search
top

Can We Ask for a Little Decency?

Tam seems to have collected herself a troll, and a particularly nasty one at that, who appears to be this blogger showing here.  My issues with the threeper movement are much less based in what they believe than you might think.  If a bunch of guys want to get together and play Army of Defending the Republic, it’s no skin off my back.  It’s a free country.  But could we please do it without being flaming dickheads?  Thank you.

I know there those out there of threeper persuasion, who are honorable, respectable folks, so I don’t mean paint too broadly with this brush, but you guys have some angry, nasty people on your side of the fence, and people will judge you by the company you keep.

55 Responses to “Can We Ask for a Little Decency?”

  1. Hypnagogue says:

    False association and composition fallacy.

  2. Sebastian says:

    I thought my little disclaimer would have taken care of any composition fallacy claims. I realize not every person who adheres to that philosophy is like this, but there seems to be more than in the blogger population in general on that side. I can think of one or two blogs in our faction who I’d say I’d rather not have on my side.

  3. Andy says:

    Man that thread immediately gets a “WTF, over?”

    As I’ve said before, people are only relevant if you make them so.

  4. Laughingdog says:

    Wow. That comment thread was an eye opener. It was like reading a right-wing male version of Rosie O’Donnell.

    I wonder if he looks like her as well?

  5. Kristopher says:

    A lot of young libertarians act like this.

    Libertarianism attracts folks with socialization issues … folks looking for a set of societal “rules” that run logically.

    We nerds like logic … it takes a few decades to figure out that logic doesn’t run social groups. It takes that same amount of time to figure out that people who disagree with you are not necessarily evil.

  6. Hypnagogue says:

    So logical fallacies are acceptable when a disclaimer is included? How civilized.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Is it a logical fallacy if you say that you realize this can’t possibly apply to every single person, and it is a generalization?

  8. Wolfwood says:

    Hypnagogue,

    See Comment #5 in this thread.

    At least the birds aren’t…

  9. georgeh says:

    You can’t get that incoherent by GETTING drunk, you have to BE a drunk. It takes years of dedication.

  10. Hypnagogue says:

    It is false association, period. Your opinion of “tom” and your opinion of “threepers” are associated only within the confines of your own biases. There is no logical relationship at all. Perhaps you have not yet noticed that trolling behavior does not imply a representative opinion of any group, and in fact implies the opposite. The reason for this should be obvious.

  11. Linoge says:

    To be fair, blaming the insurrectionist “threepers” for folks like “Tom” is much akin to Lean Left’s attempt to blame all gun owners for the presence of Nazi-associated individuals and memorabilia at gun shows and events – pretty much flawed logic.

    Of course, that is only using Tom as a representative element… However, from both our dealings with the insurrectionists in the past, I can personally attest to the significant numbers of assholes, pricks, prigs, prats, brats, and twits in their rank, and while one (like Tom) does not a statistic make, a pattern is certainly emerging.

  12. Hypnagogue says:

    Linoge, I’ve not often found your comments to be particularly polite either, but I wouldn’t claim that you represent Sebastian views simply because you have agreed with him in the past. But thank you for being rational, it’s appallingly rare lately.

    From the single statement, seen on the internet: “Capitalism is better than socialism, and Pauly Shore lives in my head!!!!” what might we conclude about the value of capitalism as an economic system? Nothing, full stop. The author is either a troll, or genuinely insane, but that has no relevance to the question. Any other conclusion would be false association, and absurd. Calling “tom” a “threeper” is absurd, just as calling “threepers” “insurrectionist” is absurd. Is rational discourse really so difficult that we have to resort to name calling in order to make a point?

    Sebastian, would you like to be held accountable for the actions of a troll simply based on the association that they once posted a favorable comment on your blog? Do they now represent you? “But look at the company you keep!”

