Republitrolls.

Is that how it really happens?

I’ve seen genuine disgust, pain and confusion and an attempt to find out why anyone would vote for donnie. But you never get a real answer. I see plenty of thoughtful posts trying to reason with something on the left. And you know how it ends. That’s the reason this thread exists. They are just trolling to get a reaction and no convo ever takes place. Sometimes I think that the right, here anyway, only exists to hate democrats and sneer. They avoid arguing rationally about other things like the economy, environment, the middle class, social issues, because they have lost all the actual ground arguments on these issues. The only thing left is “We won” It’s not a good look. I don’t post here to watch righties in pain and I don’t like to be treated that way.

I agree. I don’t like that atom-whatever character anyway. He or she seems like a complete idiot.

But in all honesty, I feel like HurricaneDitka fully believes the asinine things he posts.

His obvious blindness to facts and reality might’ve made me a little too eager to join in on the name calling. I believe these things may make him functionally trollish, but I agree that he and most of the others on Morgenstern’s list aren’t actually trolls.

That’s nonsense. Plenty of people have answered why they vote or support the way they do. And then condescending doofuses from the left tell them what they really think. And it usually has to do with nothing that the person said and is usually some accusation of bigotry or racism. I don’t think you actually read these boards critically if you believe half of what you write.

Tell you what, ask nicely and don’t tell others what they think and you may get a productive conversation. Act like a smug and condescending jackass and don’t be surprised if people look to act against you.

This describes Trump perfectly.

I take your point but do you not see the drawbacks of this method? Each liberal poster who has received a particularly telling reply from a conservative whch leaves him or her feeling humiliated or butthurt comes to this thread and nominates for a troll the poster who had bested him.

There is much evidence of that here. With my suggested alternative there can be no question of bias. :wink:

I think there clearly is a misunderstanding about what a republitroll is. Too many are confusing republitrolls with republitards. Republitrolls are a subset of Republicans. Republitards are a subset of tards. Tards are, of course, a subset of morons. One group doesn’t necessarily preclude, nor does it automatically include, membership in the other.

In his 2016 book, * Defining Message Board Behavior*, Harry Fourskyns defines republitards as;
Individuals who, if bipedal, are the first generation in their family to be so. Otherwise, they can be identified by large knuckles, calloused from constant dragging, hairy backs, unibrows, soft spots in their skulls and spittal drooling from their open mouths as they breath. The textbook examples of republitards are, of course, OMG, Humpy and octopus. Sorry, octopus, OmG and Humpy. I need to put octopus first to make him feel important and loved. Republitardism can be successfully treated with a regiment of benzodiazepines, carbamazepine and zolpidem, and of course, regular professional care.

It so happens that these three are also republitrolls. Republitrolls typically have a higher IQ than republitard, although, as these three prove, it’s not always the case. Normally they don’t wet the bed unless excited or frustrated, which often happens in message board posting. They are known to change their underwear more than once a week, in fact, some even report washing them between uses. Republitrolls sometimes reaching as high as 30% coherency in their screeds. They can participate in normal threads in meaningful ways, but are easily derailed by the mention of a prominent Republican, wherein they lose control of their speech and bladders and begin blathering.

I hope this helps clear up the misunderstanding. Sorry for the confusion.

Orcs don’t “flounce.”

Awww, how cute. You think that one all up by yourself?

There is no cure.

Yeah, I basically agree with this. The trio of imbeciles I mentioned previously imagine themselves somewhere between Dennis Miller (ha ha!) and the Joker (ha ha!) but are really Nelson Muntz (ha ha!)

Muntzians are a lot of unfortunate things, but insincere they’re not.

You are just triggered since I rightfully call you a deluded loon for thinking California is going to secede peacefully. Though with an intellectual giant such as yourself part of the treasonous movement perhaps I’m mistaken.

