Tag Archives: Right-Wing

Comment Section Dialog

One of the things I find challenging about exchanges between debating parties on the internet whether it be on message boards or in the comment sections of blogs is that the parties tend to make too many points in one post. When this happens it becomes impossible for an opposing side to argue every point effectively because the chain of ideas becomes too fractured. That is why I tend to respond to only one point in any comment I make. That way the conversation stays clear and coherent (or at least that is the intent).

Over the past year a very judgmental and obsessive person has been commenting in bulk on my blog. This individual named Thordaddy identifies as a white supremacist who is not a Christian but worships Christ as a perfect man nonetheless. There is something about my writing that apparently gets his goat which makes our exchanges entertaining for me. (I am not proud of the fact that I do enjoy getting a rise out of him by the way). The comment section of my last blog post is no exception to this dynamic. In that comment section it would have been too cumbersome and ineffective to respond to every point he attempted to make. As such, I thought it would be interesting to break apart the first section of his comments by individual point and address them individually in this blog post in the form of a dialog.

The passages marked TD are his own words taken directly from the comment section of the previous post. The passages marked WS are my responses that I did not make in that comment section but attempt to address them now. Feel free to refer to that comment section for the original text of the exchange.


TD : Even in your NOW genuine quest for a more perfected self made aware by a desire to resolve all mental conflicts, YOU DELUDE YOURSELF as to the true nature of “thordaddy” FOR THE PURPOSE of a self-sabotaging. There is simply not existing within ANY OF YOUR RETORTS actual evidence of a true belief in the idea that you are “f$&king” with some “poor guy.”

WS : Don’t you think the fact that I need only mention “some poor guy” without referencing “Thordaddy” to get a huge response out of you is evidence of my ability to bait you?

TD : Stripped down to its bare naked letters, your rhetoric is, in reality, incredibly pathetic now GIVEN the size and scope of the dialogue and the informative analytics which measure the impact of my work HERE.

WS : I don’t really understand what you are talking about. However, you do sound kind of angry and full of yourself.

TD : If your take were more in line with reality then “we” would have witnessed some sort of piling-on effect by equal-minded winston Scrooges. “We” have “seen” NOTHING of the sort. And of course, AS YOU HAVE REITERATED time and again, I have no actual side ready to pounce upon you. So what is closer to reality is that your fans are mere spectators in no way prepared to engage in the dialogue as they leave you all alone to do the best you can.

WS : I don’t have an extensive readership or following. You by far constitute the bulk of the comments on my blog over the past year or so. It’s not like I have created a community of my blog readers. As such, I don’t find your argument here particularly persuasive.

TD : Then again, YOUR SIDE does not really BELIEVE in doing the best one can. Your side DOES NOT BELIEVE in the perfecting of the self. Your side only believes in the annihilation of the self AS absolute liberation.

WS : When you say “your side” do you mean the non radical, right-wing, nut job side? Also, I don’t know where you get the idea that I don’t believe in perfecting the self. I strive to improve myself every day in various areas. This blog is an effort to improve my writing skills for example.

TD : And now your continued obliviousness to the above is the very empirical evidence one would look for so as to declare this dialogue to be amongst a radical autonomist and a white Supremacist.

WS : That is a circular argument which relies upon undefined terms. All your rhetoric seems to follow this pattern which I find very interesting. You say you have defined the terms you use but your definitions are usually in the form of other undefined terms that in turn define themselves based on the first undefined terms . I have to wonder why you shun using the ordinary definitions and word usage that everyone else uses. I suspect it has to do with you wanting to “separate” from reality and live in a world of your own construction rather than in the real world that actually exists.

TD : What is clear is that when a radical liberationist meets true belief, he is at a loss, SELF-EVIDENTLY. And when that “true belief” is “Perfection as operating paradigm” then said liberationist INEVITABLY morphs radical AS HIS ONLY MANDATED REACTION. So if YOU REJECT “Perfection as your operating paradigm” THEN you will just self-annihilate. In other words, if your spirit is not put to the idea of Perfection THEN your Ego will be busy devising many ways to annihilate your Self so that its “perfection” IS SIMPLY OUT OF THE QUESTION.

WS : But I don’t reject perfection. I know that does not fit in your circular, “logical” scheme which is probably why you continue to write as if I do reject it.

TD : And this is exactly where the masses “stand.” Perfecting their selves is out of the question… Out of their minds… A real absurdity… And you stir this pot THROUGH your anti-white Supremacy.

WS : I admit that I do not self identify as a white supremacist but that is a good thing. A great deal of evil has been wrought throughout human history under the banner of racial supremacy.



