Do right wing trolls who support wild conspiracy theories exist?

[greyl]

It's baffling to me why so many people believe that right wing trolls come here to present rational arguments and have intelligent debate. In my opinion, that would be too difficult for the vast majority of them.
The easiest way for them to have their childish fun is by baiting and rabble rousing. Evidence exists at some of their forums that they encourage this behavior and have circle jerks about it. Rational arguments, intelligent debate, and demands for evidence aren't on the top of their list. Doesn't that make sense?

To be clear:
I know that right-wing trolls exist.
I know that trolls with no developed political or social ideology exist.
I know that viral marketing exists, and that companies pay and are paid to carry it out.
I know that right wing trolls exist who try to disrupt authentic, logical discussions.
I know that the DU rules say to alert on suspected trolls.
I think that publicly accusing groups of a type of person of being trolls is counterproductive, and that it's best to judge any arguments on their inherent merit or weaknesses rather than who is making the argument. It's best to hit "alert" and stop giving attention to someone you suspect is a troll.

If you want to do some research before answering, Wikipedia has an awesome troll article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Trolls

How to deal with trolls:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/

Final note: The poll question is not whether some conspiracy theories turn out to be true or not, or if all those against the OCT (whatever that is) are rw trolls.

[mirandapriestly]

1. do a search for "9-11" and "democratic underground"

you come up with a lot of hits for freepers talking about what people say on the site. Some of them talk about how they go to the site in disguise and how funny it is. I can imagine how some might get obsessed with it, plus they're not that bright, usually.

[salvorhardin]

2. I agree right up to that last point

it's best to judge any arguments on their inherent merit or weaknesses rather than who is making the argument.

That's a good idea in general. However in terms of specifics there are some people who are less reputable than others . For instance, I feel no need to entertain any claims made by Pat Robertson, or to entertain anyone who makes claims based upon claims made by Robertson. Similarly, I place David Icke, David Irving, Michael Rivero, anything written in any Willis Carto publication (such as TBR News) and more in the same category of being so ridiculously incredible that they earn my instant scorn as do people who put forth the their idiocy. Of course I got to that point by investing significant time into evaluating these people's claims.

Now someone like A.K. Dewdney is more complicated.

[greyl]

6. Hmmm, I know exactly where you're coming from, however

what then you tell someone who says "I feel no need to entertain claims made by *whoever*"? (James Randi for example)

[salvorhardin]

7. Well, it's complicated

Unfortunately most people want simple, but...

As I wrote over in Election Reform...

...in the end we have to trust in someone

Because we need other people to act as filters for us. No one has the time or energy or knowledge to sift through every claim and evaluate it properly. So when Steven Weinberg says something about physics, for instance, I tend to believe him a priori because many other people I trust vouch for his credentials and the things he's said in the past have proven themselves to be accurate. OTOH, I tend to immediately distrust Pat Robertson when he speaks about biology because I *know* he is not credentialed, has never invested any time in serious independent study and everything he says on the topic of biology ultimately shows itself to be utter crap. Also, I think over time we learn to detect that "paranoid style" or crank quality. For example, when I view the Nature's Harmonic 4-Sided Day Time Cube website I instantly recognize it as the work of a crank (or brilliant satirist -- I'm not sure which). With RFK Jr. it becomes a little harder to recognize that crank style.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=435297&mesg_id=435591

So it comes down to another type of critical thinking skill -- how do you choose your filters? You can't just choose based on whether or not you like what they're saying, or it agrees with your own beliefs. There has to be a critical process by which you decide on whether or not a person is credible to speak on a particular subject.

One such criteria, and a pretty good one I think, is to look at how a particular person argues their own claims. Are they themselves using good critical thinking skills, are they engaging in the kind of logical shortcircuits that lead to error? Are they basing their arguments on quality sources? And so on. Holocaust deniers and antisemitics have a propensity to playing fast and loose with historical fact (sometimes manufacturing it on the spot). In other words, they have track records of lying. Why should I believe them when it comes to anything else? Especially when bits and pieces of their antisemitic bigotry get incorporated into everything they do? Now, why should I trust someone who bases their arguments on claims made by holocaust deniers and antisemitics? Should I trust someone who writes for a neo-nazi owned website? If someone considers David Duke a hero, are they using critical thinking skills?

