This isn't about the specific conversation being had (re: capitalism vs socialism) so hopefully this still complies with the mod decree...
As for challenging the messenger rather than the message, I've personally never had much problem discerning when Ryika is being sarcastic and when she's being genuine. I don't think she's quite the deceptive troll you're imagining.
I mean, you are essentially Ryika-lite. That's not surprising. You don't participate in threads unless there's someone you can disagree with. Both of you predicate your participation in discussions on whether or not you can oppose someone in it, bonus points if your opposing perspective is controversial or otherwise antagonistic. You both consider it a good day if what you say makes people upset. You're not like them entirely, but the incentive in participation is fairly similar. At least in OT.
The side effect of regularly posting on a forum is that eventually you get pegged even if you "shake things up" to keep it interesting. Lexicus is your neighbourhood far-left radical (who isn't even a radical when it comes down to it), Traitorfish is your resident "can make anarchy seem like a good idea if you're not paying attention" guy, Hobbs is your neighbourhood Rocket Man (the good one!), Owen is your friendly "I will beat you down with academia" chap, etc. I'm just a half-baked buffoon. We've all got our expectations and reputations.
Lohrenswald's entire point was that Ryika frequently goes to bat for a viewpoint, trying their hardest to seem genuine about it, but changes their tune from one thread to another if the prevailing thought is different. Every crafted argument isn't Ryika, it's just some position they've decided to adopt because it means they get to fight with someone. It's an act, a performance, and rarely in these threads will you ever have a conversation with who Ryika actually is as a person. You'll just be debating some random issue with a perspective they've arbitrarily taken on. Which is fine, I guess a Devil's Advocate can be useful sometimes, but it can get grating for others after a while who've figured it out and don't really take what you're saying at face value anymore.
Challenging the messenger rather than the message becomes a given when it's clear that the messenger is just messing around. Taking them seriously and consistently treating them as genuine provides the fuel necessary to keep the charade going. But when you reject the foundation of where they're coming from, you get resistance like the below or some other comment that heads into trolling/flaming territory. They go for the nuclear option to try and scorched earth the place because if they can't get a rise out of you the normal way, they'll do it another. If a carefully crafted argument can't do it, a hysterical claim about you can (sometimes).
The reverse (I guess it's reverse?) transphobia shown in this post is pretty grotesque. I do not think it's reasonable for you to make fun of the fact that I had to experiment for a few year before coming to the conclusion that I am indeed just a normal female (or a"foul-mouthed, disgusting slut" as I was called just a few days ago
), and not a trans individual.