Filed under Uncategorized

10 Topics That Anger Right-Wing, Conservative Republicans on Message Boards

I have argued with many right-wing, conservative Republicans and Tea Party members on the internet over the years.  Most notably on a Star Trek message board called Sistertrek.  For some reason this message board had a very active politics section and most of the members of the board were conservative.  When I joined the board I tended conservative politically but not over the top.  I voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election because I was turned off by the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  I supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq initially after September 11.  I began to get turned off to the Republican / conservative movement after it was discovered that the justification for the invasion of Iraq was based on a false premise.  When I started voicing this opinion on the message board the neocons attacked.  I was taken off guard by how nasty they became. My many battles with conservatives have taught me their many buttons to push to make them angry.  The following is a list of ten that come to mind.  Note: I will use the term “conservative” hereinafter to generally refer to anyone who is right-wing, Republican, conservative or a Tea Party member.

1.  Liberal Media Bias With conservatives all arguments begin with the assumption that the “mainstream media” is biased in favor of the liberals and against the conservatives.  This is how they justify denying facts and reality.  If the credibility of the source of facts is undermined then nothing is factual and anything can be factual.  Conservatives will choose media that tells them what they want to hear calling it “fair and balanced” and dismiss media that tells them what they do not want to hear calling it “mainstream”.  I have found that questioning of this concept is viciously attacked by conservatives and justifiably so.  Undermining this argument undermines most other arguments conservatives cling to.

2.  Global Warming Even though there is general scientific consensus that global warming exists and is caused in part by man-made activities most conservatives will deny it.  They base this denial on “junk science” promoted by the liberal media to undermine the fossil fuel industry or some such.  Anytime global warming is brought up in a conversation from a perspective that assumes it exists will irk most conservatives.

3.  Criticism of George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan Conservatives are generally protective of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  They tend to overlook that both presidents relied on deficit spending to finance their agendas, were heavily influenced by big business, the defense industry and served the interests generally of the wealthiest at the expense of the poor and middle class.  Conservatives also overlook the fact that George W. Bush was a horrible public speaker, often appeared foolish, invaded Iraq on a false premise and spent billions of dollars and American lives in the process.  The mere mentioning of any of these points will make a conservative defensive.

4.  Praise for Barack Obama or Bill Clinton By contrast praise for Presidents Obama or Clinton will draw the anger of conservatives.  They will deny that Bill Clinton balanced the budget (they will say that claim is based on false numbers), that Obama ended the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Bush was already doing that).  They will blame the economy on Obama even though he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression largely caused by the deregulation pursued since Reagan but continued through George W. Bush.

5.  Moral Relativism  Conservatives hate “moral relativism” even though none of them seem to use the term in the same way.  Like “liberal media bias”, “moral relativism” is a conservative boogeyman that can mean whatever a conservative wants it to mean depending on the situation.   Any attempt to get a conservative to define or pin down these definitions will most likely be met by personal attacks.  You will be called a troll, stalker or trouble maker.  Conservatives do not like strict definitions or interpretations even though conservatives do claim to want the US Constitution interpreted strictly (unless it undermines their arguments).  Again, the truth is mailable when the credibility of the sources of facts are undermined by calling them liberally biased (e.g., media, universities, legal scholars or scholars of any kind).

6.  Separation of Church and State I have seen conservatives actually argue that there is no separation of church and state in the US Constitution.  They generally base this on “activist judges” who have “interpreted” the Constitution.  Judicial review of laws (i.e., the interpretation of the Constitution) is something that has been enshrined in our legal system since the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.  What is behind this is the increased diversification of the American population.  Basically we are no longer an overwhelmingly white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant nation the way we were since the founding to about 1960.  Long story short, question whether the “War on Christmas” is a real thing and conservatives will get pissed off.

7.  Gun Control Gun control is an example where conservatives do not want the constitution strictly interpreted.  The 2nd Amendment talks about well-regulated militias.  Make this point and enjoy the fireworks.

8.  Implying conservatives get their ideas from Rush Limbaugh Without exception, conservatives become angry and embarrassed when Rush Limbaugh is mentioned by a non conservative.  They do not like the implication that their ideas somehow originate with him and that many conservatives merely parrot what Rush says.  They want to think that their ideas come from the strength of their convictions.  Point this out and engage a conservative’s fight or flight response.

9.  Taxes To a conservative all taxes are bad and so is deficit spending.  As such deficits can only be cured through spending cuts.  Any reasoned argument that a mixture of both spending cuts and tax increases are needed are met with scorn and personal attacks.

10.  Military / Patriotism Conservatives also seem to think they have a monopoly on patriotism and support for the military.  They assume that non conservatives are unpatriotic and have contempt for the military.  There is also an assumption that Republican presidents have a better record on military issues despite the fact that Woodrow Wilson and FDR successfully led the country during World Wars I and II arguably the two most successful military actions by the US in the modern era.  According to conservatives Reagan and George W. Bush are better commanders in chief.  Question this and they will surely respond. At this point I am beyond who is right and wrong.  I try not to judge.  Inside me there is lightness and dark.  The dark in me enjoys making conservatives angry.  Why?  Two reasons.  Because they annoy me and it is so easy.  The light inside me realizes there are better ways to spend my time.


Read my ebook Shame and Internet Trolling. Available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble and iBooks.

Leave a comment

Filed under Trolling