georgeob1 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
How does one "troll" on a thread that one started? Nobody twists anybody's arm to contribute to a thread. Most of us simply pass by threads that are not interesting to us. This must be an interesting topic to many for it to generate as many posts as it has generated. The thread starter must be really hitting some nerves too as the posts become more and more personally hostile toward him.
You are presupposing that it is all of those who disagree with okie who are at fault and that okie himself is above criticism.
And you are not being presumptious re what I am presupposing when nothing in my post can be pointed to as a presupposition? Especially when I said in back to back posts that I don't necessarily agree with Okie on all his points? And when I made it clear that I (and I think Okie) had no objection to those who disagreed with him?
My quarrel was with those who presume to judge Okie (or anybody else) and make all sorts of personal presumptions because they don't agree with him and because he wasn’t willing to be their intellectual lapdogs, roll over, and automatically accept their counter argument as superior to his. Have you now joined the crowd of those who condemn people who defend their different point of view?
Quote:The thread did indeed start with some rather superficial observations by okie about some apparently common characteristics among some fairly hateful political leaders in history and the contemporary world. Asherman (I believe) correctly pointed out that one must also look for these traits among "normal' people to come up with a meaningful correlation. Others noted (correctly) that correlation and causation are not the same thing. Okie persistently ignores these cautions and simply presses on...
How detailed does an opening post have to be, and what amount of content must be included to not be branded as ‘superficial’ by you? Did you overlook the several members who did find the subject interesting and added their own comments and observations which, in my opinion, is what an opening post invites people to do? My respected friend Asherman was among those and while, he did expand on Okie’s theme and expanded on it by adding additional considerations that must be included in a full discussion, but he didn’t find it necessary to argue ad hominem or in an insulting manner to do it.
And Okie thanked him for his observations and explained that he had a family and a job and didn’t have time to do a full dissertation. That is ignoring the cautions?
Quote:Without resolving these questions the thread quickly morphed into okie's observation that tyranny, however it arises, is invariably a "left wing" political phenomenon. It is not clear that he goes so far as to assert that all left wing political movements invariably end up in tyranny, but he has implied this. These nonsensical views fly in the face of so much of known history as to leave an informed observer a bit breathless. When challenged on this point, okie comes up with some undocumented quote "establishing" that Hitler was a socialist. Ignoring the obvious fact that, even if true, this proves nothing, okie gets downright abusive when he is challenged on this rather astounding point by Walter.
I haven't read the entire thread because it took a direction that was not of particular interest to me, but I have a very difficult time picturing Okie ever getting abusive with anybody. He might respond in kind to those who are being abusive. Are you suggesting that Walter never is?
And please don't tell me that you are blaming Okie because the thread morphed into something different from how it started out. Do you condemn everybody who starts a thread and that happens?
Quote:Now Foxfyre gets a bit testy with those frustrated by okie's persistent illogic; distortion of fact and analysis; and repeated non-sequitors, accusing them of various forms of mean-spiritedness. The fact that okie started this thread does not mean he "owns" the conversation. It also does not excuse his persistent ignoring of well-founded objections to his somewhat absurd theorizing and abuse of those who - in response to his challenges - offer it.
The point has been repeatedly made and ignored. Authoritarian, top-down governments have arisen on both the left and right ends of the political spectrum throughout history. Some socialist governments in the modern era have indeed always been or devolved to authoritarian tyranny. However there are a number of rather stunning counterexamples here - more than enough to confound the theorizing. Moreover, enough right wing governments have devolved to tyranny to amply demonstrate that right wing political beliefs offer no intrinsic protection on this matter. Other factors orthogonal to (or independent of) position on the political spectrum are quite obviously involved.
okie simply ignores all of this and instead rambles on with his pet theories. It is clear that he isn't interested in conversation or an exchange of ideas - he wants only to proselytize his favored obsessions. Ok by me - however in doing so he clearly forfeits the "rights" he claims (or which are claimed for him by others) as originator of the thread.
Foxfyre got a bit testy at those who take disagreement with another member as license to be insulting to that member. You can pretty well count on that.
As for Okie's assertion that Facism/Nazism are leftwing ideologies as we in American define the 'left', I would recommend this Frontpage essay as at least one argument for his point of view on that.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=21599
That rule only applies to Cyclotroll and his ilk.
