It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Are Right Wing Libertarian Trolls Getting Paid to Dumb Down Online Conversations?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by Movescamp

Not all Democrats were southern bigots. This group distinguished itself from the mainstream Democrats by calling themselves the Dixiecrats. There was always a Democratic party nationwide, that got Roosevelt elected, for example. This party was (and is) considered the party of the average working man or woman. Democrats considered Republicans to be the party of the rich.

There were, of course, lots of bigoted Democrats in the South. Most of them became Republicans during the civil rights era. As a southern resident I can attest that for awhile the Republican party in my state was far more progressive than the Democrats, though since the civil rights movement the Republican Party has pretty much replaced the Democrats for bigotry.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:06 PM
Congratulations on the flame-bait left vrs right post. Of course your accuracy is way off on libertarians, (note small l) you're hitting a strawman way down range; one you've manufactured in your own mind. Your crude sketch does not apply.
Of course this is the main problem today with using labels you know nothing about.

I agree with you that discourse could be improved, and that it is a major problem in politics today.
What we need to do is sh*tcan the whole 2 party baloney, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and return power back to the States, end the income tax, end the wars , dismantle the Military Industrial Complex, prosecute the war criminals, prosecute the wall street crooks, destroy the fed and the internationalist bankers and fascist corporations, and generally clean the place up.

But how can we do those things if we're constantly undermining our own interests by playing into this political game? We should be more concerned with ideas than political party. Who does it benefit to keep this charade going? Could it be any of those I listed above?

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:28 PM

Originally posted by gotrox
You must first understand what "Libertarian" is.

Socially liberal. Means hands off the people and their natural rights, also means not holding a citizens hand from cradle to grave, not making a bunch of laws and regulations to protect people from themselves. It means people are responsible for themselves.

* * * * *

You can use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" if it makes you feel better.

Depending on your method of indoctrination, "Libertarian troll" can be either conservative or liberal.

I think I understand where Libertarians are coming from. This thread has certainly highlighted the differences between themselves and other ideologies.

Where I think Libertarians lean more to the right than the left is in their undying faith in, and allegiance to, laissez faire capitalism, which to me is nothing more than absolute, blind worship of the Almighty Dollar. Nothing should stand in the way of completely unfettered greed and the absolute reign of the Profit Motive. In short, big business should flourish completely free of laws, regulations, or any other curbs that the average citizen might want to put on their excesses to prevent themselves from becoming the victims of these power-hungry juggernauts.

Yes, I read Ayn Rand when I was in college. It was comforting in a way to think that I lived in the best of all possible worlds already and all I had to do was bow down to the gods of capitalism in order to be happy. It was an ego-boost to see myself as the winner in a Darwinian struggle of Good vs. Evil when in fact I owed most of my existence to the fact that I was born into a certain amount of privilege and hadn't "earned" it myself. Then Real Life intervened and I quickly learned how heartless and unrelenting are the forces of big corporations and big money. People don't count, unless they are complete egotists like Rand's heroes and heroines.

BTW: I also think that the libertarian message that "people are responsible for themselves" is just a sugar-coated way of saying that nobody should give a damn about the poor, the handicapped, the "losers" in the fight of dog-eat-dog that is our society today. Money should be spent on those who already have plenty of it, not on social programs for our ever-increasing population of the poor. You do recognize that the middle class is disappearing, and that our society is rapidly becoming divided into the "haves" and "have nots" with nothing in between? Where are you on the socio-economic scale and do you have "faith" that your life will be an endless celebration of your ego? Just saying.

edit on 1-1-2011 by Sestias because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by Sestias

You might have a more persuasive argument if you understood the terms more clearly.
Two brief and very rough sketches of the two ideas you so casually dismiss.
Check the references for more detail or visit
I promise you, we libertarians want what you want. We just have different ideas about how to get there.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by Smack

Thanks for the links. Looks like I have reduced libertarianism to simply advocacy of laissez faire capitalism. I stand corrected.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by Sestias

We all want liberty. ..well most of us anyway.
I appreciate your candidness, and encourage you to search deeper.
Ideas > political parties.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:40 PM
Why don't you just marry Obama already! You're such a sheep. His grandma even admitted he is Kenyan!

I'm totally kidding. I understand your frustration completely. The polarization is usually normal for any forum, but around here you will never see a civilized debate. It does seem that everyone's mind is indeed made up beforehand and that they will stick to their guns and never admit that their view may be inaccurate or wrong.

The birther threads really do show the ignorant nature of polarization between citizens. You have to go into them with a half of a grin because to read them with the intention of bringing in facts and correcting lies is futile.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 06:35 AM

Originally posted by WraithXV
The New World Order already happened people.

Might as well get paid and join them. You 'freedom fighters' can't win against this opponent.

Is that the kind of content you're referring to?