Of course, there's also the matter of accreditation in a field. A.K. Dewdney is a man I respect greatly when it comes to mathematics, but do his knowledge and skills translate to physics? Civil engineering? Do other physicists or civil engineers consider Dewdney qualified to speak about failure modes of skyscrapers?

And there's that crank style I mentioned above. It's hard to learn how to recognize it, but over time you do and it becomes easily recognizable.

[greyl]

8. Ah, very nicely done. The art of critical thinking.

This does bring up some complicated stuff. Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" covers areas of the issue.
I think the choice approach depends heavily on the nature of the arguments or statements at hand.

I'm still curious how you'd handle the objection to Randi though. My first response would be to point out the ad hominem and refocus the debate back to the actual argument, rather than to a defense of his authority.
I guess there's nothing wrong with using both barrels, eh?

[salvorhardin]

9. There isn't anything wrong with using both barrels

In fact, I think critical thinking actually arrays over several dimensions.

One of the articles I've been pointing people at lately is Howard Gabennesch's Critical Thinking, What Is It Good For? (In Fact, What Is It?) that appeared in the March 2006 Skeptical Inquirer. It's online: http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-02/thinking.html

In CTWIIGFIFWII, Gabennesch lays out three dimensions along which he believes critical thinking lies. It's pretty standard stuff in so far as he focuses on skills, but it's the other two dimensions that intrigue me.

Critical thinking is the use of rational skills, worldviews, and values to get as close as possible to the truth.

Now the worldview dimension is one that I've argued for a long time and basically amounts to recognizing that we as humans are inherently faulty perceivers of reality. There's so many ways in which our brains and senses get it wrong. A lot of times our senses and perceptions end up failing to present an accurate picture of reality precisely because they're operating perfectly. For instance, the way the neurons in our eyes are wired has evolved over time gives us a greater ability to distinguish edges (lateral inhibition). It has the effect of enhancing edges, which might make us better at distinguishing prey at a distance from the underbrush. But in some instances it means we're perceiving something that isn't there. One demonstration of this are Mach Bands, another would be the Hermann-Hering Grid
http://www.langara.bc.ca/psychology/brightness.htm
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hermann-HeringIllusion.html

But Gabennesch's values dimension is not something I'd really considered prior to reading CTWIIGFIFWII, and something we don't really talk about that much as skeptics. That's a shame I think because it's probably one thing that really distinguishes us from non-skeptics. In short, Gabennesch feels that real critical thinking requires adopting a sense of intellectual due process, a recognition that getting as close to the truth as possible requires certain values that are often hard to uphold, but the alternative is not only unpalatable, but possibly dangerous.

Subjecting ideas to intellectual due process can require more integrity, humility, tolerance of uncertainty, and courage than most of us find easy to summon. No wonder we will join a wild-eyed, slobbering lynch mob from time to time.

In any case, I haven't read Blink but after looking at it's description on Amazon it does seem like Gladwell is dealing with how we filter information based on credibility. I can't remember which book it was, but Douglas Hofstadter has also dealt with it at some length (I want to say the collection of his Metamagical Themas columns for SciAm but I'm blanking).

As far as Randi goes, he doesn't make arguments based on fields of expertise that he is not practiced in. Instead Randi uses his skills as a professional liar (magician) to ask himself, "If I were going to fake this, how would I do it?" Then he simply sets up conditions that would disprove his ideas about how something could be faked and gives claimants the opportunity to prove him wrong. That nobody has done so yet is all the more galling to people who want to believe in psychic mumbo-jumbo and other nonsense.

More so, since he's been doing this for many decades now he's become an expert at illuminating fakery and is able to use his own expert knowledge of fakery to spot it wherever he finds it in very short order. Also, it's not like Randi doesn't consult with experts in various fields when needed. So when it comes to arguing a very specific claim, that of fakery, Randi is indeed authoritative -- in his field.

