>vry tm Mdnn sng s cpd, t ncrss th mrkt fr hr cncrts.

Mr hyprbl frm Cry bsd n nprvn ssmptns.

Wll, wll, lk t ths. Th sm grp f jkrs crryng t th sm rtn. Wh cld hv sn tht cmng? mn, t's nt lk thr's bhvr pttrn hr.

Wh m t sy? jst hv >mntl dsrdr tht prvnts m frm prcssng th "nncs" f scl spch. sn't tht rght, Trs?

Trs, y dn't knw jck sht bt trlls. r grpthnk. r m. r hlf th sht y g n bt.

... .... ... .... ........ .. ... .... .... ....'. .) . ...-..., .) ........., .. .) . .......?

... ... .. . ........ .............

.. .... . ...., .. ... .... ... ........ .. .... .......... ......... .. ..... ........, ... .... ..... .. ... ... ... .. ..... .... .. ... ......... .. .... ....... ........

.... ..... .... . ....., ...?

Gee, I don't know. I might have thought that when I explained to you exactly how group behavior on online forums works.

The least you could do is not support your local trolls when they go after the away team.

Home team trolls don't even have talent or anything worthwhile to say--they're just disruptive punks who seek to ruin the forum for other people. (The stress being on "other" people: people who are not part of the group with which the anti-troll troll irrationally identifies).

Why don't you try directing some of that insight towards people whose underlying assumptions define the behavior of the group?

Hs ths gy dn nythng n hs lf tht wsn't ) rp-ff, b) pndrng, r c) flr?

Th gy s txtbk scndhndr.

By tht mn, f yn Rnd hd ncldd n vl crtnst chrctr n tls Shrggd, hs nm wld b p Ld nd h wld rd n th cttls f mr pplr rtsts.

Jhn Glt. Wht trll, hh?

"Essential part of communication"--oh, criminy!

"Undermined the entire position"?

You need to stop blaming me, start blaming human nature, and start doing something about it.

That list, BTW, is actually the most popular books among wannabe/poser book nerds--the kinds of books that kids just starting out as hipster jackasses tend to read. Recast this guy as a mid-90s independent record store clerk and he'd be bitching about how kids come in and steal Pearl Jam albums. Recast him as a Rodeo Drive shop clerk and he'd be humiliating Julia Roberts. It's all the same bullshit--all the same root cause--and you're all part of the same circle jerk. Unless you do something about it.

I'm telling you to start trolling.

Stop the bullshit and start trolling.

*knock knock* ("echo, echo, eccho...")

Hs ths gy dn nythng n hs lf tht wsn't ) rp-ff, b) pndrng, r c) flr?

Th gy s txtbk scndhndr.

Look at that. See the "anti-troll" brigade? Keep your eye on them--their behavior will tell you a few things about how groupthink works.

Then again, maybe he was shopping for his nephew's birthday, y jckss.

Fckng bkstr mplys. Jss.

You know, you'd think it would occur to someone at some point n th ch chmbr that shoplifters don't approach employees to ask for help.

"She's taking a stand and I'm standing behind her to do it," said Stephanie Wiegold, her mother.

What is she, entering a "Bad Parent of the Year" competition?

Smrt mv dsblng cmmnts n tht "trll" pst.

Y fckng pgs.

#109,AA

"owpgfzqfgaqgtig'fgeoyiefgufsyat.guaxgug'fjugj'efatue."

Gufpemlogpuffgyyuatcagugueqgugpgigquetagusefgcyp.Fufgyyguaxf'zaowpgifg--seagueefaguaetqagufqsguiy,iy,gue.

sgug"owpgifzaOfupx"guequqoaogPuefgagl,Aajyqopyzatetugajgug'zsaqzagyfgPuefga.

"GuffogZaog'faoyglgppcgguuzapaqgasypx.aguejeqf,g'fogcjeaqguspggugZaogqfa'guialue."

gfogguuzapaqgasypx.Guffgusefgaqpga'ifaguglaqefgaqiaafzyycegasjug'ijeggaue.

g'fogleypxsefa,ypxsaftug,aqypxsfys-pagey.Gufygagzlsefgega>fgfgcgelatgpuatl.ielaaguageagfoggessagpzzaatagufsezf.

Gutegcuyfcupydfgaf:Jug,gua,qjqogtaeap?

Fuyqyoolgutieazaggecoypfeipaaapzagf?

#109,NN

"bjctsmdstndtgvt'strblvrsthsflng.thnktht'swhtw'rsnghr."

Thscrzybtchsstllhngpnththrdthtctvtdhrgnthfrstplc.Shstllthnks'mnbjctvst--frnthrrsnthnrgdnthsdfthvl,vl,thr.

ftht"bjctvsmnBshck"thrdhdbnbtChrstnty,Nnwldbclmngrghtnwtht'mfndmntlstChrstn.

"ThssbtMnbt'snbltytccptthhmncndtnflck.nthrwrds,t'sbtpwrndthfctthtMnbtdsn'thvnyhr."

tsbtthhmncndtnflck.Thssthfrstndctn'vsnthtyndrstndvnnsmllprtnfwht'vwrttnhr.

t'sbtyrlckfrsn,lckfnsght,ndlckfslf-cntrl.Thsltntmyfrstrtn>ststptryngtchngy.vrynnthntrntsbttrffntcmmntngnthsfrms.

Thgrtphlsphclqstns:Wht,thn,dwdbtgnrnc?

Shldlbbythgvrnmnttrpblcsrvcnnncmnts?

Part of that comment was cut off. "Just because you can..." was supposed to be a full paragraph.

I think the BoingBoing censor has blocked my comments anyway. What she'll probably do is look through the blocked comments to find one that makes me look bad, and then allow that to appear on the site. I've tested this on many other forums, and that's usually what people in her position do.

The issue is the validity of liquid threats. The argument that a specific scenario involving liquid explosives was debunked and therefore liquids are not a threat is logically fallacious. Explosives are not the only potential liquid threat.

Things deteriorate much however, when he claims that readership here in populated by the "unreasonable". Based on?

"The headline is sensationalist and highly subjective. Of course, boingboing, to my knowledge, has no mandate to preserve journalistic integrity or objectivity. So I reject Moonbat's premise that there's something wrong with the biased title."

Just because you can

I doubt anyone here seriously disagrees with my take on the situation. The only difference is they like it that way.

"Human rights go in, but they don't come out"???

It's a security scanner. These were not invented in 2001!

Take a step back and ask yourself how crazy you look.

#109, NN

"bjctvsm ds tnd t gv t's tr blvrs ths flng. thnk tht s wht w r sng hr."

Ths crzy btch s stll hng p n th thrd tht ctvtd hr g n th frst plc. Sh stll thnks 'm n bjctvst--fr n thr rsn thn rgd n th sd f th vl, vl, thr.

f tht "bjctvsm n Bshck" thrd hd bn bt Chrstnty, Nn wld b clmng rght nw tht 'm fndmntlst Chrstn.

"Ths s bt Mnbt's nblty t ccpt >th hmn cndtn f lck. n thr wrds, t's bt pwr nd th fct tht Mnbt dsn't hv ny hr."

t s bt th hmn cndtn f lck. Ths s th frst ndctn 'v sn tht y ndrstnd vn n smll prtn f wht 'v wrttn hr.

t's bt yr lck f rsn, lck f nsght, nd lck f slf-cntrl. Th sltn t ndng my frstrtn >s t stp tryng t chng y. vryn n th ntrnt s bttr ff nt cmmntng n ths frms.

Th grt phlsphcl qstn s: Wht, thn, d w d bt gnrnc?

Shld lbby th gvrnmnt t r pblc srvc nnncmnts?

What's wrong with wiretapping for kids?

You do realize we have law enforcement for a reason, don't you? You realize the FBI does catch criminals.

Seriously, how much time do you spend thinking about ways to destroy passenger jets?

Right. I pointed out the absurdity of your group's comments, so I must belong to that "other" group (the "crazy" people).

It couldn't possibly be that your claims are absurd and you only air them "publically" here because you know they'll be accepted no matter how baseless.

What if someone went all the way through flight school and became a real airline pilot, spending a decade or two getting into the pilot's seat as a real pilot just so he/she could seize the plane and do whatever they want with it? Has TSA considered that possibility?!?

Yes. That's why pilots are given background checks and are investigated if they start behaving unusually.

Scanning carry on bags is an invasion of privacy?

What the hell's wrong with you?

From Ask the Pilot, Salon.com:

How does one operate the emergency doors on an airplane? Could some crazy person open them in flight?

Obviously many people don't pay attention to the flight attendants or read the briefing cards, which explain in detail how to work the doors. You should know how to do this. But in midflight, no, the doors won't open. That goes for the smaller emergency hatches and the main exits.

