How Many Think The Majority of Posters Here Are Extremists

The Extremist's Whackjob Tactical Handbook:
By Frost Hendle
So Extremists on BOTH sides use many of the same tactics when dealing with those who do more than Cut & Paste or Parrot Pundits. Here's the tactics they use most commonly:
1. NEVER directly address any issue or subject in detail.
2. Dodge the issue. Then claim you have already addressed it and declare the subject closed for discussion.
3. Change the subject and demand others respond to your new subject while you continue to dodge theirs
4. Label anyone who disagrees with the official FOX / MSNBC or Libertarian opinion in even the slightest way, as being a “Liberal”, “Statist” "Wingnut" etc…
5. In addition to labeling, it’s also good to take advantage of your anonymity so go with "I just happen to be an expert on _________.”
6. Project false opinions that have never been stated, onto anyone with differing views.
7. Defend your position by using Moral Comparatives pointing out that "the other side" has done something wrong at some time in history.
8. If someone brings up facts that you don’t like, simply claim they are not facts, regardless of verification.
9. Insist that any moderate position, must actually be the extreme opposite of your own extreme position or better yet…
10. Attack the source, play the Victim Card and claim the media is unfair for reporting verifiable or contradictory facts.
11. Claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with you, is against the Constitution! You know more than any Constitutional Lawyer or judge!
12. Refer to Democrat or Republican positions that quit being accurate so long ago, no one who voted those positions at the time, is actually alive today!
13. Act incredibly stupid and ask questions that would indicate complete ignorance e.g. “What IS Obama’s ME Policy?” or "How do you KNOW a video didn't start the attack on Benghazi?"
14. On the ExtremeConserv side, If any government agency isn’t 100% successful all the time, claim it is ZERO percent successful and should therefore be eliminated (the same does not apply to companies, of course) For example, if 100 FDA agents stop 90% of infected carrots from getting to market, the solution is to eliminate the FDA.
On the Extreme Lib side, if any company or executive has ever done anything wrong, claim that all capitalistic ventures wealthy people are evil and should be taxed more and regulated more!

15. Make sure you are REALLY angry all the time! That way if anyone who is smarter, more traveled, has better experience, education or Facts & Points comes your way, you can blow off the ass-kicking you're getting by feigning self-righteous indignation!

16. Since you don't actually think for yourself, Cut & Paste most of your stuff. Otherwise, Parrot the Pundits. They will provide lots of clever little sound bites for you to repeat.

17. Virtually everything that is wrong is the fault of "The Other Side".
18. Make an excuse to Cut & Run. An old standard among those who are getting whalloped is "You're not worth debating" or a variant thereof.

19. Remember the most important rule of all: NEVER admit you're wrong or that someone else has made a valid point! That takes strength of character and honesty. Remember, you're an extremist! Those qualities are not important to you! Stick with emotional outbursts and tirades!

So when you run into someone using the above tactics, you know what you're dealing with. Cheers, Frost Hendle.

 

i think a lot of posters are trolls, and even come in here under multiple names to get both sides of the fire burning.

 

^^^^THIS^^^^

 

It certainly isn't a place to debate the truth, facts, or reality in most cases.

 

I don't think it is that bad. I've been on a dozen boards and they pretty much are the same.

Truth, facts and reality are different things to different people. As long as you get your chance to offer yours, you may influence a casual reader.

But it is folly to expect people to not argue positions, for many, that's why they are here. It would be nice, but it rarely happens.

Seriously, is this place any different then Congress?

 

I prefer the "Patton" doctrine of argumentation and getting the other fellow to resort to fallacy for his Cause.

 

We don't get over paid for accomplishing nothing pertaining to our oath of office.

Oh and the truth, the facts, and reality never change, it's the interpretations of them and the irrational opinions used to justify ignoring them that identifies the true extremists/blind partisans.

 

What's the "Patton" doctrine of argumentation? Confrontational intimidation?

 

If you mean confrontational, rude, belligerent, unreasonable, and some just downright nuts. Oh and just a shear disinterest or respect for other opinions.

Well I'd say you might have a case there.

 

Anonymity is a powerful tool for a loon.

 

Yeah unfortunately so. I always try and keep to a code of fairness. The internet should not allow an exemption of good manners.

 

You would think, but for all the things the internet is capable of doing, allowing someone to be an ass seems to rank at the top.

 

I think it was Dr S. Johnson who said that "the loudest voices are one the world hears the most and quietest voices are the ones that are heard less and should be listened to more"

So with that in mind I'm confident that the reasonable people will simply ignore the arse heads of the world.

 

The professional media are the ones who should be anonymous. If you've heard of someone, don't listen to him. In this decadent age, anyone who gets paid to write, broadcast, or teach is of the same ilk as someone who gets paid to have sex.

As for the poll, too many Netwits are extreme conformists to what they are told to think.. They suppose that they have chosen their thoughts independently, but it is really a multiple choice of permissible answers. I always choose None of the Above, because I don't recognize the claim that professionals are above me just because they scribble and drool for a living.

 

Yes, different. In politics the talk is strongly influenced by ideology, and the way people think is less influenced by ideology (less, because many people know politicians can't be trusted, even while they know politicians can't be trusted they vote, because they don't want a certain person to become the president, so here you see the fear and also fight in the people, this is btw the main problem of loosing liberty) Extremists can be recognized, they instil fight, no serious discussions, one liners.

 

no. simply to have a better argument with fewer fallacies.

 

+1 to this. There's a difference between an extremist and a troll. An extremist is somebody whose life totally revolves around their beliefs and you can tell they're probably angry all the time in real life about it. A troll is just somebody with too much free time that likes to stir up (*)(*)(*)(*) on the internet for fun. I'd put myself in that category. I'd probably call myself a quasi-serious troll. Since I tend to jump around between serious discussion mode, silly stupid joke mode, and bored instigator mode.

There are definitely a few legitimate extremists on here. But I think the vast majority are just harmless trolls.

 

Are most people here extremists? Probably not.

Are most of the most active posters extremist? Maybe.

 

I guess I'd be about as extreme as is possible and I try to keep discussion civil, I don't really identify with a lot of the stuff above.

Also, I don't see how extremists are more susceptible to these sorts of things: I see plenty of moderates do the same.

I have my views, but I'm open to the critique of others - although it's rather rare that I change my perspective entirely (ie: when I went from socialist to libertarian).

Politics is a bit of a useless topic anyway. People are going to do what they're going to do - you can't stop that. You can only control what you have power over. I try to just make the best decisions I can with the options given to me: this remains true regardless of what government or anyone else does.

I'm not too interested in attacking or defending politicians. My politics reflects my values: I'm cool with letting people do what they want, I enjoy a little recreation from time to time (war on drugs), etc.

 

One man's fallacy is another man's opinion/drawn conclusion. IOW he may not realize his opinion is based on fallacies.

 

It may be one reason I don't mind arguing with those of the opposing view instead of merely quarreling with them with propaganda and rhetoric, usually. I am also practicing learning how to identify fallacies.

 

No bigger fallacy than the 'my party is better than your party' fallacy.

 

I only claim to resort to fewer fallacies for my Cause.

 

I try and take one issue at a time, based on logic and common sense.

 

Time wise, it is a forced reaction. That is basically what you are seeing over the few decades. There was actually no other outcome possible when you break it down.

The left/progs using the tactic of gradualism brought forced change. The gradual changes finally brought a reactionary force from the right. This produced a stepping away from the gradualist methodology to more militancy from the leftist (OWS), and now you see the growth of the likes of Golden Dawn in countries in an equaling militancy.