On edit: The reason the worldview dimension is important, the reason why it's important to recognize the limits of human sensation and perception, is that it means we need some other method for evaluating the world other than simply our experiences. Actually, a better way of putting it would be that we need a method for evaluating our experiences and gaging how accurately they reflect the real world. I think undoubtedly that the scientific method is the single best way we have of doing that but short of performing experiments, which most of the time we're not able to do, then critical thinking skills are the next best thing. Or are the two complementary?

[greyl]

36. That's a damn good article.

I agree that as a "General Theory" the worldview dimension is extremely important in ones day to day attitude toward the barrage of information coming at us.
Under certain circumstances however, "Special Theories" of critical thinking ie logic, can be more appropriate or reliable. For example, if we're evaluating the statement of someone we know nothing about on a message board, the General Theory begins to lose relevance and we're forced to focus on the statement itself. Of course we'd likely take note of any subtle evidence that may be available in a post, but that's treading on even more fuzzy territory, and is best reserved till subtle evidence accumulates.

More importantly I think, when trying to convince someone else that an argument is valid or not, I don't think a strict following of the rules of logic can lead the discussion away from truth. I realize that the worldview dimension is more closely related with attacking the body of arguments someone has presented than with attacking the person(ad hominem) but still, the next claim after 30 false ones may be truthful. ;)

[salvorhardin]

43. I disagree... sort of.

Just to briefly reiterate...
1) Skills -- the tools we bring to critical thinking
2) Worldview -- Recognition that human perception is imperfect and that we are emotion driven creatures
3) Values -- Seeing as important the attempt to get as close to truth as possible despite the time, mental effort and possible emotional discomfort that might entail

You said...

More importantly I think, when trying to convince someone else that an argument is valid or not, I don't think a strict following of the rules of logic can lead the discussion away from truth. I realize that the worldview dimension is more closely related with attacking the body of arguments someone has presented than with attacking the person(ad hominem) but still, the next claim after 30 false ones may be truthful. ;)

If we were talking about dealing with another scientific skeptic (as distinguished from 9-11 skeptics), someone who has the skills, worldview and values, then I'd agree 100%.

But we're frequently not dealing with other scientific skeptics, and all too often the person is advancing their own argument not based on critical thinking skills but based on their own worldview and values. And in so far as their worldview and values are counter to the scientific skeptical worldview and values then they are pretty much immune to reason. As I noted at my site, I think we're starting to get into Lakoff's territory here and the it might be useful to start thinking about the conceptual metaphors of non-scientific skeptics and how we might use them to present our own message (framing). Because the logic alone won't convince them.

We're not inherently rational creatures. I'd say that to base our arguments solely on logic and reason, omitting discussion of the worldview and values of the claimant, as if we were logical beings is to elide our own worldview.

[greyl]

49. No you don't. ;)

Somewhat kidding, but I do think what appears to be a whole disagreement is only a difference in specific application.

The people you speak of whose worldview and values are counter to the scientific skeptical worldview and values - the anti-intellectuals we've spoken of before - are ignorant of the cohesive effects of logic.
In my opinion, this lack of logical awareness is what lets their worldview get so damn haywire in the first place. They latch onto statements that are emotionally satisfying; that satisfy their gestalt. You and I both know that when they use that as a measure of truth, they're only adding bricks to the wall between the verifiable world and themselves.


(I mentioned "Blink" in the skeptics forum many months ago, I'd love to hear what you think of it and talk about in there) :)

[salvorhardin]

52. I didn't think of it as a whole disagreement

Just a partial one.

Lack of logical awareness. Hmm. I really like my framing of the scientific skeptical worldview better as realizing that human perception is inherently flawed and our values of putting in the hard work to get around that.

But yeah, they're satisfying their gestalt.

[greyl]

53. I really like "The Art of Critical Thinking" idea.

I do know, and agree with, where you're coming from here. :)

[salvorhardin]

54. "Art of Critical Thinking"

Now there's an idea for a coffee table book, Kramer. ;-)

[greyl]

55. If only

it could turn... into critical thinking.

[salvorhardin]

56. So, you're saying

It needs to be a pop-up book? ;-)

[greyl]

57. that's Exactly what I'm saying.