The hatches, usually found over the wings, are restricted by the outward-pushing forces of the pressurized fuselage. Like a drain plug they always open inward, and a person would not be capable of overcoming these forces until the aircraft is depressurized. The larger cabin doors are more complicated. Some operate manually, others mechanically. Secured by a series of locks, they also are subject to outward-acting pressure as in the case of the hatches, and/or sensors that do not allow movement while the plane is pressurized.

You'll notice that on the flat, shelf portion of the door -- so alluring as a resting spot while waiting for the lav -- it often says DO NOT SIT. While I wouldn't recommend it, you could probably sit there all day jiggling the handle to your heart's content without causing havoc, though you might break the pressurized seal causing some horrendous noise, or set off a warning light interrupting the captain's breakfast. The other reason they don't want you sitting there is to avoid messing with the inflatable escape slide that lives inside the lower door structure.

Of course, I didn't specify that acid "strong enough to melt through the floor of a plane" should be used for that purpose. It could just as easily be thrown in a flight attendant's face or used to cut through the cockpit door.

"Th ntjb wbst"?

rpstd t bcs BngBng lnks ntjb wbsts ll th tm nd nly dsmvwld tht cmmnt --

Dj v. Wrd.

nywy, ddn't rpst t bcs thnk t's "th trth" r bcs gv sht bt Ksv.

http://www.wrldntdly.cm/?pgd=56836

That's funny.. I think it's hilarious that most Internet users take these stupid names seriously.

When you can't separate a message from the messenger, you aren't using reason--you're using something else that you erroneously think is superior.

20 pltcl slgns f th BSH DMNSTRTN

1. (n n nfnt's shrt): lrdy smrtr thn Bsh ...

D y knw y'r strtyp?

You know this. You just happen to like it that way.

A perfectly accurate summation of the situation.

Of course you are. And Theresa's going to allow it. Why? Because that's how the Internet works.

You know this. You just happen to like it that way.

You see this, Theresa?

Everything's going according to plan, isn't it?

I bet you love this. With such faithful supporters, you'll hardly have anyone to ban; outsiders will see the hostile environment and won't comment.

You aren't tempted to comment on Little Green Footballs, are you? No? Because you know how hostile the environment is to unpopular (i.e., rational) opinion?

Ken Hansen (13): Sorry, but you're dead wrong. I can't believe you're still buying the "mix two liquids or gels and it makes an explosion" story. That wasn't just refuted; it was trounced.

How about acid strong enough to melt through the floor of a plane; has that been trounced?

Poisonous vapors, trounced also?

Moonbat (27): you're wrong too. There's no groupthink going on in this thread. We all think you're wrong separately and individually.

When you insist on using your own narrow definition of groupthink, despite all indications that the other party is using the word differently, how do you think that makes you look?

No need to respond. I'll write it for you: "I know you are, but what am I?"

But if there's no use talking, and no use listening, what are you doing? You can't be here for the hunting.

Sometimes you quit cold turkey. Sometimes you smoke the rest of the pack, for no other reason than it's there.

I transitioned into apathetic semi-trolling several comments ago. Just throwing out bait and seeing which jackass jumps at it. Soon I'll leave in boredom and disgust.

You're about as sane as anyone I've seen who thinks that groupthink is a major force in online interactions

Define groupthink.

If you could retrace the steps of the shell game you've played on your own mind, you might come to realize why you claimed a) norm enforcement is not a major force in social interaction or b) online interaction is not social.

Also, you ever explained what dressing up in Nazi uniforms and spanking naked men has to do with ignorance.

Just imagine if your link had led to a photo of you dressed in an SS uniform, spanking a naked man. It's a visual image. No explanation required.

Diverse and complex opinions can only flourish in conditions of civility and trust.

So you think accusations of psychopathy promote civility and trust?

You think Takuan's comment spam raises the level of discourse?

Imagine for a moment we're on Little Green Footballs. The users there are hostile to anything or anyone that contradicts the party line, and site staff encourage abusive behavior by selectively enforcing undefined rules and never condemning or acknowledging the widespread abuse that occurs. This is hypothetical. In explanation, one of the moderators writes what you just wrote:

Diverse and complex opinions can only flourish in conditions of civility and trust. I truly believe that free speech is moderated speech, just like I believe that a free society is a society of laws.

What do you say to him?

What could you possibly say to a person like that?

Can you see how it would be like debating childcare with a pedophile?

As I wrote in a previous comment, on the Internet everyone is a man until proven otherwise. It would be foolish to claim that I am a princess.

No, I wrote that the "don't argue" attitude is one mechanism by which groupthink is enforced. Everyone (actually several core retards) intuitively recognized their own behavior in that comment and lashed out.

If you think I've written any false claim, feel free to point it out. That would be a refreshing change after all the false claims and personal attacks coming from you and your ilk.

You would do well to repent and surrender your life to the Lord.

#45, ANTINOUS

But isn't the id the most individualistic aspect of the Freudian psyche? How does that square with the hive mind?

Don't ask anyone here. If they give you any answer, it will be wrong.

Don't ask me either. I have no time for you.

Post (apparent meaning): Arguing on the Internet is wrong.

Everyone (apparent meaning): Arguing on the Internet is wrong.

Me (actual meaning): Arguing on the Internet is wrong.

Everyone: Violent disagreement.

You see? I'm agreeing with the apparent sentiment of the original post. It's ironic that others are attempting to argue with me, but I am not arguing with anyone.

Takuan, there is a poster like you on every forum. Other users tolerate your nonsense because you enforce the party line. You are the unrepressed id of a hive mind.

I see you enjoy sniping, Takuan.

You can work to eliminate mass ignorance or you can work to enforce it. You have chosen to enforce it.

Now I've been roped into this insanity. I actually read the article (a complete waste of time) to ensure I don't commit some error that makes me look bad. Next I'll be quoting TSA documents and so on. When the only point I want to make is that Cory's headline is outrageous and that people are venting misguided anger, which results in errors of fact and logic.

If you want to complain about confiscation of baby food, fine. Just don't say they "stole" the food from "infant children."

If you want to complain about TSA rules, fine. Just complain about the rules. Don't complain about employees doing their jobs.

The rule says a reasonable amount for the flight, and that's the basis on which the decision was made. They followed the rule. If you want the rule changed to "unlimited baby food," file a petition.

I always knew "Godwin's Law" was a scam.

What you fail to realize is I'm the only one not arguing here. I'm addressing the futility of argument, and the reaction is vocal disagreement.

#40, ANGRYHIPPO

Does anyone else get the absurdity of some simian security guard making the determination that a doctors note is needed in order to pass [...] ? What qualifies them to make that call?

They have no qualifications, which is exactly why they must follow orders.

The last thing you want is "some simian security guard" making those determinations.

#36, TAKUAN

If I wrote this before, you should be able to provide a quote.

Oh, boy...

See what I mean?

When you stack the deck, it's impossible to get any other result.

If your posts were reasonable, you would get reasonable people reading your blog and commenting in the threads. As it is, reasonable people choose not to read your blog or (if they're occasional readers or they come here for the links and ignore the politics) not to comment. People who do point out the unreason quickly learn that it doesn't pay to do so--they don't have the patience to deal with the inevitable response.

There are blogs ten times crazier than this that attract just as dedicated a following. If this were a blog about scat porn, you'd have dozens of comments about how awesome scat porn is and how crazy anyone who disagrees must be.

#66, ARKIZZLE

You failed to do either of those things.

I was only pointing that out. Why do people feel compelled to reply to every comment, even when their reply adds no content value? It's all symptoms of the same disease.

#67, NELSON C.

This is the paradox at the core of you, Moonbat. You claim you want a diversity of opinion, yet you rail against everyone who disagrees with you.

Not everyone.

This is just more of the same nonsense I've condemned in previous comments. Every time someone points out irrational group behavior, mass ignorance, ignorance of any kind...the response is always, "Well, he just disagrees with everyone. He's just an awful person."

Steals food from doctors' infant children?

It's entertaining to write with a point of view, but this is a little much.

You attract a readership (now forum community) that thinks that type of distortion is acceptable when you do that; it has a direct impact on the quality of discourse in these threads.

Those are all unnecessary comments. You haven't surprised me or pointed out any mistake I made.

Moonbat, my problem is that you seem to immediately call 'groupthink' whenever a number of people don't agree with you.

That's everyone's excuse, isn't it?

It's funny and sad at the same time.

I learned this a long time ago: Talk to someone who doesn't often use the Internet about the kinds of people who use the Internet and how they behave, that person will agree with every word you say. Talk to someone who does often use the Internet about people on other sites, that person will agree with about 90% of what you say (he'll deny a small number of things he personally does). Talk to someone about the website he is using at that moment, he'll call you fucking crazy, incoherent, egomaniacal...anything he can say to get out of it, like a man caught in the act of murder.

