred. Some left-wingers even theorize that articulate, persistent trolls are in the pay of Exxon or the Heritage Foundation, to keep their comments from developing into a useful discussion. No one would have guessed the truth: that this troll is a top 1% executive with an open mind and plenty else to do, but views political argumentation as something like an arcade game, where you mow down rows of mindless opponents and beating up on them is fun.

so now draginol you are a troll because you are against the left idiots.


where do i sign up to get paid for being a troll for exxon or the heritage foundation.


since i have nothing else to do i can be on line almost 24/7.

Maybe it's just one person posting all the other comments... pretending to be lots of people... in order to sucker you into their web of lies and deception. "I make x point." "I agree with x, for sure, you're so like minded." "I agree with x as well!" "x is the most brilliant thing I've ever heard!"

Etc.

so now draginol you are a troll because you are against the left idiots.

On this board, being against the left idiots doesn't make you a troll. On the left idiots' board, it might. Depends on whether your posts have the potential to become a legitimate discussion, or whether you're just disrupting the discussion by posting things for no purpose other than to start fights.

When I feel myself wanting to come here just so I can disagree with somebody, I go somewhere else. Neither I nor JoeUser benefits by me appointing myself Draginol's personal gadfly.

but you come here to call him a troll.

i didn't even know you could be a troll on your own blog.

You know, I think you can be a troll on your own blog. Scott Adams at the Dilbert blog says things purposely to get his commenters riled up. And he'll post stuff like, "the first person to respond to my 'evolution has errors' post by saying 'science corrects its own errors, that's what makes it great!' has no free will." He knows what buttons he's pushing with his posts and if he enjoys the feeling of control that gives him over his commenters, that's the definition of a troll.