No more, no less. ;)

[MervinFerd]

12. Communities of expertise.

Watching the local fauna, I have come to appreciate the importance of the -community- of experts.

We believe Global Warming is a real problem because the academic -community- of climate scientists has come to a consensus on the subject. Without a lifetime of study, we can't evaluate an individual computer model. An individual scientist might be well-regarded and honest, but have a flaw in his code. But, if hundreds or thousands of trained people have debated the topic and there are no serious objection raised, lay persons must accept the conclusion.

Likewise, much of our vastly complex technological world--building and operating jetliners or skyscrapers, medical science--- requires not just the expertise of many people in many disciplines but also institutions and organizations that can maintain standards and train future practitioners. The conclusions of these -communities- are more significant than the opinion of any individual.

One of the necessary and novel logical fallacies of conspiracism is the conceit that 'research' by isolated individuals without formal training is commensurate with the conclusions of the expert community. Thus, the vast pseudoscience on building collapses.

[salvorhardin]

14. Yes! Absolutely!

I should have been more clear in my post, but I had this in mind as well. It gets back to some of the same problems raised by James Burke in the last episode of the original Connections. And that was back in the late 1970s. Of course, he did not do much to answer those questions other than to suggest that in the grand scheme of things that the scientists and engineers were more important because they at least give us a method for evaluating, and proposing and testing solutions. Whereas the artists only offer second or third hand interpretations that they might not even be fully qualified to make. Now, I don't like the way he worded that because I don't think a scientist's life is necessarily more important than anyone else's, but I understand what he was getting at. No one, not even scientists, can be competently knowledgeable in all fields. Often times people are not even competently knowledgeable in every aspect of their own field. So yeah, we have to depend on communities of experts to work out things in their fields as best as possible. It isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got and probably the best we can hope for.

The other grand conceit that conspiracists offer is that communities of experts can't be trusted because they're either in the employ of the conspiracy or dupes. That, I think, is ignorance (sometimes willful) of the complexity of social behavior and an attempt to boil down complex, interconnected social relations to an overly simplistic model of the world and that ultimately is why I find conspiracism to be a 'flawed worldview' (Chip Berlet's term -- http://www.publiceye.org/top_conspire.html).

[MervinFerd]

17. Yes. The New World Order?

<<communities of experts can't be trusted because they're either in the employ of the conspiracy or dupes. That, I think, is ignorance (sometimes willful) of the complexity of social behavior and an attempt to boil down complex, interconnected social relations to an overly simplistic model of the world>>

Traditional conspiracy theories have invoked some large all-powerful entity to explain all things. In the '30s it was the Jews. In the '50s it was Communism. In the '90s, it was the Secret Government and the UN. Some of the websites pushing 9/11 conspiracies also push New World Order or Secret Government and one site goes into Holocaust Denial.

My impression is that the local folk avoid such questions by focusing on pseudo-technical analyses--'proving' the towers fell because of explosives or there were no airplanes--ATbut avoiding the question of -who- actually did the deed.

The RW Conspiracy theories have had powerful (bad) effects. My impression is that the 9/11 movement has mostly neutered itself--by drifting into ever more improbable theories and by failing to develop a suitable monster. Conspiracism isn't really a good fit for the Left, but the internet may have something to do with this also. With no mechanism to filter out the complete nonsense, nonsense prevails.

[HamdenRice]

3. Imagine someone with this posting record

He/she/it has several thousand posts on DU, but a search shows that all those posts are in the Pets Group, and the only contribution he/she/it makes to the Pets Group is to advocate the Korean dish, Bosintang.

[greyl]

4. Hmm, the results in GD were very different.

Zero votes No, 22 votes Yes.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1490292&mesg_id=1490292

[greyl]

67. Imagine someone with a lengthy record of posting lies. nt

[Americus]

5. Define "support". Plenty of RW trolls PROMOTE the 9/11 OCT

* There are certainly plenty of RW trolls that support the 9/11OCT.

* Plenty of trolls that support and PROMOTE the 9/11OCT.

* Plenty of OCT'ers who may well be nothing more than paid advocates who'd support and promote the notion that the Bush administration wouldn't lie about something like 9/11. In their personal lives, they may well be Democrats, Frisbyterians, Republicans, Red/Greens, Libertarians (or Libyans/Liberians) or maybe even members of the New American Birthday Party.