One problem in your comment:

This...

I don't personally know anyone in my wide reaching circles of human interaction who wouldn't hold similar views as a given.

Leads to this...

Thats not to say I know anyone's view on a subject before I meet them, but I think they are widely held views both inside and outside the US, and BB is a place where those type of people read a portion of their news and entertainment.

And that causes irrational group behavior when you meet up with like-minded people on forums like this one, because you all (the most vocal members anyway) think you're speaking for the mainstream and anyone who disagrees is crazy.

This is like sitting at the computer and realizing it's full of candy. Sweet candy made of other people's misery.

#45, Teresa Nielsen Hayden

That last link is genius.

The question is: What can we do about it? Protecting your own forum from "trolls" may prevent flame wars, but it does nothing to improve the quality of thought or diversity of opinion.

That's an excellent example of groupthink-enforcement right there.

Talk about basic Sociology in any other setting and see how "crazy" it seems. Only on the Internet do people reject such basic information about how social groups work.

If you've never thought about this before, try asking yourself these questions:

What is the content value of that comment? What does it add to the discussion?

If you were to remove the logically fallacious portions of that comment, what would be left? "I disagree with you"?

Since the comment is rude and offensive, having no other content value, shouldn't it be devoweled? Shouldn't someone at least call him on it?

Why do you think he allowed himself to behave that way, and why do you think others encourage him?

Do you think the Internet could be used to help people overcome their urge to behave that way?

You might want to test your own cameras. This would make smash-and-grab robberies foolproof.

It's funny that you should mention reading comprehension, since it's been explained several times that you don't get disemvowelled at Boingboing merely for having a different opinion; you get disemvowelled for being rude and offensive.

"It's been explained several times that..." does not equal "It is true that..."

Explanations of groupthink-enforcing* behavior are often rationalizations or outright lies.

Since your ego is attached to this forum (since you believe you are part of a community here), it's important that you realize I am not talking about BoingBoing. I'm talking about all Internet forums, from Usenet to GameFAQs to Little Green Footballs. All forums exhibit the same irrational group behavior to varying degrees.

For a non-BoingBoing example of forum members denying that groupthink-enforcement occurs, look at how Digg users still don't realize that site has moderators who delete comments and ban users, often for inappropriate reasons. Look how the "bury brigade" buries comments that state simple facts about how Digg works. I'm not talking about the various Digg conspiracies either (some of which made the front page of this website). I mean simple, simple, facts, like that Digg employs moderators.

Go to Metafilter and see if they admit to harassing conservatives.

Go to Little Green Footballs and see if they admit to harassing liberals.

Now, about the disemvoweling; no, that is not the reason comments are disemvoweled. Comments are disemvoweled because the moderators dislike them and want to send a message to anyone who would make similar comments. That may include rude and offensive comments, but not always, and not primarily.

If you don't believe me, do a Google search: site:www.boingboing.net th nd

Of course, that won't reveal many comments that have been deleted and won't tell you which users have been banned.

See how many devoweled comments you can find that were not rude and offensive.

For bonus points, read a few recent threads and see how many rude and offensive comments were not devoweled.

If you watch the comments long enough--on any forum--you will see a pattern emerge. You will see that selective enforcement favors the "party line" (or "groupthink") position.

* = I call it "groupthink-enforcement" because I'm an anti-groupthink activist (or "troll"), but it's just norm enforcement. It's standard behavior in all groups. No conspiracy or unusual condition is needed--just normal people in a group. Ask a Sociology professor.

The Internet is potentially the greatest consciousness-raising technology ever known, but it is being misused. We need to stop being playgrounds to indulge our worst traits.

Re #45, so Moonbat read all that in 10 minutes?

No, Teresa used her power as a site admin to edit her own comment.

It may not have been her intention, but it had the effect of making me look bad.

Yeah, that pretty much puts you on the side of mass ignorance. You might as well have linked a photo of yourself in an SS uniform, spanking a naked man.

It's a funny comic, but this "don't argue" attitude is one mechanism by which groupthink is enforced.

Everyone gets along because they share the same (often misguided) opinions; they go nuts when a "troll" expresses a different opinion (or points out factual/logical errors); and then they blame the "troll" for starting the argument. The solution always is to eliminate the "trolls," which leads to even worse groupthink.

Website admins have gotten better at enabling members to enforce groupthink (e.g., profile pages and the "happy mutants" label to make users feel like they're part of a unified community, report buttons, Digg's downmod button), but I haven't seen any technological advances in encouraging critical thought and diverse opinion.

Some ideas:

1. Require users to pass a reading comprehension or IQ test before enabling the "post" button. This would double as a sobriety test.

2. A comment reply system that uses overlays, similar to adding comments to photos on Instructables. Every comment would become a wiki to some extent, with the original remaining intact.

3. Start a writing critique site, and use BoingBoing comments as fodder for revision practice.

Reality sucks. Better to acknowledge it than to run away in abject terror.

Say we pull out of Iraq. From where do we attack Iran and Syria when the time comes? We've had peace for so long that Americans have forgotten there's a balance of power we have to maintain, there are strategic interests we have to protect.

That said, McCain does remind me of Martin Sheen's character in The Dead Zone.

The free market economy is the best known method for putting the means of production in the hands of the individual so he can "choose to ignore the heavy hand of a government which has melded itself with the mega-businesses."

Where do you think 3D printers came from? Where did the Internet come from? What pays for Burning Man?

I understand and support the desire for a better future, but leftwingers are just too impatient. They want future progress by stealing from the present. Give it time and quality of life will improve for all people as technology advances.

Can government do more to safeguard culture and provide basic services? Sure. But we don't need a revolution for that. Just vote Democrat and pay your taxes.

I love MeMe Roth and agree with everything she says. I also think her antics are hilarious.

If they ban the obese from restaurants, should they ban short people from going in big and tall shops ... ?

Big and tall shops don't cause people to be short.

This is more like banning drunks from bars. It's about the bartender taking one look at someone and saying, "You've had enough."

I don't think it's a good idea. (Mainly because the bill doesn't target specific restaurants or menu items. If they made it illegal to serve obese people fast food or dessert, it would make more sense. It would also discourage restaurants from serving unhealthy food, because they could by law only sell those items to half the people they can currently.) The arguments against this bill, though, have missed the point it was trying to make.

Overclocker, I already apologized for not being Jesus.

If I responded to every comment like this, I would be very tired and angry. I apologize for not being Jesus, but I don't have the patience for this. It's much easier for me to quickly point out the sheer number of bullshit statements and the absolute lack of consciousness of said bullshit.

I do want to note that your argument (comment #184) is more of the same nonsense I condemned in my earlier comments. You deny the existence of truth, which frees you to behave however you want. Your insipid giggling that I am imperfect and therefore incapable of judging you is like dancing on the grave of God. "Ha ha! He's dead! We can do whatever we want!"

Also, I never claimed the ego was mystic or collectivist. That's more bad reading comprehension.

Do you know why you can't read straight? I do. Studies have been done that explain exactly why you make these mistakes. Do you know that it has nothing to do with Objectivism? There's nothing inherently offensive about Objectivism or Ayn Rand. You simply identify with an ideology (collectivism) and interpret any/all attacks on that ideology as an attack against your self. Your ego is wrapped up in an ideology, just as a Nintendo fanboy's ego is wrapped up in a game console. The same irrational group behavior occurs on all Internet forums for this exact reason.

Have I made mistakes? Of course I have. (None of you people have pointed them out, but there are real mistakes in my comments.) My ego was engaged the moment SacrificialGoat insulted me. That's when I decided that I don't have the patience to explain anything to you people except the simple fact that you behave like jackasses. It should be noted, however, that I have made far fewer mistakes than most would make in my situation. Just a few years ago, I would have been popping antacids and misspelling every sentence.

Everyone knows that people react that way when insulted. The more baseless the insult, the better the reaction. That is why harassment works so well. All you have to do to chase away a "troll" is taunt him until he cracks up. It doesn't matter if the "mistakes" you point out were not mistakes, because that will only make him angry and will serve your purpose just as well. When he finally does make an undeniable mistake, then you can declare victory. Wash, rinse, repeat. Soon you will have no "trolls" and can post whatever insane bullshit you want--free of criticism.

If you don't believe me, just look what harassment has done for Little Green Footballs. It's the same process at work on all Internet forums and all elementary school playgrounds.

It's worth noting Beelzebub did not mean Satan at the time it was written. That came after Christians went through the Jewish scriptures and declared everything evil Satan (including the king of Babylon and the snake in the Garden of Eden).

I'm not saying you're wrong--in common usage today, Beelzebub does mean Satan--just that it's worth noting.