  13. Linoge says:

    Hypnagogue, I hate to be the one to throw the monkey into your wrench, but Tom self-identifies as a “threeper” insurrectionist. I call him that, because he calls himself that. If you have an objection with the situation, I would suggest that you take it up with Tom himself, though he seems a mite… irascible… these days. At any rate, the evidence is available for you, if you want to see it, all over his webpage.

    Regarding the word I use to describe the “threepers” of the world, I find it to be a a remrakably accurate, appropriate, and poignant nickname… just as, I am sure, the insurrectionists consider the nickname “prag” to be appropriate for folks like me.

  14. Hypnagogue says:

    Thus is your argument broken down:
    Fact: Tom calls himself a threeper insurrectionist.
    Conclusion: Tom is therefore representative of all other people who call themselves “threepers”, and all other “threepers” are therefore insurrectionists.

    Logic fail. YHBT.

  15. Linoge says:

    Assumption fail: I started calling “threepers” insurrectionists approximately five months ago.

    Well, your uneducated guesswork has certainly made an ass of you… I believe you were trying to say something?

  16. Sebastian says:

    If Tom was the only mean, angry bastard of the lot, I’d agree he was a statistical outlier, but the comment policy you see above didn’t become necessary until I decided to publicly disagree with threeperdom.

    But I won’t go so far as to say every threeper is a mean angry bastard. In fact, I think I took care not to say that. I know many people who have sympathies to the philosophy that are fine people.

  17. Sebastian says:

    Linoge:

    Let’s not make this personal. Remember the comment policy, please.

  18. Linoge says:

    Hypnagogue: For clarity’s sake, Tom self-identifies as a “threeper”. The word “insurrectionist” that I use to describe people of that bent is the word I use. Since I describe all “threepers” as insurrectionists, and Tom is a threeper, your logic dissection falls apart… especially since I started the trend far before this particular instance.

    Sebastian: Sorry, was playing with the whole “assumptions make an…” thing.

  19. ExurbanKevin says:

    Personally, I’ll never understand trolls whose debating skills seem limited to, “You’re a stupid (insert phenomenally long string of racial and/or sexual epithets here) for not taking my position on this issue, you moron!! “.

    Because, of course, nothing makes me want to change my position on an issue faster than paragraph after paragraph of poorly-written verbal abuse…

  20. Hypnagogue says:

    That’s the Linoge I remember: a fine, genteel creature of wit and wisdom.

    Nice friend you have there, Sebastian. Since you made an exception to your comment policy for him, I will assume it’s because he speaks for you.

  21. Sebastian says:

    If it makes you feel better, I’ll delete the comment.

  22. Hypnagogue says:

    I find deleting non-anonymous comments to be a poor policy in general, as it makes you responsible for the undeleted content — and why should you be held responsible for something someone else says?

  23. Linoge says:

    Sorry, Hypnagogue, I never claimed to be anything other than an arse (or is self-directed snarkiness not permitted either?).

    Of course, on the flip side, I guess the admission that you might, possibly, maybe have been wrong would be just a little too much, neh?

    Feel free to edit the comment, Sebastian. I stand by those words, as I do everything I put online, but if you are concerned about how they might reflect on you and your site, you would be more than within your rights to edit them appropriately.

  24. Sebastian says:

    It’s not that I worry about being held responsible, so much as I like the comments to be a pleasant place to be able to have reasonable discussion, rather than just slinging personal insults at each other.

  25. Hypnagogue says:

    You think I’m offended? I think this whole “threeper” vs “prag” argument is silly, puerile name calling — why should more name calling suddenly change the game? I see no moral high-ground, just mud slinging; this whole blog post is a heap of irrational slander, what can rescue it?

    Both groups can count me out. I am not represented by either viewpoint. No, you may not speak for me.

  26. R. Franz says:

    Guy sounds at least half-retarded, in addition to less mature than most properly homeschooled children, and as someone who has a certain roman numeral patch on the side of my blog, i gotta say i never heard of ‘im before.