Know anyone that fits one or more of the above?

[DemInDistress]

10. I didn't vote but I want to say this..

it saddens me to see that their are Democrats who also accept the Official 911 Report. People are entitled to their own opinions and I don't come down hard on them. The facts are the facts greyl. Neither NIST FEMA or that "ludicrous" 911 official report can explain or prove 19 arabs/fire brought down World Trade 7 and that's the bad loose end.
I can see freeps defending the chimp hell, they voted for him. I am also a believer in cognitive dissonance (did I get that right?). Who would want to believe "OUR GOVERNMENT" WOULD COMMIT SUCH ATROCITIES. Not me. AND greyl on 911 I as much as I hated King George the Imbecile gave him the benefit of the doubt and supported America. Off to war in Afghanistan.
As the weeks and months passed what did I learn? Bush and Cheney both blocked an independent investigation of the 911 attacks. They allowed the man we're hunting to escape Tora Bora in Dec 01' that's when I got off that train wreck. All during 2002 the drumbeats of war in Iraq was blasting the air. I knew something stunk.
It wasn't until Jan. 2004 I bought a computer quickly learned the basics and off on the hunt I went. My first and best friend cooperative research said it all.

Yes greyl, bush knew cheney knew rumsey knew and a few other key players knew there would be a spectacular attack on America.

To sum up: "911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" period.

[MervinFerd]

13. But do they fly Holographic Airplanes?

Dem,
We can have a rational discussion about how much the Admin knew about 9/11. The points you raise are compatible with guilty knowledge, but also with neglect and incompetence. But, we can discuss this questions sensibly.

But, "No planes hit the Twin Towers"? That's like claiming JFK was -actually- poisoned and his body dumped in New Jersey. It denies facts witnessed, in one way or another, by multitudes of people. I honestly don't see any way to debate this rationally. And the constant noise about such stuff has no effect except to block serious discussion.

If you will actually listen to us "OCTers" you will find that we are not exactly friendly to the Bush admin. Pretty damn hostile, actually. The question is NOT whether we can believe that Bush would do Evil if he could. The question is what Evil he COULD do if he would. And what we can actually prove.

Bush and Cheney are human; they don't have supernatural powers and we do not live in a James Bond movie.

[salvorhardin]

15. Well said again! n/t

[rman]

11. Moon landing hoax is FOX's favorite

Which doesn't mean that all those in the RW who believe it are trolls. But still.

[CJCRANE]

22. I have a friend

who everytime I talk about the politics of 9/11 and the GWOT says something like
"yeah and you believe the moon-landings were fake and JFK was killed by aliens".

The thing is, I've never mentioned the moon-landings or JFK in one of our discussions.

[rman]

27. Yep, RW-ers love to tell you what you think,

(and what feelings you have, if the occasion arrises).
Ie It's not uncommon for them to insist that 9-11 CT-ers blame jews for 9-11.

[CJCRANE]

30. Yes - that's the other one!

I've never mentioned jews or Israel either!

[Lilith Velkor]

60. I was accused of that just for being against the Iraq war

That's how I ended up checking out this here 9/11 basement.

Weird thing is, the accuser had been a liberal before, and now he's convinced all liberals are out to get him.

It's the post-traumatic stress. Damn shame, that.

[greyl]

23. You don't have to believe something to "support it" on a message board.

Know what I mean?

[rman]

28. Tell me about it.

ok, don't - i know what you mean.

[greyl]

61. Do you really? Please tell me about it. nt

[libertypirate]

16. Liberal 'corporate' media /nt

[Rich Hunt]

18. There is a difference between ...

....a troll and someone who comes here with an intent to foment divide-and-conquer and promote far right disinformation.

If you think the far right doesn't aim to do such a thing, you're really naive. They have ALWAYS attempted to do this, and with some funding and protection, they can pull it off to the extent that people are in denial about its possibility.