#171, NOEN - "This is my last comment here."

LOL

#174, NOEN - "You want an apology? I gave you one."

This is an apology? "Did my remark about pudgy white males posting from mom's basement offend you? Then I apologise."

Since your point was that, by being offended, I must be a "pudgy white male posting from mom's basement," I kind of don't take that as an apology.

You went on to write in that same comment: "All it seems that you want to do is pound your chest and whine about your hurt feelings. You have yet to address a single substantive criticism but have instead gone on and on about how deeply offended you are that anyone dared to dis your belief system."

Kind of like a pudgy white male pounding his chest?

Noen, you're an elitist* fuck. Stop being an Internet jackass.

* = For the collectivist, who believes all values are subjective and can be determined by consensus, his group constitutes the elite. One becomes elite by conforming his beliefs to the group. All those who do not conform are sub-normal.

"Elitist" is a kind of sick compliment to most collectivists. They think, Oh, yes, I am elite! It's like calling a goth disturbing. But still, it's worth noting that they are elitist fucks. They believe zero times 10,000 equals 10,000,000.

Right, I asked to be called a psychopath. Those reasonable comments I posted? Nothing but flamebait! What a fucking scumbag...

"I have been fully prepared Tom, to address the many philosophical short comings inherent in objectivist thought but neither JCD nor Moonbat were willing to step up and argue honestly."

For fuck's sake, read your own comments. You didn't even address JCD, and you made no attempt at honest argument.

Why do you have to bring JCD into this anyway? The guy left at comment #35 and never wrote anything objectionable in this thread. That you bring him up here is a serious crack in your mask of sanity.

I mean, how delusion are you? What else do you think happened, which didn't happen?

I suggest you dig up Ayn Rand's corpse and wrestle it, because nobody's interested in roleplaying that scenario with you. I tried to offer my insight into a subject, and I got called a psychopath by a random idiot--then I had to deal with you for six-fucking-18 comments. You think I like dealing with this shit? It just makes me not want to post here--like all the other people with differing opinions who don't post here because they don't want to deal with your bullshit.

If somebody points out an actual error in something I write, fine. I'm always glad to correct flaws in my thinking. When you attack me for no reason and try to make me defend what somebody else wrote, then I'm not happy. When you're an idiot on top of that, then I start weighing my options to either ignore you or destroy you.

Just, please, re-read your comments. Look hard for a pattern. Some kind of trend. Then, if you see it, stop doing it.

Desk lamp of the damned?

The Devil's Advocate:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pZlGV38lPvY

"To sweeten the pot, during most of the day the library served coffee, bagels, pastries and ice cream, donated by area businesses."

Where's MeMe Roth when you need her?

I mentioned in a previous comment that I have a faint and distant hope, but mostly morbid curiosity. It's the online equivalent of picking scabs.

Again, you cannot blame this on me because the group behavior began before I ever commented. It began before this thread. It began before this website, and you can find it anywhere you look online--it's just a matter of identifying the taboo issues (something I happen to be very good at).

"I think the veracity of Moonbat's comment ... just made my point as to why no one other than himself is making the comments he makes."

When did you ever make a point about that?

Honestly, go back and re-read your own comment. There's no point like that.

I, on the other hand, do have a point about why you made this last comment. You did it because your ego was bruised. "Oh, he responded in absolute terms. Oh, how dare he? Didn't he see how politely vague my comment was?" Then you committed to the full force of your original intention (retroactively writing it into your original comment).

Do you know what happens when you address groupthink in politely vague terms? Nothing. Absolutely nothing happens. If you're lucky, someone might comment on how you're more intelligent than other trolls. Maybe some wannabe Hannibal Lector will take you on as a "sparring partner" for "intellectual fisticuffs" (or "mutual masturbation"). It's a total waste of time.

I advise you again to click on my username and see the clear progression of my comments. You can see what I began to say and why I did not continue to say it.

If you click on my username and view my comments in the order I posted them, separated from these other comments, you'll see a very clear progression and may have some idea what I began to say and why I did not continue saying it.

If I hold extremist views, then tell me: What are my views?

What extremist positions do I hold? Opposition to extremism? Is that extremism?

I don't know if you're a leftist or not. You may be genuine or you may be playing the "peacemaker" to reach an affable "compromise" and maintain the social order (or "groupthink"). What I can tell you is that misuse of the term "extremism" is a common ruse of collectivists, relativists, postmodernists, etc. By claiming that no one can be right, they become right by default. Whenever their ideological enemies claim any form of knowledge, they cry extremism.

The only rational response to such a person is, "Thank you for your input and you have excused yourself from any further discussion."

#156, DOUGROGERS

"Why is Moonbat the only one here arguing the Objectivist side?"

Normal people see the signs and decide it's in their best interest not to comment. They have no desire to change others, they desire to avoid frustration, and they have better things to do.

Unfortunately, many of those people choose instead to post in forums friendly to their viewpoint, where the cycle continues.

In this way, groupthink reinforces itself and the culture suffers. Not only on BoingBoing, but on all online forums (and probably most offline forums).

#150, ETATWAT

"Shockingly it seems that all those that are not of the Rand persuasion are something called "collectivists". That term seems to be supposed to cover everyone else and be a dirty word on the scale of a "communist"...

"Most of the successfull species are those who employ some sort of collectivism(!)"

#146 TWOSHORT "My stereotyped impression of Rand fans was that they aggressively attack anyone who disagrees in the slightest..."

I guess "disagrees in the slightest" means declaring that all Objectivists (or anyone who agrees with Objectivists on major points) is psychopathic, socially inept, backwards, etc.

I think it's clear that the dominant voice on BoingBoing is a little more aggressive than "slight disagreement."

"...and declare them a communist"

Many of the users in this thread are Communists. (Sorry, "Democratic Socialists.")

If you're going to chime in, read the thread.

Or are you also an extreme-left windbag?

Oh, so I'm supposed to tell you that I'm not a witch, right? Because I saw the "WITCH HUNT IN PROGRESS" sign and endangered my own safety by walking into the hunting grounds?

Get a life.

"Well, there's one thing, and then there's this other thing, and it's all really interesting."

How am I supposed to respond to that?

I like how you've latched onto the dominant (most vocal) group, by the way. ("I know it's not fair to gang up on Moonbat, but...") That's a real social skill.

Do you even know what this "debate" is about?

What "point" did I make, and on what grounds does anyone "disagree" with me?

Oh, and I've read that "sense of humor" line about a thousand times before. Yeah, everybody on the Internet is a real wiseguy. It's so fun when you can pick from a million forums and find one where the most vocal members will accept all your worst bullshit.

I'd also like you to read through my comments and find the place where I say I'm an Objectivist, because I never wrote that. I never wrote half the shit you people think I wrote.

Now, do you have a point, or do you just want to pretend to be intelligent some more?

Yeah, maybe you can overturn the evil work of Uncle Miltie.

It always amazes me. Admitted Socialists always deny being collectivists, leftists, etc. It's always, "I'm too complex for labels. I'm open-minded." Ask them how they feel about rationality, American values, or the free market, and then you'll get some serious fucking black-and-white pronouncements. I'm never seen anything like it from rightwing nuts.

"Hiveminds like BoingBoing do not deserve respect because they are not people."

You see how that (doesn't) work?

"Logically impossible. You are not Objectivism personified. Although you do seem to be typical."

There you go again. I "seem to be typical," i.e., a pudgy white male who lives in his mother's basement and pounds his chest...etc., etc., etc.

Do you want to check that summary again? (Duh: "No!")

"You have yet to address a single substantive criticism"

Substantive criticism about what?

"...but have instead gone on and on about how deeply offended you are that anyone dared to dis your belief system."

I've posted comment after comment about disgusting groupthink behavior!

What do you read?

This thread could be full of Nintendo fanboys dissing Sony and the dynamics would be the same. You are not special, this forum is not special, this issue is not special, and your "trolls" are not especially disruptive. This is just typical Internet bullshit. The only remotely unique thing about it is that collectivists are such hypocrites.

#132, NOEN - "You should treat others with respect because that is how you get along in a world with people who are not you and do not believe the same things as you do. It is simple pragmatism. Well, that and a bit of the golden rule i.e. the categorical imperative."

That is one aspect.

Now, let's be clear here. Are you admitting that this is what you actually believe? Because I have a sneaking suspicion you'll accuse me of "mind reading" when I call you out.

Your "golden rule" is one-sided, and it plays out in practice exactly the way I described. The core readers of BoingBoing do not afford any respect to the hated groups I listed.

This hypocrisy would tend to bother most people--it would tend to cause a bit of cognitive dissonance--and so the behavior is rationalized by falling back on "philosophical" arguments about the nature of truth and reality.

$$"It is this belief of yours, that you do not need to treat those beneath you with any respect, that leads to accusations of psychopathy."