    I guess its alot like people who are into karate, for a long time i thought everyone who was into martial arts was an arrogant showoff looking to either impress, or opress, to get whatever they wanted. It wasnt until much later that a friend of mine that i had known for years asked me if i could give him a ride to training, i was shocked, he said he had been going for years.

    It was then i realized that it wasnt that all karate enthusiasts are jerks, but that any jerk is gonna brag about his karate affiliations, if given half the chance. Its the rest, you hardly even know are there, that are generally good responsible people, who want to be prepared and able to defend themselves.

    Quote: “I find deleting non-anonymous comments to be a poor policy in general, as it makes you responsible for the undeleted content — and why should you be held responsible for something someone else says?”

    Agreed, as thats my personal guideline as well, but this is Sebastian’s place and he can do what he likes, besides, no one should think they can go over to someone else’s house and sh– on the porch without expecting to get tossed into the street, with the sh– shortly following.

    Anyway, i hope Tam can dispatch the fellow from her site without much discomfort, as im not a regular follower of hers, but i do enjoy the posts i do catch.

  27. Wolfwood says:

    And it’s time to break out perhaps the single most insightful comic ever

  28. mikeb302000 says:

    Tom was a regular commenter on my blog until a few months ago. I thought his attack-dog style was directed at me because of my anti-gun views. I now see his contentious and volatile attitude is not so limited.

  29. Sebastian says:

    People like him see enemies everywhere.

  30. workinwifdakids says:

    This “Tom” person appears to be rude and quick to attack.

    Then again, Tam is also rude and quick to attack, so I think in this case a troll blog attracted a blog troll.

  31. Kristopher:

    A lot of young libertarians act like this.

    Libertarianism attracts folks with socialization issues … folks looking for a set of societal “rules” that run logically.

    We nerds like logic … it takes a few decades to figure out that logic doesn’t run social groups. It takes that same amount of time to figure out that people who disagree with you are not necessarily evil.

    Well put.

    This same kind of problem plagues much of the open carry movement, notably OpenCarry.org. We just had them wet their pants here in Texas over no one taking up their poorly-written open carry “bill”. When they couldn’t get support, they started throwing insults around, alienating and dividing pro-gun folks and threatening a coup of support against legislators who have done great amounts of work on good gun bills.

    The “full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes” attitude attitude they put forth was quite offensive. They seemed to favor open carry over any consequences their legislation might have had. I’ll agree with Sebastian that these people don’t represent the whole of the movement, but the unfortunate fact on the open carry front is that these are the kind of people in leadership over at OCDO. Just try and go over to the website and have some kind of rational discussion that goes counter to their ideologies and you will be met with the same kind of name-calling drivel that “tom” spouts off in Tam’s blog.

    They have made it clear that they don’t want to work with anyone but themselves, and then get butthurt that the TSRA and NRA won’t endorse their poorly-written legislation and bull-headed aproach to get it introduced.

    There’s no winning with these folks, and one can only hope that they will one day grow up and aquire a semblance of social understanding.

    -From one logical nerd to another.

  32. ishida says:

    And I still smell that distinct scent of elitism from the Pragmatic side.

    Get this.
    You’re no better.
    You have arseholes, Dbags, pricks, et cetera on your side as well. EVERY SIDE of EVERY MOVEMENT has them.
    The III side simply doesn’t point them out every time they are made noticable.

  33. Sebastian says:

    Doesn’t point them out? I’ll remember that next time MVB goes on a rant about me or another “prag” blogger. The difference is, our assholes aren’t our leaders.

  34. Peter says:

    “….I’ll remember that next time MVB goes on a rant about me or another “prag” blogger. The difference is, our assholes aren’t our leaders.”

    Finally we get to the truth behind this post. You don’t like it when others disagree with your chosen methodology. You didn’t need to point this jerk-face out, Tam is way more than capable of dealing with swamp life such as this.

    And anything that supports that gets a posting. I’m still looking for the place where you admonished the poster who volunteered to shoot Mike V. Monikers and accusations such as “Armchair Commandos” & “Internet Tough Guys” are fine: they support your POV. Those who choose another path are “assholes”. Got it.