Yeah, I disagree with Hurricane on a lot of things when I read them here, but he does seem to be a fairly reasonable person and not just a knee-jerk “OBAMA IS A MARXIST!!!LIBERALS DID ALL THE BAD TO THIS WORLD” type. I wouldn’t put him on the list. I dont’ even think octopus belongs on it. The rest, though, I pretty much see little to no point in engaging in any political talk (which I avoid here for the most part, anyway) because the answers are 100% predictable. There are many posters on the left here, too, that I feel the same way about.

I know I have a rep of feeding the trolls, but I engage as I do because I knew people who act and discuss things just like pretty much every long-time Doper accused of right-wing trollery while I was in the Navy, and they were all sincere. Some of them were assholes, but they were sincere assholes. So I’ll join the camp that these guys are probably sincere, and some of them are assholes.

It’s not so much sincerity as it is ideological brainwashing. There are some people who simply will not admit the other side did something good. I can’t imagine some of these posters say a single damn good thing about Obama, but I could name a few things I liked about W and his policies (starting the auto industry bailout, for one), his father was a decent president, one of my favorites and a Republican I can only dream for these days. Similarly, I do expect to actually agree with Trump every once in awhile. I can’t understand a political position where one believes in 100% of the party line and that 0% of what the opposition does is good.

No, Breitboy, no.

Notice anything about this sentence?:

*** “Act like a smug and condescending jackass and don’t be surprised if people look to act against you.”***

It’s more an attitude that they are here to win points. As if there is some scoreboard that they have, and every time they manage to irritate their “enemy”, they chalk up another victory.

That’s fine in the pit. If people are offended by what happens here, then they should not post or read here. If people look to examples of what happens here as examples of hypocrisy, they are doing it wrong.

I don’t know if it’s trolling, but deliberately misunderstanding or misattributing the debate opponent, and then either taking offense to that misunderstanding, or using that misunderstanding to assert the other poster is stupid, is becoming more and more of a point scoring tactic, among those who keep score that way.

It does not contribute to education, understanding, or enlightenment, it is purely antagonistic.

Now antagonism is not inherently a bad thing. Poking holes in other’s arguments is a good way to improve them. But antagonism, with the goal of scoring points, with the goal of making yourself look superior to the other poster, is not constructive, and leads to the people who do come here with the intention of contributing to leave in disgust.

Some of us feel we “score points” when we learn something, or when we contribute to helping someone else learn or understand something. That is taken advantage of others, who feel the score points when they obfuscate and avoid learning or understanding. Even more if they manage to spread that ignorance. And they feel they absolutely won when they get a valuable fighter against ignorance to leave the game.

We are playing different games on the same court. They may operate under the same rules as to what is a violation, but with the different scoring strategy, one side declares victory, while the other side didn’t ever wish to be in a competition.

Maybe there’s a simple litmus test for Republitardism. Ask them the following:

“When Obama spoke at Roanoke, Virginia on July 13, 2012, his speech contained the phrase you didn’t build that. What, precisely, do you think the word that refers to?”

A literate honest person could find and present the correct answer easily and briefly. A moderately intelligent Republitard will write hundreds of words to try to explain what Obama actually meant, in a manner least favourable to Obama. A typical Republitard will answer easily, briefly, and wrong.

Yes. It describes the people I’m responding to. Which is why I typed it. If people on this site were polite they’d get politeness in kind. But don’t cry when someone who,you treat badly responds in kind. Duh!

Breitboy, you’re wrong again.

I’m going to flip all the cards over and tell you that it is a statement which exhibits the problems which it is supposed to be pointing at, and therefore reflects such disingenuous hypocrisy that it is a parody of real speech. Thanks for playing and better luck next time on “To Torture The Truth”

I could take that challenge - a polite fact-based analysis of what the Obama administration has done and what a Trump administration is expected to do - with no personal animosity or presumptions of intellectual shortcomings. I admit the “fact-based” part is more important to me than the “polite” part.