[mirandapriestly]

21. Yes, it's not so far fetched

Searches done on google or yahoo frequently come up with hits from DU. Right-wingers don't want someone to do a search for 9-11 and get hits from "DU" and start reading about how the temperatures were not hot enough to soften steel, the wtc7 and it's mysterious "collapse", and other information, so they might want to have posters "disprove" that information, even though they are not really disproving it, the casual viewer will think "oh, well that other DUer doesn't agree and he says he is a nuclear physicist, a pilot, retired military , and an attorney, plus he says he was there that day and saw Mohammad Atta praising Allah in the cockpit before the impact". They will think the poster is a progressive/liberal not being aware they only post OCT in 9-11 and they will think "oh good, I don't have to worry that I was lied to about this, I can continue my belief system, phew".
On DU forums other than 9-11, they will see divisiveness and ridicule/flaming toward fellow DUers as well, often by the same posters, but they won't realize that.

[greyl]

24. I would call them a troll as well.

There are many different species of troll.

[Tin Man]

19. Absolutely yes.

No doubt in my mind - there's no shortage of agent provocateurs around these parts, seeking to make DU look bad.

[dailykoff]

20. Sure. Islamofacism is a threat, Al Qaeda terror cells exist,

firebombing Falluja was necessary, depleted uranium is harmless, the DoD reports all casualties, etc etc etc.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

29. Not so quick

Islamofacism is a threat - just look at the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and associated groups. It is a significant political force in many muslim nations, even though it isn't necessarily supported by a majority of the population. Oddly enough it traces back to a point where it converges with US fascist corporatists (Bush, Dupont, Morgan, etc).

Al Qaeda terror cells probably do exist, though not necessarily very many, and we can only guess how many of those have as their only contact with AQ some covert agent posing as an AQ member (see the Miami 7).

The fact that firebombing Falluja was not necessary, depleted uranium is not harmless, the DoD does not report all casualties, etc, doesn't change anything about the above.

[MervinFerd]

58. Uhhhhhhhh. Isn't that what a lot of us Shills have been saying?

Conspiracism diverts energy from real issues to.....holographic airplanes, Secret Governments, ThermAte (whatever that is).

[mirandapriestly]

26. Your O.P. doesn't make any sense

does anybody else see this? I'm not saying this to be mean or because you're OCT but so much of what you say doesn't make any sense, greyl. Occasionally, I've tried to be nice, but you just talk in circles. The title is really general and does not relate to the body of the post. And further, do you really think that the OCT on this forum engage in rational discussion? Take a look at Mervin Ferd's post above. Most of your posts make no sense whatsoever. I mean, I seriously wonder if you have some sort of communication/writing problem and you post here as an exercise in trying to improve it because a therapist recommended it or something. If that's true, you have a lot of work ahead of you.

[BuddyYoung]

31. Maybe he's trying to suggest/promote the idea that right-wing trolls

that post here at DU are sincere, rational, reasonable, and sincere, and therefore it is unfair to question their motivation for being here. Progressive posters here could make the same argument:

"Most (there's the weasel) Progressive posters here at DU do NOT support irrational conspiracy theories...unlike our counterparts from the other side".

[greyl]

32. Where would someone with any reading comprehension skills get that idea?

Don't answer that, I know.
Ones ass.

[BuddyYoung]

33. I'm sorry about your "caboose" problem, but IMO it really DOES seem

that many right-wing ideas come from the bottom part of the anatomy, whereas progressive ideas come from the highest part of the anatomy. Higher thinking, more elevated ideas, and all that.

[greyl]

35. That's in total support of my point

that the idea came from someones ass.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

48. Dearest Buddy Young,

No.
Sincerely,
greyl

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MervinFerd]

37. Conspiracy Theories ARE Right Wing. Inherently and unavoidably.

If you believe "The Government" is an evil force that can do almost anything, that's hard Right Wing.

Check out the whole of prominent Conspiracist sites. You'll find: New World Order conspiracy, UN Conspiracy, Secret Government, Shadow Government, Holocaust denial. All intermixed with 9/11 fantasy.

It's unavoidable.

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. The government is not an evil force

People are.

[MervinFerd]

39. "People" are and evil force? Wow! I kind of like people.

I'm one of them. And most are decent and mostly honest and do the best they can.