    Please don’t waste the time to point out the stuff you’ve done. Yes, it’s useful and needs to be done, but that is not an accurate predictor of what will be needed in the future. If you could provide that information, you would’ve done so months ago, and Mike’s site would be bookmarked under my Utter Nonsense tab. And it’s not. His site and all the other threeper sites sit nestled in amongst all the other pro-2A sites I read regularly.

    I get it: you’re simply better than me and those with whom I agree. Too bad you don’t get it too, because then we wouldn’t have this continuous stream of sniping, snarky postings pointing out your obvious superiority.

    It’s one thing to claim the high ground, but there are limits to that. At some point you’ll realize that there are some situations where you’re going to need us, as in “Look, you can either deal with me or you can deal with those crazy f*ckers over there.” [disdain intended] Just as we will say “Go talk to Sebastian. If you cannot work something out with him, you get to deal with us.”

    Personally, I enjoy this sort of stuff, mostly because I don’t take it personally. If something bad happens, you won’t be anywhere around since you live some thousand miles away from me. I’d probably have a different opinion if you lived down the block.

    ASHA (ad nauseum) already exists. We really don’t need someone else driving wedges between us. Please stop. As much as I enjoy stuff like the Linoge/Vanderboegh Deathmatch which appeared here, it’s really not good for us.

  35. Sebastian says:

    And anything that supports that gets a posting. I’m still looking for the place where you admonished the poster who volunteered to shoot Mike V.

    That was before the comment policy, when I let everything go. That would not be accepted today. It was crap like that which convinced me to have the comment policy.

    And I do appreciate you being civil in your disagreement. It’s fair criticism.

    The good cop / bad cop routine you suggest I think could actually be useful, but I don’t think we need to play that in the situation we’re in right now. Far from being “swept from the field,” we’re actually still pretty potent politically. We just need to keep things that way. If the equation changes, I might be more willing to employ that argument. But I don’t think we’re there, and if we were, I’d be more likely to support a secessionist movement rather than a mass uprising kind of thing.

  36. Tom says:

    For the record, I am not that Tom. I also agree with workinwifdakids, while sometimes amusing, I rank her right up there with Ann Coulter.

    Finally, a giant AMEN to what Peter #36 said.

  37. Sebastian says:

    Actually, I should have made that clear. I knew that wasn’t you.

  38. Tam says:

    …while sometimes amusing, I rank her right up there with Ann Coulter.

    Ouch! That did sting, as I find Ann to be awfully shrill and lowbrow for my tastes. If I insult someone, I’d rather they not realize it until two days later, when they borrow a dictionary…

  39. Peter says:

    Thanks Sebastian. We really are on the same side here.

    However, this revolution/seccessionist thing is a false choice.

    The people giving the orders are very different folks than the people carrying them out. The Order Givers are ultimately concerned with keeping their positions of privilege. Some of them will have to go, pour encourager des autres, as they say. There are ample structures in place: interim appointments and/or special elections. There is absolutely no reason to push for any significant overthrow of what we have.

    As I said during the Letter To The Editor sh!tstorm, I sincerely doubt that we have another Jefferson or Madison learning to fingerpaint right now who will pick up the pieces from a general civil war. Fortunately, it needn’t come to that.

  40. Linoge says:

    Unfortunately, Peter, it simply is not that simple.

    Yes, the politicians are the primary problem facing us. But who do you think put them there? Sure, not everyone who elected those politicians might necessarily agree with them, but I can guarantee that a lot of the people who voted for them do. And what do you think those people will do when some other folks start deposing/detaining/dethroning/etc. the people who are providing them hand-outs, paying their mortgages, giving them power, etc. etc. etc.?

    That is my problem with the entire “threeper”/insurrectionist movement – the have craptacular target identification. Their enemy is not the government, it is not the political machine, it is not the politicians… it is the very people who put them there, and what, exactly, do they propose doing to convince those people that the insurrectionists are on the side of right? Especially when the only thing the insurrectionists bring to the table is threats of violence and violence itself?