Read that the NWO began when Pres. John F. Kennedy was murdered.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Sestias
This is a shame because it shuts down real conversation or debate on the issues. ATS has become so much polarized politically that nobody is really hearing anybody with a different point of view. As a group our purpose is supposed to be to "deny ignorance" to the best of our ability.

This can only happen if people with all points of view are included in the discussion and when we politely but firmly exclude those whose only purpose is to stir up hate and shut down the conversation with nothing but noise.
editby]edit on 31-12-2010 by Sestias because: (no reason given)

This is the part of the OP I can agree whole heartedly with. However the very thread title strikes me as 'baiting'. If you get off the ideology for a few seconds and open your mind the polarization is sever - both ways. Any small bit that threatens whatever world view immediately provokes name calling and so forth. no one wants to hear that any other point of view has any basis. Its not worth trying to argue/debate anymore, people are who they are - move along.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:16 AM
reply to post by Sestias

You are not exactly correct. In fact until JFK most democrats were aristocrats. You also need to take in account the voting records of these politicians as well as their personal statements. The reason people like trueman, or fdr, wouldn't vote on even the most basic civil rights was infact because of their voter base. If you look at a map before JFK the north was republican. Those republicans are nothing like they are now. It was the southern plantation aristocracy that had the lobby power. Fdr is one of the most sinister presidents we ever had. He and maybe GWB absolutely trashed the constitution. Very similar presidents if you combine GWB and Obama you get FDR. Minus the self appointing of a new supreme court justice to stack the court for his rockafellor schemes.

I am from Texas so I too am southern. But facts are facts the democratic party before JFK got the majority of their money and power from a very racist base. Not a small group of dixicrats.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:35 AM
reply to post by SincerelySarcastic

You make excellent points. I am glad as a fellow libertarian that you get it too. The left side of the political spectrum, have very similar views to libertarians. The right side of the political spectrum, have very similar views to libertarians. The differences though have been convoluted by the current two-party system where each seeks to expand government powers. I personally want my government to protect me from groups of individuals. This is a leftist idea. I want the government to allow individuals total freedom to live their lives as they wish. It is hard to figure out which political party currently supports this, as the left increasingly wants to control the individual through social benefits, and the right increasingly wants to control the individual through a police state.

When we stop listening to politicians dictate what left vs. right means and listen to each other then we are free. As I libertarian, I think the people on both the left and right are very similarly aligned than we think. How many want their neighbor to starve? I don't and I believe there should be some type of help for that person. I do not have a problem helping that person. The question is what type of program should be used to accomplish this. But the fact remains, no way should anyone starve in this country that wants to eat, even if they are not pulling their weight. This is no longer the days of hunt or be hunted. We have machines now that do the work of hundreds. Certainly in all that innovation we could find a way to automate farming. Oh but the profits of the corporations! How would they make their living? Sadly our current construct places the needs of profits over that of prosperity of the whole.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:10 PM
I would be more concerned with government cyber agents working in the forums and youtube. We know that the Chinese government has a such a program.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by gotrox

Government controls big business (socialist) while big business has its hands in the political process manipulating the writing of the laws (fascist).

I think you have got this point reversed and I think the reversal makes a difference -

The initial corruption occurs before the politician has any real power... big business transfers a portion of their
power (money/influence) to initiate the process. The way it all manifests also depends upon who does the policing...
edit on 1-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

Which came first? The Chicken or the egg.
Doesn't make any difference, really.

My cure for the libertarian conundrum (the "except for" problem) is to have a fully libertarian federal government, and leave it to the states to work out their own variations,

The libertarian conundrum is called "the except for".

Far right may want a libertarian ideal, "except for" abortion.
The far left may want a libertarian ideal, "except for" social security.
You can see where compromise can escalate extremely rapidly.

We live in a group of republics, not a democracy.
Time to start acting like it.

You want to live where gambling, prostitution, guns and booze are available 24/7?
Nevada would be a good choice.
Want to live where the state government watches out for you, and protects your viability 24/7?
California may be for you.

Before Lincoln took over the country by force, it was "These United States".
After, it was "The United States".

Subtle but very meaningful difference.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:08 AM
Of first note, it is evident that the article itself is slanted to guide the reader down a certain path. This is what all [good] writers attempt to do. It is an opinion piece made to grab the attention of anyone that is unable or to lazy to critically think about what is being said.

With that out of the way, it is refreshing to see the OP, Sestias, take the time to ask questions pertaining to the piece. Which means that he (she) is able to critically think. That is a point that I believe that a few of the posters here so far should take note of before they spout of such idiotic and moronic (I use those lightly and not directed at a single person, but because their posts have fit the definition) statements about "love for Obama", etc. From what I have read, Sestias made not one claim to their love for the President nor his politics.

Sestias has rather laid out for all the posters their viewpoint and stance regarding the article they wish to discuss.