[DoYouEverWonder]

40. I was referring you

I was referring to the people who are in control of the WH and most of the rest of our government at the moment. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about who the people were that I was referring to.

[MervinFerd]

41. The WH can do nothing without the 'people' who do the actual work.

So, if you blame 'Bush' for 9/11, you are -really- blaming a lot of 'Government workers' and 'bureaucrats' and 'soldiers', who would have done the actual dirty deed.

And, if you claim the evidence of the dirty deed is plainly available, you are -also- blaming all the investigators and journalists who have participated in the coverup.

So, I think "People are Evil" is pretty much your position.

[Lilith Velkor]

59. People follow orders and try not to make trouble

Have you been fortunate enough to never have had a sociopath for a boss?

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

44. re: right wing trolls

Isn't that the name of the groove the Zamboni machine always leaves behind, near the boards at the blue lines?

[salvorhardin]

45. I don't know about that

But Right Wing Trolls would be a great name for a jam band. Come to think of it, Zamboni Groove would make a neat name band name too -- maybe a jazz fusion trio.

[greyl]

50. Oh please not a jam band.

That would be too cool.
This is how I imagine them:

[salvorhardin]

51. Yes, yes, I think you've nailed the essence

The essence of Young Republican, upper-middle class, pseudo-Bohemianism that is Right Wing Trolls. Opening for Ted Nugent this Friday, after which Nugent will shoot, stuff and mount them live on stage. I hear he's barbecuing a roadie as an encore.

Speaking of pseudo-Bohemianism, did you hear that Ann Coulter was a Deadhead?
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/06/24/ann_coulter_the_deadhead

[Grateful for Hope]

46. A statement I agree with...

this:

"I think that publicly accusing groups of a type of person of being trolls is counterproductive, and that it's best to judge any arguments on their inherent merit or weaknesses rather than who is making the argument. It's best to hit "alert" and stop giving attention to someone you suspect is a troll."

I think is is absolutely correct, and how I wish this forum would be.

[greyl]

62. .

[greyl]

63. Kick.nt

[CJCRANE]

64. Hey look over here:

Internet Archive Authenticates BBC Video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x146217

(Yes, I noticed that sneaky little kick, so here's my sneaky little plug for another thread).

[greyl]

65. The authenticity of that video was never in question other

than by a couple Inside Job Cultists whom I could name.

[CJCRANE]

66. Cool go ahead.

I'm not an "Inside Job Cultist" so it makes no difference to me
(unless you're on the "OCT Tag Team" that is!)

;)

[greyl]

68. How can I impress upon you that this labeling bullshit is worthless?

On what grounds do we ridicule Bush's statement "you're either with us or against us"?

Peeance, freeance.

[CJCRANE]

69. I was joking!

I know that we are both individuals with our own opinions. I don't have any personal connection with anyone else on this board and I assume the same is true for you.

[greyl]

70. The authenticity of that video isn't up for debate. nt

[CJCRANE]

72. Fair enough.

In fact I cross-posted to that thread because I thought my reply to boloboffin re. "plane-huggers" needed it a bit more exposure.
I.e. I am interested in the 9/11 money-trail not CD or "plane-hugging" or NPT ETC ETC.

[Grateful for Hope]

71. You are using labels also

"inside job cultists" is a derogatory label.

[greyl]

73. Is it ok, or isn't it? nt

[barbtries]

74. i can't answer your question because i'm not sure i get it

as far as i'm concerned the OCT is a "wild conspiracy theory" - my perception of most right wing trolls is that they tend to spout that claptrap as if it's stone religion.

[SocraticTruths]

75. The biggest conspiracy websites are right wing

Rense, Prison Planet, What Really Happened are all right wing websites. The lefties have always been in the forefront railing against illegal wars and true conspiracies committed by pigs. This idea that lefties are the ones most behind all these conspiracy theories is a psy-op, you know, the loony left crap, and it's just not the truth, it is just part of the divide and conquer astroturfing that takes place on the internet. It is obvious that the shites in power aren't worried about anything being circulated on the television. "Their" strategy is to flood the internet with so much spam and rubbish, that anything good becomes hidden like needles in haystacks.