    Their fatal mistake is the belief that the majority of Americans would support them were they to ever execute their poorly-planned, inadvised, and generally not-thought-out machinations… and, given the current political climate, I can pretty much guarantee that belief is wrong, especially considering that they cannot even make friends among people who arguably have similar political and sociological leanings.

    At any rate, Tom seems to have given the anti-rights folks more than enough ammunition to continue the whole “you need to submit to a psychological evaluation before you can buy a gun” argument, so I guess there is that… Not that I am suggesting to delete his comments – they should be preserved for all the world to see, and to haunt him in the future. But that kind of idiocy helps no one, least of all the author.

  41. Peter says:

    Fine, Linoge, whatever. You’re so sure of yourself it’s not worth trying to argue with you.

    I don’t know what’s going to happen, and neither do you. A prudent person assumes the worst and prepares accordingly. Sneering dismissiveness is not the way to win friends and influence people.

  42. Strings says:

    The only thing I’m lost on (and posted on, in the linked thread), is what Tam did to attract such an attack. I read the post… then reread it… and again. I don’t see any kind of attack on her part, so why did he post the attack? What the hell did I miss?

  43. Tom says:

    Their enemy is not the government, it is not the political machine, it is not the politicians… it is the very people who put them there, and what, exactly, do they propose doing to convince those people that the insurrectionists are on the side of right? Especially when the only thing the insurrectionists bring to the table is threats of violence and violence itself?

    And all they bring to the table is the threat of violence and violence itself from the government that has become so corrupt and self interested that a threat of force was necessary. Those people who ARE the enemy, the ones not willing to stand up for themselves in any case are the problem because they keep making sure that no recourse is left.

    You will never convince them because it is a religious belief they bring to the table, of their moral supremacy and “audacity of hope.” They hope that they can keep doing the something, something I might add is IDENTICAL to what they spent the last 8 years screaming about when the “other” side did it in foreign lands. That is to use government force to impose their views on others to get the outcome they want

    They cannot see that and they will never admit it even if they could. With a wide choice of countries that they applaud and hold up as the pinnacle of human political evolution they demand to stay here and force their flawed ideology on the rest of us in order to save us from ourselves even with immeasurable data to refute their childish failed policies.

    Linoge makes me laugh. Surely all the first time gun buyers are just collectors with no intention of ever firing a shot, those on both “sides” of the political isle. When it comes down to it people do stand up. Just because a small minority of the country that control the media were impaled on Obama’s hope and change keep spouting off about how many folks voted for him, 51% of what, 60% of voters ( 64 million votes, not including ACORN multiple votes and all the other fraud) supported a guy who wasn’t constantly attacked by the media doesn’t mean that they all actually support him. Remember HOPE AND CHANGE. That leaves a hell of a lot of folks who don’t support big mother smothering crap, and who believe that “both” of the parties have gone crazy out of control.

    To argue such a complete line of BS that they won’t support 3% when you prags yourselves argue that stating where your line in the sand is to be stupid and dangerous is a bit, well, idiotic. Especially in times like this when the government is talking about such idiotic schemes as cap and trade that will gore plenty of those poor bastards’ oxen. The truth is Linoge is every bit as keyboard commando as anyone else posting on a blog, if not worse because he still operates under the false assumption that 3pers are just sitting by finger on the trigger waiting for .gov goons to show up instead of doing all those wonderful pragmatic things he advocates.

    PS, Tam, I couldn’t care less. You want to be an irritating whatever go right ahead, just try not to be too hypocritical in your pragmatic stance. Remember, you catch more flies with honey.

  44. Strings says:

    Ok… STILL not seeing why the attack. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

    And I probably don’t do “as much as I should” for the fight: kinda busy with another fight. I do what I can though…

  45. Sebastian says:

    Tom, if 40% of Americans can’t be bothered enough to vote, how will they be bothered enough to support a revolution, which is a significantly greater commitment?

