I used to painstakingly argue libertarian points in youtube until I realized that half of youtubers commenting in politics or economics are either trolls or ideologues. So I then changed my strategy and started to mock leftists, pointing out performative contradiction like supporting socialism while using the facebook, w/c until now continues to entertain me.
I want to move on to more serious and intellectual websites where I can maybe have an intelligent debate. I’m thinking of shaking up the comments threads in Newsweek, The Economist, Time, CNN. Although I think some of those, particularly Newsweek, have totally brainwashed their readers/subscribers so I’ll choose to mock them.
Can you suggest economics/politics websites that we can infiltrate and either troll (if its far leftist or idiot neocon) or have a serious intellectual discussion? Please separate them. I really think infiltrating forums of other websites is a good opportunity to spread the message.
Please indicate websites good for plain mockery and those with serious and intelligent subscribers and even possible ‘converts’.
I do believe, that in society, there is an opinion-forming class. I don’t have a strict definition for this class, so it’s kind of a fuzzy thing.
I view some college/university professors, authors, and people who get exposure through the mainstream media to consist of the opinion forming class. I think the trick to advancing liberty in people’s minds is twofold:
Shift the opinion of this class towards liberty by either becoming one of the people in the class, or convincing others in the class
Get the message out through your own efforts by direct communication and broadcasting, and have others do the same.
So I don’t know how big an impact going on forums and debating with those people will go. It’s worth a shot, though. I would suggest going to places where some more prominent figures of this class might post or read.
I’ve participated in a couple of other-forum debates on tomhartman’s blog and the sean hannity forums. I was polite as I could muster (getting better), and my opponents at first seemed genuinely interested in the arguments.
The core of whats wrong with them is their worldview. If they say we need government to protect us, I counter saying that states have no incentive towards national security. Just look $5 box cutters is apprently >> $400bn military budget. No answer.
If they say we need immigration restriction for economic reasons, I counter saying that Say’s law demonstrates there will be no problem. The added immigrants create their own demand. We can only benefit because no firm would pay them more than they can contribute. Just look we had massive immigration during times of economic prosperity in America… No answer.
It goes on and on. You basically get a little while into the argument, then they realized they are going to get burned because they said something stupid and leave the debate. The mises.org forums are really intellectually high powered compared to other forums, even though it seems “average” since I come here day to day.
So, I still think it can be productive to go out and visit other forums. You might be able to recruit some of the people who aren’t particularly happy with their current ideology. My advice is to not directly quote or reply to anyone, otherwise you get their ego drawn into the conversation and it will be bad for them when they lose. Instead, write a medium sized post clearly articulating the ancap position, with plenty of links to sources and further reading material. If people respond to it, respond back. But I really wouldn’t spend time trying to wreck their arguments. Its like religion to them.
Mocking someone has never created a convert, ever (it may create fans, but they were probably sympathetic to the cause anyway). All it does is lead to them further solidifying their stance agaisnt you. When mainsteam economists mock the Austrian school for their unfalsifiable stances and lack of empirical data… does that make you want to become a statist?
Mocking is usually the inadequate arguer’s last resort. Strawmen and ad-hoc analysis are rarely a good way to go about it. Don’t be so childish.
Skip the trolling and go find places to engage in rational discourse.
I agree. I think we should wait for the fish to come near us instead of diving into the water. What we need is more beacons of light. Let those with eyes see. I remember my own ideological conversion, and my beacon of light was the Ron Paul campaign. No weirdo ever tried to convince me!
Grayson, You might have a point. But I only do that to leftists already stuck up their own ass with their moralistic bs. Before I realized that youtube is not the place for discussion, I was painstakingly trying to be polite and even concede some points to prove that their argument doesn’t hold either way. That is also the point of this post. I want to ask you guys where I can have intelligent debates because youtube definitely is not the place.
Soooo you’re going to convert people to libertarianism by trolling other internet forums?