Originally posted by Sestias
While I do not deny having a personal ideology (as we all do, whether we acknowledge it or not) and do not deny trying to persuade others with what I consider to be "sweet reason" or engaging in civil argument and debate with some passion, I do not consider myself a troll for the following reasons: I never consciously try to leave any side or position out of the conversation in my threads, nor do I insult or demean people or try to make them shut up. I try to welcome ideas if they are presented in a civil manner, even when I don't agree with them.

Here is the key to your argument and basis for this discussion. Civil discourse has been on rapid decline because there is a wider audience that can actively engage within the public square; all with a relatively safe condition of anonymity. My words here that I write can only be attributed to an IP address and email. Both which can be masked and misdirected. This isn't to say such a practice has not been in use since Man has been using the written or spoken word. PUBLIUS is the name signed on the Federalist Papers (although we have now a good idea of who wrote them.)

The large difference between say PUBLIUS and the general online poster is that there is no real conviction behind what they are writing. That is to say though, that just as you have established your opinions and stances based upon your personal experiences, we cannot discount another because their ideas and opinions may be considered fringe, obsolete or wrong. The assumption that one's opinion may be false opens the door for your own opinion to be be likewise. None of which may I say, have you done. I speak of it for context purposes.

What I have been noticing on ATS is that many threads, especially those on social or political subjects, quickly become labeled "liberal" or "conservative." Once that happens the thread attracts only those who already agree with the OP's political stance. For example, I have given up trying to post in "Obama is not an American" threads because it's frustrating to me and I know it' pretty much a waste of my time and energy to try to persuade anyone else that he is. These threads are going to be posted ad infinitum, or at least if and until he's defeated in 2012 . I feel no one is going to hear what I have to say or want to.

This is the unfortunate, yet reality of the current political situation that is occurring here in the United States and upon the Internet. With regards to threads that give no added value (that being such as your example; unless new evidence for/against is presented within) should die a hard death upon the void of the Internet. Instead people insist on presenting both sides of the argument with great veracity.

The feeling that no one is listening is common because of the vastness of information that one can find just within this site. Especially upon a thread that is not about discussion nor debate, but rather enticement and incitement for those that just cannot pass up the argument. Their need to supply an answer outweighs the benefits of just lettings the thread die. All in hopes of pulling people over to their side, albeit, the more logical side in more cases.

Libertarians and conservatives may feel much the same way when they try to post in left-leaning threads.

This is why myself, I give no label. I may have certain leanings that fit into a category, I cannot be placed into any one single one to claim as my own. Those that seek out Liberty and Freedom need no label to fall under. Case in point would be an discussion I was engaged in a while back regarding the 1st Amendment (specifically the portion that handles religion) and the application thereof within a State Legislature. Because of my view that the amendment applies to the States and the People, and it was the People who were willfully and actively engaging in an invocation, I believed they were not only protected in their Right to do so, but also were Constitutionally correct in having the invocation take place.

That led to some attacks that I was a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. Which, is far from the truth because I consider myself more in line with a Deist. Regardless though, it highlights what you have pointed out, that threads quickly become labeled, as do posters, for their stances upon a subject.

This is a shame because it shuts down real conversation or debate on the issues. ATS has become so much polarized politically that nobody is really hearing anybody with a different point of view. As a group our purpose is supposed to be to "deny ignorance" to the best of our ability.

Agreed and you have said it best.

This can only happen if people with all points of view are included in the discussion and when we politely but firmly exclude those whose only purpose is to stir up hate and shut down the conversation with nothing but noise.

I guess my only argument that I would have over this post is the fact that you are calling for a balanced, civil debate that slices down the center in regards to many issues while using an opinion piece that is far from that in nature.

Those long ago (and I mean 200+ years ago in terms of my fellow United States of America citizens) fought and studied war so that we may study the liberal arts and sciences. Maybe one day we can live up to those dreams...

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:05 AM
All fall somewhere between the main ideologies.
It's the failing of the "Two Party System" (Not a constitutional mandate, BTW)

That I would like to come home after a hard day's work, and smoke a bowl places me fairly left.
That I think people should be allowed freedom of choice does also.

That I don't agree with a nanny state (welfare, social security, hundreds of agencies and departments) places me in the decidedly "far right".

I would register as a Libertarian, if it were not for the "except for" clauses.

I will continue to argue the points I believe in, though it does tend to p*$$ off both establishment parties when I refuse to toe the "party line".

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:10 AM
So; yes, Sestias, yes, they are getting paid to infiltrate, or "dumb down" online conversations.
Or distract.
Or fill with items off the original topic.
In another form, or forum:
25 Rules of Disinformation

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:41 AM
reply to post by ItsEvolutionBaby

Thanks for the link. That's an interesting thread that says much that I would have liked to see here.

Sorry I've not been on ATS since Jan. 3. I had a death in the family. If this thread can be resurrected I would very much like to continue the conversation.

new topics

top topics

active topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in