Mind Shuttering of the Alt Right

[civver_764]

I assumed no such intent on your part. You clipped off the explanation of my behavior that was in fact meant pretty much just for you, because the long term regulars around here have heard it before.

So what are you doing here then?

No, because if you have been "googling and googling" and haven't found anything it can only be because you really seriously don't want to, and I see no point in trying to force you to see what you don't want to see.

Nowhere, since you claim to be incapable of finding examples after "googling and googling" you are either not interested or I'd have to find one for you in braille.

Instead of just providing examples so we can move on with the discussion, you instead try to make the discussion about me and my intent.

 

[Ryika]

Haha, that one's great as well:

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Were I the sort of troll who just picks a side in an argument at random

The difference is that I do it in a very specific thread, on a very specific number of posts

Instead I just maintain consistency.

Well, I admit, I pretty much handed you that one.

Indeed.

 

[Ryika]

I'm not entirely sure, but I think that's not how that conversation went.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Instead of just providing examples so we can move on with the discussion, you instead try to make the discussion about me and my intent.

Not at all. I told you why I don't provide links. I assume people can use a search engine. When they do they either find sources they trust or they don't. If they don't it is highly unlikely that they would trust sources provided by me anyway.

Meanwhile, there's really nowhere for the discussion to move on to. I report what I see from trolling Breitbart. Since Milo is inextricably tied into Breitbart bringing him into this thread is not unreasonable, and I added what I have observed of him. If you don't believe my reports, you are welcome to go trolling Breitbart yourself. If you then choose to report what you see there I will read with interest what you have to say.

One thing you can count on is that I won't say that you didn't see what you saw. I might strongly believe that I'd have interpreted what you saw differently, but I won't try to deny that you saw what you say that you saw.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not entirely sure, but I think that's not how that conversation went.

Pretty much how I saw it...and since you know my intentions it seems you should recognize that. I just removed some chaff to make it clearer for those who are less omniscient than yourself.

The difference between us is exactly what you said. You want to judge and be judged on a selected set of posts and have that forgotten when you choose your next argument. I am consistent. I report what I saw. You pick whatever supports your position of the moment, and if it contradicts something someone remembers you saying before, well, that's just playing devil's advocate...or maybe this is...either way, you just want it all forgotten by the next thread because you might be advocating something else there.

 

[Broken_Erika]

My viewpoints change on an hourly basis.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My viewpoints change on an hourly basis.

I'm old and stuck in my ways.

 

[Ryika]

You pick whatever supports your position of the moment, and if it contradicts something someone remembers you saying before, well, that's just playing devil's advocate...or maybe this is...either way, you just want it all forgotten by the next thread because you might be advocating something else there.

Ohhhh... that's what it's all about? I believe I said this once as a cheap joke, a year ago or so, after somebody quoted a post that was clearly sarcastic and tried to create a gotcha-moment.

You'll surely be glad to hear that this is not at all my position, feel free to point out inconsistencies in what I'm saying. Outside of obvious jokes, achieving a maximum level of consistency is one of my primary goals, so pointing out inconsistencies can only help me, either to correct them, or so I can explain why I disagree with the idea that I'm being inconsistent on a specific topic.

With that miscommunication cleared up, I hope we can become good buddies now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ohhhh... that's what it's all about? I believe I said this once as a cheap joke, a year ago or so, after somebody quoted a post that was clearly sarcastic and tried to create a gotcha-moment.

You'll surely be glad to hear that this is not at all my position, feel free to point out inconsistencies in what I'm saying. Outside of obvious jokes, achieving a maximum level of consistency is one of my primary goals, so pointing out inconsistencies can only help me, either to correct them, or so I can explain why I disagree with the idea that I'm being inconsistent on a specific topic.

With that miscommunication cleared up, I hope we can become good buddies now.

I think it will take a bit more than an off the cuff denial to overcome observation...so perhaps not.

 

[Ryika]

Bummer.

Well, then all I can do is to hope you stay observant and allow your mind to be changed over time.
Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to send a PN, I will do my best to answer honestly and openly.

 

[civver_764]

Not at all. I told you why I don't provide links. I assume people can use a search engine. When they do they either find sources they trust or they don't. If they don't it is highly unlikely that they would trust sources provided by me anyway.

Ok, let's play your game. This is the closest thing I found to the claims you're making:

Link to video.

For sure he's being a dick here, but he's not inciting violence or mob actions. You can see the pictures he used of the student were from the news, so it's not like he was "outing" anything. He's essentially just commenting on a local news story.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ok, let's play your game. This is the closest thing I found to the claims you're making:

For sure he's being a dick here, but he's not inciting violence or mob actions. You can see the pictures he used of the student were from the news, so it's not like he was "outing" anything. He's essentially just commenting on a local news story.