EDIT: I’ve been on the internet for years, I’ve never seen anyone convinced of anything from having an internet argument. My personal opinion is: learn more Austrian economics and/or libertarianism and talk to the people who will tend to agree with you. You’ll save yourself the stress of worrying about preaching to people who don’t care to be preached to. The odds of you converting some economist/NYT blogger that the state needs to be abolished is so low as to not even be worth trying imo. You want to make a real difference in the world? Start your own podcast or radio show. Leave internet trolling to the trolls.
“How does that end up convincing anyone or making anyone change their minds?”
It doesn’t. If people want to be convinced, they’ll come to you.
If one really wants to advertise, I can’t imagine how calling people evil and dumb is the way to go either. RP never does that. He’s made his case for years and people who naturally gravitate towards it seek out AE and libertarianism. In his own way he’s been very influential.
EDIT: I was a devout believer in God when I was a kid, an atheist in my early adulthood and in the last six or eight months I’ve found God again. No one made a better case to me for or against God, I just felt his presence again.
Contrary to everything said in this thread, the way you treat a person’s beliefs has no negative effect on his potential. One does not pull his own teeth in spite of moldy bread. Anyone interested in learning anything will not be impeded by anything you say. Anyone who does recoil into ignorance would always have been ignorant anyway.
The difficulty of changing someone else’s political belief system is the list of arguments used to defend it can be very long. Viception addressed many, if not most, of the arguments defending pro-government ideologies in the seemingly most polite way possible. Instead of engaging in a long debate, I prefer to tell people to read that book.
I would say that the point is to convert “readers” (lurkers), not those you argue with. I used to be obssesd with atheism and trying to convert religious people, but suddenly understood, that it’s almost impossible and I can only convert or at least, try to show a different option to “readers” (who usually do not write/argue). So even I am no longer interested in a debates about god or atheism, I still think it’s important to show people different opinion and let them decide for themselves what is more rational.
Same with anarchism. If you, for example, troll someone on 4chan (I know, 1 and 2 rule, whatever) and mock statists, you will always lose a debate no matter what, but you don’t know who is fence sitter among them, and/or just enjoys reading your opinions and maybe is considering about converting.
That’s why I believe polite arguing (even trolling) can have a postive effect. But not to the people you are talking to, but to those who read your posts. I myself changed my opinion on many issues just by reading other people’s thoughts or rebuttals, here on mises and other websites.
"I would say that the point is to convert “readers” (lurkers), not those you argue with.
That’s why I believe polite arguing (even trolling) can have a postive effect."
Fair enough. I’ve gotten banned from very liberal sites only to have some other poster/reader email me saying they agreed with me so I suppose you have a point.
don’t know if you are sarcastic here, but I think one should try to hold an equilibrium between being banned and not banned And I would suggest not to troll in websites which have moderators (e.x. forum boards) but instead argue politely.
My advice: spend 95% of the time you would otherwise spend arguing on the internet meeting people and searching (in person) for someone who you believe might be receptive to your views. Spend your time socializing and making new friends while quietly (that is, to yourself) evaluating their mindset to determine if they might be receptive to libertarian discussion. Tread carefully. If political discussions come up, be objective, neutral and sympathetic to their concerns. Gaining their trust is everything. It is much easier to discuss a libertarian perspective with someone who understands and trusts you than with someone who does not.
If done properly, you will make new friends, and, most importantly, even if you don’t persuade anyone to become libertarian they will have a much more respect for libertarian ideas. You will do far more good for the movement than arguing on messageboards, where humility and objectivity are seen as weaknesses. I really believe that converting people on messageboards is a collosal waste of time.
Trolling statists won’t convert them, but the ones actively arguing won’t be converted regardless of what you do. The point of trolling is (A) entertainment value and (B) to convert readers/lurkers/etcetcetc as you said.
And I would suggest not to troll in websites which have moderators (e.x. forum boards) but instead argue politely.