Accusations of psychopathy began before I ever commented.

And, since you're so keen on mentalism, why don't you try looking through this thread and identifying where I've written anything "psychopathic"? You don't know a goddamn thing about me--except that I disapprove of you and your behavior.

$$"It gives you the excuse to act like an ass towards others and then you act all surprised when people call you on your crap.

"The problem moonbat is your behavior."

The thread is right here for you to look at. Go ahead and scroll up and read the goddamn thread. Your behavior has absolutely nothing to do with me, because it started before I ever commented!

You can go through other threads on this and other sites and see exactly the same behavior.

#130, NOEN

You forgot the part where you admit your mistakes and/or condemn similar comments made by your comrades.

#125, TAKUAN - "only you can teach yourself how to to talk to people"

Right. How to talk to people. Another classic second-hander belief.

The idea is that since a) all conclusions are equally valid (or "all is meaningless") and b) all human beings have equal value, therefore a person must be treated with "respect" even if his conclusions are baseless. In mainstream practice, this applies mainly to discussion of religion and protected groups (politically correct speech). In niche groups, such as this forum, it applies to a much more limited range of ideas--usually a few core tenants of the prevailing groupthink.

You see, in practice, nobody really believes all conclusions are equally valid. It's a shell game. Saying that allows one to believe whatever one wants to believe.

So Christians, Republicans, Scientologists, Objectivists, "Ludites" (these are just a few hated groups off the top of my head) are not afforded any respect and their specific claims are rarely even acknowledged.

Make fun of Tom Cruise all you want. Call him crazy, gay, evil, etc. But say one negative word about Communism and watch out!

And if you can't pick up on that, well, you just don't have social skills.

#123, JOHNNY, why don't you just ask Takuan if he meant to say that I'm a psychopath?

Did you read his "checklist" comment?

He clearly meant that anyone who adheres to any "Objectivist" beliefs is a psychopath.

The running theme in most of these comments is that anyone who opposes the prevailing groupthink is sub-normal.

If it will make you STFU, I'll respond point-by-point to the "reformed" Noen of comment #72.

$$"The reason you are not being successful here is because you want to preselect the terms of the debate."

That's funny. I thought the reason I was being unsuccessful (unsuccessful at what, I wonder) was that I was called psychopath in the first comment in this thread and that almost every comment since has been insulting, logically fallacious, and inaccurate.

$$"Your 'strawman' is the assumptions that you take as given and assert without proof."

In comment #50, you claimed I had built a strawman. You did not specify when or how. Knowing what "strawman" means, I assumed you meant that I had constructed an inaccurate model of collectivist arguments and attempted to shoot them down. In comment #54, I cited specific users who engaged in the behavior I condemned. You then responded, in comment #60, "I don't think 'Strawman' means what you think it means. I think you are confusing that with 'sockpuppet'." Now, in comment #72, you attempt to clarify what you think "strawman" means and show that you have no ideas what "strawman" means.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute and attribute that position to the opponent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

A "strawman" is not "the assumptions that you take as given and assert without proof."

$$"Real debate involves meeting the other where he or she is at and entering into a discussion."

Argumentation (I don't know what "real debate" means) requires that a) both parties are honestly seeking the truth and willing to change their opinion and b) everyone speaks the same language.

Clearly, you are not seeking the truth and are not willing to change your opinion. A cursory reading of this thread will show that, and I have summarized most of the thread to make that even easier for anyone who wishes to do that.

The burden cannot be shifted onto one side alone. If compromise is required, then it is required of both parties. Therefore, if it is taken seriously, your claim against me is also an indictment against yourself.

Since it so happens my language is reason, I do not see any need to "compromise" with the unreason.

$$"There is no such thing as a complete hermeneutically perfect system. Objectivism attempts to be that system and to the extent that it does it must therefore be false."

Remember the strawman? That is a strawman. You claim that Objectivism attempts to be a "hermeneutically perfect" system and, because such a thing is impossible, it therefore fails. Well, of course it's impossible--you made it up!

$$"The mistake that Ayn Rand and all objectivists since make is to confuse the map for the territory. You mistake your description of the world for the world."

I'm thinking it's not a coincidence that you used a postmodernist catchphrase in that sentence.

No, Objectivism does not confuse the map for the territory. Objectivists (and all rationalists) seek to avoid that problem by relying on logic and evidence instead of fuzzy emotions and ideological dogma.

$$"They mistook science and mathematics for Nature's Own Language."

If you have a better idea, go for it, but I don't think it's going to yield any moon landings any time soon.

If I responded to every comment like this, I would be very tired and angry. I apologize for not being Jesus, but I don't have the patience for this. It's much easier for me to quickly point out the sheer number of bullshit statements and the absolute lack of consciousness of said bullshit.

If you're capable of doing so, please read through that summary and apologize for any one of the bullshit statements I cited. If you're uncomfortable admitting your own mistakes, call out one of your comrades for his bullshit.

I assure you, if any of those "anti-abuse" commenters make a bullshit comment, I'm going to call him out on it.

#114, NOEN - "The moment anyone challenges your BS you collapse in a faint."

When did anyone do that?

Since I was called a psychopath in the first comment in this thread, something tells me it's not my fault that you're insulting me now.

You blew your chance at having respect. You can't come in at comment #72 and say, "Oh, I'm Hannibal Lector now." No. You've shown yourself to be a fucking stooge and now you have to wait for somebody else to play the all-intelligent and dignified savior of the Moonbats.

#109, NOEN - "BTW Moonbat, I'm a she not a he, thanks."

This is the Internet. You're a man until proven otherwise.

To sum up: "Anyone who is not perfect has no right to judge me, therefore I can continue as before."

This is why I mentioned in my summary that it's best not to discuss threads in which one was an active participant. The groupthinkers will always try to blame it on you. (They'll always blame it on the "trolls" anyway, but there's at least some hope they'll read a summary that was written by a non-participant.)

#102, TAKUAN - "I'm not sure how a 200 word treatise on how we're not taking you seriously is going to make us treat you seriously"

I think your history in this thread has established that you're incapable of getting a point or making one.

I didn't post a treatise--I posted a summary of this thread.

I am not interested in making collectivists take me seriously. I am interested only in showing that collectivists--you chief among them--have behaved abominably in this thread.

If I had the time or will to do it, I would summarize the entire history of this website. I guarantee you a similar pattern would emerge.

It is my hope--a faint and distant hope that experience has shown is unrealistic--that if I can make you conscious of how you behave, then you might change your behavior.

Would it help if I quoted the Bible at you?

How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 1:21-23

This is my rough summary of the thread so far. I've paraphrased for brevity and clarity, doing my best not to distort or misrepresent the spirit of any comment. Where I have not offered specific comment, assume that I condemn the poster totally. I didn't quote anything here to say something good about it.

** = anti-abuse comment

If this continues to interest me tomorrow, I'll post some diagrams.

###

1. TAKUAN - "Objectivism is psychopathy."

2. Off-topic comment, or possibly dismissive ridicule.

3. "Objectivism is for teenage boys (implied)."

4. On-topic comment, or possibly dismissive ridicule.

5. On-topic comment.

6. Off-topic comment.

7. "The Ayn Rand Institute is so funny, yet so sad, and overhelmingly stupid."

8. NOEN - Explicit support of comment #1.

9. **MOONBAT

10. **MAN ON PINK CORNER (anti-abuse commenter)

11. Response to #9.

12. Response to #10. Neutral tone. However, gives tacit support to abusive commenters by not condemning them.

13. "Rand Objectivists are stupid and psychopathic."

14. **MAN ON PINK CORNER

15. On-topic comment.

16. **JCD

17. "Objectivism's ridiculousness speaks for itself and is generally accepted. Only the very young and serious wingnuts take it seriously."

18. "Objectivism promotes a society of selfish mistrust and brutal predation and does not respect the value of human life."

These comments were made by an admitted Socialist.

19. TAKUAN - On-topic comment.

20. **JCD

21. **JCD

22. **JCD

23. Response to #21, sub-topic.

Dubious claim: "You're using 'collectivist' in a funny way, there."

People who have a personal stake in controversy tend to claim their ideological enemies have misused words or are incoherent, usually for no good reason.

24. On-topic comment.

25. Response to #22.

26. **JCD

27. **JCD

28. "Yaron Brook seems like a nut case attention seeker. If he hadn't glommed onto Rand, he'd be Fred Phelps or Ward Churchill."

29. "Objectivism was the personal reaction of Rand upon coming to America from Russia."

This is an all-too-common ad hominem attack. The idea is that immigrants from totalitarian societies are unbalanced and come up with crazy ideas--that explains why so many of them support American capitalism and Democracy. Of course, Socialist immigrants are all right in the head.

