Trolling doesn’t convert readers.
Being pat on the head like a puppy is no benefit.
It’s quite a leap to assume that gaining respect for libertarianism by being reasonable and receptive to people is akin to marginalizing oneself as a cute little pet. Lacking experience, one might draw your conclusion. Except in my case, the approach has been effective. If it hadn’t been, I wouldn’t be advocating it here.
Welcome to the internet where every site has a troll or two.
i belive in concentrating on your own circle of influence first.. I have changed the perception of my whole family and many friends.. I hope one of the smart young ones may have the influence to change a few thousands - maybe the next mises or rothbard- who knows
maybe one of YOU are the next mises or rothbard or r paul
EDIT: I’ve been on the internet for years, I’ve never seen anyone convinced of anything from having an internet argument.
I was a Democrat before I started talking to libertarians on the internet. Now I am a libertarian.
Effective at not making them libertarian, as you said, which is 100% useless. Unless you are just after respect, which is useful for you and 100% useless to libertarianism.
Deleted
NO! YOU DON’T EXIST!
Et tu Brute?
I guess it depends on what you mean by trolling. If by trolling you mean being obnoxious and inflammatory, then I’d avoid that. Just bring up the fact that you’re looking for a good discussion and debate and I’m sure you’ll get some bites. Haphazardly drop a few hints at people who influenced your view in a particular area (Hoppe, Rothbard, etc.; if you’re on the Hannity forums, they’re convinced that the only philosophers that have ever existed are Jesus and Ronald Reagan) and it may encourage interested readers to do a Wiki search or something. Planting that seed helps a lot to inquisitive minds who may have never heard of an-cap and therefore never considered it.
I think some people accuse others of trolling just because these “trolls” hold controversial (according to public) opinions and do not stop asking inconvenient questions. One can call Larken Rose an IRL (in real life) troll, who trolled IRS and was put to jail.
Effective at not making them libertarian, as you said, which is 100% useless. Unless you are just after respect, which is useful for you and 100% useless to libertarianism.
Did you read what I wrote? I never said it was ineffective. Why do you think I suggested it in the first place? I said, “even if you don’t persuade anyone to become libertarian they will have much more respect for libertarian ideas.” The worst that can happen if you fail to convert them immediately is you’ve either planted a seed or given someone a different perspective that may be helpful in moving them to libertarianism in the future.
LoL! I’m so glad you are back.
I find it’s much easier to simply state ideas than debate. Especially because I have an uncanny knack for finding unprepared opponents who end up hurting my feelings with personal attacks. 
You mean that behavioural conduct could make a difference to whether he becomes libertarian after he has heard you. The only thing politeness does is stop people from slamming the door half-way through a sentence. What does it say about a man’s committment to “respect” if the behaviour that you alone demonstrate determines whether he will continue to prosecute injustice upon everyone else?
You mean that behavioural conduct could make a difference to whether he becomes libertarian after he has heard you. The only thing politeness does is stop people from slamming the door half-way through a sentence.
Call me a liar if you want, but I have swung a handful of people to libertarianism in the manner I’ve described. These are people who are now reading Mises, Hayek, and other Austrian and libertarian thinkers. This was the main point behind my post.
“Respect for libertarian ideas” merely implies that one recognizes a coherent, consistent philosophy behind libertarian positions and is willing to listen carefully and consider what libertarians say. I don’t know what your experience has been, but I think you would agree with me that dramatic conversion experiences resulting from instantaneous revelations are a rare thing, indeed.
If you have no patience to talk to someone who goes through a period of denial, obstinance, or cognitive dissonance because they’ve been taught their entire lives that the state is a part of nature itself, that violence against innocent people is really okay in some circumstances, or that up is down then by all means continue trolling on the internet. But people are individuals, and some respond differently in a face-to-face setting, especially with someone they know and trust, and I would hold that most people who have converted to libertarianism did not do it overnight. And, of course, reaching anarcho-capitalism takes even longer (recall that Rothbard did not reach this point until well after becoming a libertarian).
I think the following statement sums up the problem:
What does it say about a man’s committment to “respect” if the behaviour that you alone demonstrate determines whether he will continue to prosecute injustice upon everyone else?
This is just it - people do not believe that they are holding unjust views. If they did they would not hold them. The fact is, they do not believe enforcement of the state’s decrees is unjust. Clayton talked about this - they have been taught and conditioned by government schools and the rest of society for nearly their entire lives that it is good, right, and just that some people have the right to inflict violence on others. To call this into question is to call into question nearly everything they believe about the world and their place in it, morality, etc…When confronted with a challenge like this to their worldview many adults get erratic and emotional. A defense mechanism of denial and obstinance kicks in, but a personal interaction does, based on my own experiences, soften this reaction so that reason can get through.
We can agree to disagree. The fact is, maybe I find myself in more of these situations than most others. Maybe my background (sales and teaching) makes it easier for me. I don’t know. But from where I sit libertarianism can be spread by meeting and talking to people.
Oh. I thought you meant they see no sense in it, but give us an E for effort.
The mind is most malleable in a flurry of emotions, a state of insecurity. That is why fearmongering works. Comfort is not a climate of change. People with too basic skills may need humiliation or some such emotional abuse. It may be the only thing that turns their gears. I speak from self-reference more than practice, though I know well enough how to do it. Such a tool is hardly unseemly when mental rape is always in vogue in one form or another and owns the psyche of most people.
In those terms, trolling seems more a self-depreciating act where it is beneath my use of time. I normally never talk to anyone outside of this forum that already has any knowledge about these subjects. Those that are worthy come to me. I don’t go to them.
Strange that you say this as though I disagree. I’m talking strictly about how people react to particular stimuli and being cold-calculating about it. You push buttons of a different sort. Any buttons that have an effect are good buttons to push.
You are talking to the wrong guy. I was instant enough. I don’t hold anyone’s hand that tightly. All I see are the trolls here that are still skeptical five years later wasting everyone’s time. Time wasting trolling is a common strategy used by counter-canvassers.
I came here because I was convinced. But, then again, I came to C4L myself. So I already took the red pill so to speak.
Politics are a game to some people. Like a sporting event. It’s damn near difficult to convince those people. It’s the readers who your audience is. It’s like being interviewed by a pundit. Your goal is to not convert Sean Hannity, but to get your message off as clear as possible before he cuts you off.