    Whether we want to admit it or not, and some days I’d rather not, this is the government most Americans think they want, or at least don’t hate enough to really change.

    The fundamental problem with the three percent movement is they don’t have an answer to what you do with the people who put this government in place in the first place. It sounds great to say you’ll restore the founders republic, but if that’s not what the voting population wants, you’re back to square one in not too short order. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand an answer to that awfully big question.

  46. Sebastian says:

    To argue such a complete line of BS that they won’t support 3% when you prags yourselves argue that stating where your line in the sand is to be stupid and dangerous is a bit, well, idiotic

    To be clear, I don’t think it’s stupid, or idiotic. I do think it’s emotionally self-serving. It’s very emotionally rewarding to draw a line in the sand. I just don’t think it’s called for right now, because we’re not losing. Despite the fact that Obama and the Democrats are overwhelmingly in power, we’re not losing.

    Granted, that could change, but for now, I don’t see any point in acting like we’re surrounded, and in imminent danger of being destroyed. If we can turn things around in 2010, we can probably get in an even better position.

  47. Strings says:

    Ok, since my question is being ignored… :P

    One problem I have with the notion of “throwing out the bums, and restoring the Republic” is the simple question of “who do we replace the current bums with?”. There’s a whole LOT of laws that would have to be gone through and edited. Or do we throw the good laws that are out there (like child pornography laws, and suchlike) on the trash heap with the bad?

  48. Sebastian says:

    I’m not ignoring you Strings, I just don’t know the answer to your question.

  49. Sebastian says:

    I don’t think there are any good answers, and I get irritated with people that pretend there are. The only think I can really figure is that you have to limit suffrage somehow. But that seems intuitively wrong in a representative republic.

    Plus, limiting suffrage has been practiced as thinly veiled racism in our country’s past. I’ve often wondered if you limited the vote to land owners, or people who paid income tax, if that would do a better job of preserving rights than universal suffrage.

    But again, it’s not really what we aspire to. But perhaps the real problem is that humans are not really capable of living up to what they aspire to, at the end of the day.

  50. Linoge says:

    Well, Sebastian said pretty much everything I was going to, and probably better than I would have managed, so I guess that makes my life a little easier.

    The fact is, this is the government a majority of those interested in doing so have voted for, and until you change the mindest of those people, no form of governmental restructuring will work.

    Oh, and here is a hint – you do not change people’s beliefs at gunpoint.

    And as a corollary to Sebastian’s point concerning the self-correcting trends of elections (in that you can certainly mount your little insurrection right now if you want, but the voting populace will put a similar government back in place when they can start voting again), Strings brings up a very valid point – once you chuck the people currently in power, who fills the void? The insurrectionists themselves? Perish the thought. Or, better yet, do the insurrectionists simply plan on subverting the whole Constitution, and keeping themselves in power by force, believing that only they know how the country “should” be?

    Yeah, I think I will step off that train, and as far away from it as I can, before it even leaves the station. For all the good the insurrectionists might or might not be doing through the appropriate channels, they are massively outweighing it by alienating not only other Americans, but other Americans of similar political bents, by their dreams and aspirations of full-on civil war… and whether they are willing to admit it or not, that is the second most-likely outcome of their machinations (with the first being a brief sputter in the night, and naught else).

    Granted, our country already survived one, but I would prefer to keep the count there.

  51. Linoge says:

    Oh, and Strings, no one is really sure what set the-other-Tom off… Supposedly Tam called him a “mall ninja” once upon a time, but hardly recently.

  52. Strings says:

    The scary part is there are people (on both sides of the aisle) who see the “next Civil War” as being similar to the last: Left v. Right, with clearly deliniated lines.

    Not gonna happen.

    If you want to see a small version of our next civil war, rent Reservoir Dogs. Pay VERY close attention to the scene at the end.

    That’s our next civil war in microcosm…

top