"In practice, (Objectivism) leads to things like Enron and the Iraq war, both of which were fought over John Galt's sign--$."

The Enron executives were classic Randian villains! This is like pointing to the actions of a Satanic cult and saying, "This is what happens when Christianity is put into practice."

Then, of course, he claims the Iraq was fought over money. Classic, classic, Moonbat shit.

30. TAKUAN - "Objectivism fits X points on the checklist for psychopathy."

This "argument" appeared in an anti-capitalism documentary and was soon after used to smear Bush. It never was a good argument, and at this point it says far more about the person making the claim than it does about any point he might have had.

31. **MOONBAT

32. **JCD

33. **JCD

34. TAKUAN - Response to #32, defending his use of the "psychopathy checklist."

35. JCD

36. Neutral comment.

37. **Anti-abuse comment.

Dubious claims:

"Ayn Rand can't write a novel."

"All philosophies that promote elitism are bad philosophy."

38. NOEN - Response to #37.

"Objectivists don't do philosophy, they are just antisocial jerks who can point to a system of thought and rationalize their greed and their will to power."

39. **MOONBAT

40. Another comment from an avowed Socialist.

"(Objectivism) gives greed free reign, in all of its worst possible manifestations."

"Ultimately, (Objectivism) leads to the psychopathic belief in social Darwinism."

41. Off-topic comment.

42. "University courses don't include Rand on their reading lists because she's a bad philosopher."

"I also saw some film of her at an interview, and her responses to the questions were circular and question-begging."

Of course, I'm sure he can provide examples of Ayn Rand giving circular and question-begging answers. He did see some film of her at an interview!

"People are attracted to Ayn Rand because her philosophy is wrapped in a fictional scenario where certain points of view are appealing."

43. WILLIBRO

It's worth reading this one in its entirety.

44. "I've always miss read her name as Aryan Rand."

"The only people I know that liked her stuff seemed like selfish and emotionally troubled people." (Speculation about the two types follows.)

45. **MOONBAT

46. ???

47. Off-topic comment. However, it is again worth noting that this amounts to tacit support.

48. "The universe cares no more for rationalism than it does emotional or spiritual modes of thought."

49. Off-topic comment.

50. NOEN - This one's worth examing. He claims that I built a strawman (he never specifies how or when), and he comes back to it again in a later comment.

He also directs a chummy comment toward #47, Joel Johnson. Second-hander behavior?

51. SACRIFICIALGOAT - "I'm pretty sure you just outed yourself as a psychopath."

"You don't recognize the value of human life or demonstrate any kind of empathy whatsoever."

"You judge (human beings at a disadvantage) as incompetent and assert that they deserve to suffer and die for not being as powerful as you."

"You see a man in a wheelchair and sneer at his broken legs."

I'd say you should read the comment in its entirety and leave it at that, but I think it's important to see the sheer number of bullshit claims. Literally every sentence this person has written has been bullshit--and rude.

Note that this person has not commented in any other thread.

52. Support for #51 and #30. Anti-corporation comment thrown in for bonus points.

53. Anti-abuse comment? SacrificialGoat seems to have taken it that way.

54. **MOONBAT

55. SACRIFICIALGOAT - Response to #53, "Moonbat has no empthy."

56. "I know you are, but what am I?"

"Your argument is that those less able are making some kind of predatory power grab by asking for help."

57. **MOONBAT

58. SACRIFICIALGOAT - "All of your arguments boil down to 'when x people demand equality, they are denying that I am better than them and therefore entitled to all I can take'"

59. Addressed in comment #61.

60. NOEN - "I don't think 'Strawman' means what you think it means. I think you are confusing that with 'sockpuppet'."

Refer to my notes on #23 and #50.

It's also interesting that he mentions sockpuppets, probably meaning sacrificialgoat.

The comment goes on to support #56.

"Objectivism is certainly a pathological view of humanity."

"Objectivists, Libertarians, et al, are usually pudgy white males living in their mom's basement. Power fantasies by the powerless.

"It's a delusion hun, you wouldn't last five days in the wild."

Talk about delusions of power by the powerless.

61. MOONBAT

62. MOONBAT

63. SACRIFICIALGOAT - "Objectivists are all kids going through a phase and will grow out of it."

You've probably noticed that this one comes up a lot.

You'd think one of these super-intelligent people would have recognized by now that it's baseless and offensive bullshit.

64. Off-topic comment.

65. MOONBAT

66. Addressed in detail in comment #71.

67. This was almost a reasonable comment. I disagree with every claim made and think the poster is a leftwing nut, but at least he made debatable points...until he linked to a picture of a horse and said that's what Objectivists look like.

68. Off-topic comment.

69. Anti-abuse comment.

70. "The web comic Bob the Angry Flower made valid points about Atlas Shrugged."

It did not. Read the book.

71. MOONBAT

72. NOEN tries to turn over a new leaf, fails to convince me.

Also fails to realize that I have no interest in pseudo-intellectual masturbation and have only a) tried to inform or b) tried to correct blatant falsehoods. If Noen and others had not posted blatant falsehoods and insulting comments, I would not have written a negative word in this thread.

It's also worth noting that Noen pulled out the "you brought this on yourself" routine. That one always comes up when a hostile mob has descended upon some "troll" who disrupted their cozy groupthink. Because it's such a common cop-out, I hate discussing threads in which I was an active participant--it's much better to find some random flame war on some random forum and use that as an example. You'll just have to take my word for it that I've studied thousands of these and the dynamics are similar, if not identical, in all of them. Every jackass on the Internet thinks he's special, his topic is special, his forum is special, and his "trolls" are especially disruptive.

73. **MAN ON PINK CORNER

74. TAKUAN - ???

75. TAKUAN - ???

76. Off-topic comment.

77. TAKUAN - ???

78. Response to #77.

79. ???

80. "I never really read Rand because every person I ever met in real life who was a big Rand fan was a dick and also rather dull. The altruistic folks were more fun to hang with and they threw much better parties."

That's a classic second-hander right there.

81. TAKUAN - ???

82. FUTURPUNK (I have a feeling we'll be hearing from him again soon) has no idea what I'm talking about and knows nothing about spiritual teaching, yet feels compelled to contradict me. I wonder why that is?

"The closest we had to a true objectivist era for mankind was when human beings were fighting for survival in the ice ages. I see nothing utopian about that existence."

83. TAKUAN - "nothing funnier than an Objectivist with two broken legs on the floor in front of you with his crutches out of reach"

I see someone else has joined the club.

I plan to do this for all of your comments, so don't feel jealous if you want attention--just wait your turn.

O3 writes: "I've only known two devoted fans of Ayn Rand ...

"One was a homeless man....The other was a friend who majored in philosophy, never got a job, and lived with his mother until the day he committed suicide."

If we were discussing any other topic, or if O3 were arguing for Objectivism, one of you friendly people would call him on his bullshit. Specifically, you would say that personal experience is not scientifically valid and a sample size of two is far too small.

"I wonder which kind Moonbat is?"

O3 rounds it off with the personal attack (or punchline).

"I committed my one and only act of vandalism against a book..."

Finally, he admits to having held this irrational grudge for his entire adult life. I wonder if a short biography would shed some light on this.

The party line at BoingBoing is that collectivism is super and anything anti-collectivism is evil. Therefore anyone who posts anti-collectivist comments (or comments in support or defense of an anti-collectivist) may suffer ostracism, ridicule, devowling, comment deletion, or an IP ban. Anyone who posts baseless and rude comments directed toward an anti-collectivist can expect either explicit or tacit approval. If anti-collectivist comments continue despite all this, comments for the thread may be locked or comments may be disabled entirely. This is how norm enforcement works on all online forums. The process is not unique to this forum or this issue.

Do I really have to go through these comments and list all of the "claims" to show how many are baseless and insulting?

Why don't you just admit that you conduct yourselves in a shameful manner, apologize, and try hard to do better?

What is missing? What knowledge could I add to you that would make you a decent person?

Noen, I've tried to ignore you for the last few comments now.

Please assume that I disagree with everything you've written and ever will write, unless I state otherwise.

Millman, you should know that the paragraph you quoted relies much more on Hindu scripture than on the writing of Ayn Rand.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Infinity.

"Your argument is that those less able are making some kind of predatory power grab by asking for help."

No, my argument is what I wrote. You're trying to argue a different issue, because your ego is bruised.

If you were ask me about what other people have written, then, yes, that is roughly the argument against collectivist social policy. Just replace "asking for help" with "demanding time, money, and labor at gunpoint while simultaneously devaluing competence in all its forms."

When fat people demand "equality" of beauty, they are devaluing competence.

When ignorant people demand "equality" of knowledge, they are devaluing competence.