Go to Breitbart and see how his core fans responded to that story. Watch how he plays to them there. Look at how he advertised the event you have that video of, and subsequent events where he promises more of the same. The guy is a troll...self described internet troll. He skirts to the edge of rules in ways so that he can then claim innocence. But then he goes back to Breitbart and boasts about what he "gets away with." Eventually that is what got him banned from Twitter, et al, because even though they never outright caught him breaking the letter of their rules they did see him boasting about violating the intent constantly and getting away with it. Then he wrote a book and took the same shtick on the road.

If the hill you want to die on is standing up for his rights that's certainly your prerogative, but you won't be convincing me that he deserves it.

 

[civver_764]

Go to Breitbart and see how his core fans responded to that story. Watch how he plays to them there. Look at how he advertised the event you have that video of, and subsequent events where he promises more of the same. The guy is a troll...self described internet troll. He skirts to the edge of rules in ways so that he can then claim innocence. But then he goes back to Breitbart and boasts about what he "gets away with." Eventually that is what got him banned from Twitter, et al, because even though they never outright caught him breaking the letter of their rules they did see him boasting about violating the intent constantly and getting away with it. Then he wrote a book and took the same shtick on the road.

Ok, for starters, didn't you start this thread talking about your own trolling? You're being hypocritical.

Secondly, I read his Breitbart article as well as the comments, there is still nothing close to inciting violence or mob action. I feel like you just see his supporters as a "violent mob" because you disagree with their views. Meanwhile you will ignore an actual violent mob when it's made up of leftists.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ok, for starters, didn't you start this thread talking about your own trolling? You're being hypocritical.

Secondly, I read his Breitbart article as well as the comments, there is still nothing close to inciting violence or mob action. I feel like you just see his supporters as a "violent mob" because you disagree with their views. Meanwhile you will ignore an actual violent mob when it's made up of leftists.

Yep, I did. And in fact I just got done trolling Breitbart some more. But I don't try to influence anyone's actions beyond telling the dingbats to expand their sources. I don't revel in people being tormented as a result of my trolling because no one is.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I've been trolling the comments section of Breitbart and similar cesspools for quite some time. Not continuously, or even frequently, but often enough to keep a finger on the pulse of the disgusting and vile. So I've noticed a trend. Comments that used to get me an assortment of namecalling foul mouthed dingbats raving wildly now seem to just be instantly dismissed with the same epithet; "paid Soros troll." I think one guy might have my name entered into an auto response bot, because his never varying reply is almost instantaneous sometimes.

It seems pretty clear that the word is out in the Alt-Right community that no one really disagrees with them, there are just people who are willing to pretend to disagree with them for payment, and they are really buying into it. This seems to be an escalation of the "you just aren't admitting you agree because you are being politically correct" and other self deceptions they use to convince themselves they are really representing the normal mainstream view.

Anyone else seen anything similar?

Your observations are nothing new. It's on my to-do list, but Hannah Arendt is a good source, from what I've gathered from learned sources on the internet, on human behavior under totatilarianism. The short version is that people who follow totalitarian philosophies know that they are obeying lies, but they don't care because the lies are consistent and they like how the lies make them feel. They especially like that they feel powerful and resolute, while their enemies, they imagine, are weak and fearful ("****s").

When faced with rational challenges to their claims, they will resort to emotional reactions and even emotional arguments, at first, but when even these fail, they'll just ignore the challenge, often laughing it off and saying that the time for argument is over and they don't feel like playing this game anymore. It's not really about discovering what's true, but what feels good to them.

 

[Ryika]

Those beliefs themselves don't even need to create an image of the world that "feels good", often it's just the sense of community that has that effect.

I've noticed the same phenomenon when I've argued in the comments sections on some far-left youtube channels (Yeah, that's true intellectual rigor right there) in the pre-election phase. People who were arguing that Trump is the new Hitler and that he will holocaust the illegals if he manages to take power, purely based on the delusions that they as a community had talked themselves into, would go against me with emotional nonsense, and then tell me that I'm just too stupid to see the truth. There people clearly wanted Trump to be as evil as possible, because even though it creates a pseudo-reality that is much grimmer than actual reality, it creates a feeling of belonging to a group, and a sense of moral righteousness being on their side.

I'd assume that when parts of the right went down the rabbit hole of making Obama seem like the Antichrist, it was probably the same thing.