Broken legs are not the only handicap for which collectivists demand "help" from the competent.

Personally, I see no problem with helping people who have broken legs. It's the intellectual and moral handicaps of the mob that trouble me.

"I'm pretty sure you just outed yourself as a psychopath. You don't recognize the value of human life or demonstrate any kind of empathy whatsoever."

What???

"You see a man in a wheelchair and sneer at his broken legs."

What the hell???

This deserves no response. I simply want to draw attention to what was written, so that thinking people can condemn it.

Please note that sacrificialgoat is not a strawman. He is a real person--and you can either condemn him or tacitly support him.

Commenters number one, three, four, and seven are not strawmen either. Nor is number 50. Nor was Cory Doctorow a strawman when he smeared Andrew Keen.

Collectivists lash out at Ayn Rand because they feel personally attacked. They're free to behave however they want (they believe) because she started it. (This is the same reason they lash out at Andrew Keen in a similar fashion.) It all comes down to a mistaken priority placed on the ego.

When you assert that others owe you something--that the competent must support the incompetent--what are you doing? You're projecting "your" needs (the needs of your ego) into the outside world and trying to control that which you do not control and which you have no right to control. Properly understood, that goes against every spiritual teaching.

The second-hander draws his sense of well-being from the approval of others. What is the approval of others? It is sheer delusion. It's the story you tell yourself about yourself, multiplied by ten thousand; but zero times any other number always equals zero.

Every religion tells us to withhold our own judgment and accept the judgment of God. How can we determine the judgment of God? Only through the application of reason. Only through the scientific method. Anything else is just kidding ourselves. Mystic and collectivist systems do nothing more than allow the ego to run wild, asserting control over that which it has no right to control. Far from egotistical, rational self-interest is the most selfless of all thought.

The enlightened free market capitalist is today's bhakti yogi, today's zen master.

It only unfortunate that few "enlightened free market capitalists" exist. It's unfortunate that so many people think libertarian is synonymous with Objectivist and that one can take a few catchphrases disconnected from any philosophy and pretend that's a sound basis for living a moral life.

"like all other philosophies that promote elitism, it is (bad philosophy)"

Why should the incompetent hold power over the competent?

Why shouldn't the good be recognized as such?

"Objectivists don't do philosophy, they are just antisocial jerks who can point to a system of thought and rationalize their greed and their will to power."

Identify five Objectivists and explain how they use rationalist philosophy to justify their greed and will to power.

People tend not to read Ayn Rand's statements in context. The stark terms and forcefulness of her writing also tends to polarize--it especially pushes the buttons of collectivists, who feel Objectivism is a personal attack against them. Then there are the seemingly random and insane asides throughout her writing, like when she compares cigarette smoking to Prometheus' theft of fire from the gods. It's easy to get sidetracked when you're reading Ayn Rand.

If you really examine the totality of her message, though, it's not so out of place among ancient spiritual texts.

Her choice of words was deliberately confrontational. She wanted to reclaim words from the mystics and collectivists, but she ended up only confusing them.

The Objectivist notion of "selfishness" was never about greed. Rand said that a moral man would never sacrifice a higher value for a lesser one.

Promoting the "ego" is supposed to be wrong, but what Ayn Rand promoted was reason--the only effective means of controlling the ego. The ideal man in her universe was a spiritual master in total control over his mental faculties. It was the collectivists who allowed their egos to lead them around like puppets on strings.

The great flaw of Objectivism, in my view, is that there's no beginner level. You're either the ideal human being or you're evil, and there's no clear path of how to get from one stage to the other.

"Moonbat, is there some reason you dismissed everything I said?"

Because I read the post, and then I read the first sentence of your comment, and the two contradicted each other.

From the blurb: "'I was trying to shed a little light on the number one problem in Mississippi,' said Republican Rep. John Read of Gautier, who acknowledges that at 5-foot-11 and 230 pounds, he'd probably have a tough time under his own bill..."

From your comment: "If I had to guess what happened with Representative Read, I'd say that he saw a pathologically obese restaurant patron being served an oversized meal, was grossed out, and proposed a badly thought out bill."

I then saw that you claim to be one of those rare individuals who have a medical condition that causes them to be overweight.

Unless you make specific objectionable claims, I don't see any point in arguing with you. You're emotionally involved in the issue, but not (I don't think) for ideological reasons.

Since I'm responding now anyway, I might as well suggest that not all disabled people are overweight. Your condition may even improve if you work on your fitness. Try swimming, stretching--there has to be something you can do. Ask your doctor. I hate getting into these kinds of discussions, though. If we were friends, I would give you more advice. As a semi-anonymous Internet user, it doesn't really concern me.

I do take issue with this: "You can hardly argue that this has been caused by an epidemic of moral failure."

Hasn't it been a tremendous moral failing on the part of the food industry, our politicians, our schools, and our parents?

Isn't it a moral failing that we know what the problem is and still do nothing about it?

This is as good a place to mention: I've always thought of Cory as a character from an Ayn Rand novel, and not one of the good guys.

Cleaned up in Photoshop:
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4890/brainfearry1.png

Creepiest. Sex doll. Ever.

This problem goes far beyond the cost of insurance. We're talking at this point about a national security issue, because our military can't recruit enough healthy people to fight foreign wars. The British are having the same problem. Our enemies are not. Despite their political and economic faults, the Arabs and North Koreans and the Chinese do not have the obesity problem we do.

I'd also point out the--should be--obvious quality of life and reproductive issues related to an overweight society. As if finding a physically attractive mate were not hard enough, now the pool is substantially smaller due to candidates eating their way out of it (increasingly through no fault of their own as parents and schools fail our children).

This artificial scarcity of attractive mates furthers the divide between rich and poor as financially well-off males snatch up the physically fit females (and increasingly vice-versa). As the overweight poor continue to inbreed while their few suitable offspring are taken by their wealthy betters, this will bring about a split into two separate species.

Consider also, not only the health impediment (increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on), not only the social impediment, but the sheer physical and emotional toll being overweight puts on a person. When it gets to a point that you're obese, you are in a sense physically lazy. Being saddled with pounds, you're less likely to run, skip, frolic, or romp and therefore less likely to feel good and be productive.

We're seeing a generation of physically lazy children.

They're not morally lazy (yet). They're not intellectually lazy (yet). They're lethargic because they have a physical burden, which causes a mental state, and all mental states self-perpetuate.

If we can reverse the obesity epidemic, we can reverse all of these social problems to some extent.

Fatness is subjective. Obesity isn't. Obesity is calculated from height and weight. The only subjective part of the standard is the "normal" designation, which has increased as people become heavier on average.

Some fat advocates say that body builders can be considered obese according to BMI, so we should discard the standard. Well, how many Americans do you think are bodybuilders? Is the massive surge in obesity rates due to a global increase in bodybuilding? Even if it were, would that account for obesity in women, who rarely put on muscle like male bodybuilders? Could enormous breasts even account for the disproportionate increase in weight relative to height?

Claims against BMI are baseless and should be ignored.

However, even if one were to acknowledge the specious argument that bodybuilders would be effected by this law aimed at the overeating obese, one has to wonder...why would a bodybuilder be eating fast food in the first place? People don't achieve amazing physical feats by eating that crap. If there were any reaction from bodybuilders at all, they would thank us for removing the temptation.

I thought you were gay.

I also thought you had an MFA, which apparently isn't true either.

"Cory Doctorow has no college degree, just a busy Web site and some provocative views on copyright"

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i31/31a03001.htm

It's good to be wrong. When you think you know who people are, it's much easier to judge them.

Can't keep up with the Jones'? Get the city to knock their house down.

This is truly despicable. The one right every man should have is the right to build a fucking castle on his property--I mean that with no sarcasm or irony whatsoever.

Things would go better for her if she lost weight.

"enjoy a BoingBoing experience untroubled by differing points of view."

Isn't that the ideal? Isn't that why people come here? People who, ironically, consider themselves the preeminent freethinkers of the Internets (and world)?

I'm always amazed by what bad taste pirates have.

Some of these comments are unbelievable. "Oh, I'm so torn about this. My FEELINGS are so conflicted."

Ask yourself this simple question: Would you rather your daughter were raped or had the fingers of her left hand chopped off with an axe? Because the axe-wielding maniac would serve of a lot less time than the rapist and would NOT be listed in the newspaper and on Internet registries as part of an "Axe-Wielding Psycho" list. Nobody gets the death penalty for grievous bodily harm.

It is because of these FEELINGS that Democracy doesn't work. The sooner we hand over control of our government to impartial robot overlords, the better.

When you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, isn't a "sex offense" the worst thing anyone could do?

This is one issue on which moonbats do not go nearly as far as they should in condemning our government.

The only problem with that "you give up your rights when you commit a felony" position, by the way, is that nearly everyone commits felonies.

Imagine how different this country--and the world--might be today if this plan had gone through. If America had not surrendered to the International Socialist conspiracy against her. I'd support the arrest and internment of 50,000 disloyal American citizens tomorrow morning, but I think it might be too late.

Why don't you just e-mail Al Qaeda directly?

Maybe they can release it as Torture Porn. Amnesty International has never made interrogation look so stylish and sexy.

@THE MAD HATTER

"How did Cory break this down to an us vs. them?"

He automatically assumed that I must be a FOX News viewer, only because I criticized him for posting this. He broke the world down into "Us" (good people) vs. "Them" (ignorant FOX News viewers), assuming that anyone who would dare criticize him must be one of "Them." That's the "Us vs. Them" game.

I'd be interested to know what his connections are to the Communist Party. A lot of these pro-fat advocates are actually Cultural Marxists.

I don't like FOX News either. You're playing the old "Us vs. Them" game, and that also hurts your credibility.

t lst y ddn't dvwl my cmmnt. Y sm t b mkng prgrss.

If I had the time or sheer political will, I would assemble a video collage of CNN clips and promote it as "CNN Porn!"

This is nothing more than an attack against FOX News by the same people who always attack FOX News, for no other reason than it is FOX News. It's total bullshit, and it does immeasurable harm to your credibility to even mention this clip.

JapanProbe has more about this:
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=3106

Anorexia is not the alternative to obesity. That's a lie you tell yourself to justify bad habits and bad attitudes.

Laurie,

That was a thoughtful post, so I don't want to go condescending on you. (This is not meant as "ironic" condescension by telling you I'm not going to be condescending.) This is just a few comments.

About vegetables tasting tinny. Taste buds may be inherited from your mother based upon what she ate during pregnancy, and can be conditioned by childhood eating habits. What I haven't read in the research is whether other foods just taste better or vegetables actually taste like poison. It's also true that tastebuds can be conditioned in adulthood, but it's not clear whether foods that taste like poison will ever taste good. What I would recommend is trying as many cooking methods as you can, because you should be eating vegetables; if not for your own health, for the health of your children, because you're going to perpetuate a cycle if you don't.

About bulimia/anorexia. I don't think this is what you're doing, but, like the genetics argument, this is something pro-fat advocates bring up all the time, using it as an intellectually dishonest argument. The conclusion is supposed to be that bulimia/anorexia is much more dangerous, so we should stop telling people to lose weight.

The fact is, bulimia/anorexia only affects 1-4% of women, whereas over 50% of American women are overweight. Males with bulimia/anorexia are statistically insignificant.

Because anorexic woman look frightening, and because the harsh lights used by paparazzi create deep shadows on celebrity women's thin bodies, they make great sensationalist magazine covers. Because no media personalities are out there campaigning for acceptance of the underweight (whereas pro-fat advocates include Gina Kolata of the NYT and several high-profile book authors), and ultimately because celebrity women are seen to have caused their own problem, whereas obese women are victims of genetics and/or society, the media shows no restraint in brutalizing thin women on the magazine covers and gossip programs. (If People Magazine ran a cover ridiculing Tyra Banks for getting fat, people would perceive it as meanness and think only about how Tyra's feelings must be hurt.) The sense I get from these magazine covers is that pro-fat America is gloating about how the mighty have fallen.

I see pro-fat advocates decrying the fact that 38% (or some other number) of women wish they weighed less. What they seem to forget is that over 50% of American women weigh too much. Medically. Objectively, they weigh too much. Of course they should want to weigh less, and we should be encouraging them!

So, comparing obesity to bulimia/anorexia is not an apples-apples comparison. It's more like comparing a barrel of apples to five oranges.

One glaring problem with the "born fat" position is that millions of people don't suddenly acquire new genes. Unless we're talking, what? X-Men? Are we witnessing the next quantum leap in evolution?

Environment plays a major role, to be sure, but saying that you have a genetic predisposition to obesity is like saying you have a genetic predisposition to smoke crack. It's a negative behavior--you should overcome your disposition to avoid negative outcomes. And...here's the real disconnect: If people can't help themselves, the government has a responsibility to do something about it.

If we want to remain competitive in the world--if we want to survive as a sovereign nation--the U.S. government has to take radical measures to reverse this trend. We can't refurbish our military vehicles the way Disney refurbished the Small World boats. Corporate America especially has to wake up to the fact that we're destroying our most important resource.

Overweight people die younger from heart disease, diabetes, and a multitude of other illnesses. As the surviving overweight people grow older and start succombing to the normal wasting diseases everyone faces in old age, then their survivability rate goes higher. (If you have cancer and keep your weight on through chemotherapy, your odds are much better.)

Now, Cory's decision to put the word "normal" in quotes greatly disturbs me. Has BoingBoing jumped on the leftwing bandwagon yet again, for no reason other than it's the leftwing thing to do?

Obesity is a grave threat to our national security. Undermining efforts to fight this epidemic is nothing short of treasonous.

40th Anniversary "ish"? Come on. Be specific. Is it the 40th anniversary or isn't it?

Oh, God....Look what the censor devoweled.

"It'd be easier for the casual viewer to take this seriously if the victim didn't have a pre-existing agenda."

How is that so goddamned threatening? These people seem hellbent to discourage any/all deviation from standard groupthink bullshit.

I've worked in claims departments, and I can tell you that there are no such conspiracies to defraud individuals--even annoying leftwing twats like Kos. It's fascinating to see him apply the exact same approach to his health insurance company that he applies to the Republican Party. Step one, fabricate a conspiracy where none exists. Step two, lacking any ability to take actual action, piss and moan.

Devophill - You only have to hit the "post" button once. Now continue with whatever it was you were doing.

Right. Turn "online forums are groupthink" to "this group of three comments is groupthink." That's a clever trick. Or are you really incapable of seeing the forest through the trees? (Psychologically studies have proven that you are, at this moment, incapable of seeing the forest through the trees, so that's a rhetorical question.)

This is the mentality of online geeks. Anyone who complains about groupthink must be a troll. That's what a troll is: someone who disrupts the groupthink of any given forum. And, since the purpose of online forums is to bask in and promote groupthink, trolls are or of course inherently backwards/stupid/insert-adjective-here. The label has nothing to do with content or competence and everything to do with us/them allegiance.

Andrew Keen is a troll. Why? Because he hates the Internet, and most people here are Internet fanboys.

h, lk t tht; my cmmnt ws dltd fst. Th cnsr s rlly n tp f thngs hr, kpng tht grpthnk n ln.

Hr's rpst:

ws gng t pst ths ndr th ndrw Kn rtcl, bt th cnsr hs DSLLWD CMMNTS N THT NTRY n rdr t prtct th BngBng thrs frm frthr mbrrssmnt.

Tht's hw cmmnts wrk hr. Thy nly llw th cmmnts thy lk. (By th cmmntrs wh gr wth thm. srs flw f nln cmmnts, by th wy, whch ws pntd t by ndrw Kn n hs bk.)

#

"Y cn't ps s thghtfl cltrl crtc whn y gt tht mny fcts wrng"

Wht fcts dd h gt wrng?

Y clm tht h gt ths fct wrng, bt h ddn't. Mrks nvr wrkd s prfssnl jrnlst.

hvn't sn NY vld crtcsm f ndrw Kn n ths blg. ll s s bnch f fnbys wh gt thr ttts twstd.

Th Dly Ks s lftwng prpgnd rgn nd nthng mr. Th fct tht t's s ftn lnkd by thr blgs ds nt gv th blg mrt--t gvs ll blgs blck y. f hd t nm n xmpl f why thnk "nws" blgs r jk, t wld b th dly spmmng f Dly Ks lnks by msgdd pltcl ctvsts.

*Prprng fr grblztn nd bnnng.*

Yeah, he could have been a journalist. And MC Hammer could have been a professional baseball player.

When you come on like Andrew Keen is a moron, you need to back that up with something more than this cherry picking bullshit.

About these "anthropomorphism" criticisms started by AP: That's more an illusion created by the way he phrased his sentences than it is the concrete meaning of what he's saying. I don't like what he's saying either, but I think a lot of the complaints arise more from that overall distaste than from what he actually meant (or "could have meant"--since the language was not clear).

When we dislike an argument, we tend to demand an irrational degree of rationality.

Now, this talk of nature "wanting" to evolve does merit criticism. I remember believing that a bird who wants a long neck will get one, and I think bad science education was to blame for that belief. People don't always think about the way language can send mixed messages. I just don't think that's the most important issue here.

Maybe the way he writes in his book is completely different from the way talks in this interview.

Harry Potter and the Velvet Goldmine

That's it. They were after the art.

Why do they hate us? They hate us for our art.