Troll contest

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Troll contest

This isn't funny right now, but I am hoping it will become hilarious.

I normally define a troll as someone who uses his anonymous posting capacity to disrupt discussions, attack people for no good reason or outright preach about something boneheaded and damn those who do not join his cause.

But I keep seeing on Objectivist forums people called trolls who who balk at intimidation, whether they disagree with others or haven't figured out their own thinking yet. If they disagree with the party line and insist on being clear about where and why, they're called a troll.

So I was wondering what would happen if we had some kind of contest to see who could be the worst most irritating troll in Objectivism (either type). Later we can figure out how to select the most obnoxious posts (the best ones) and see what we can do to honor these fine souls.

We can make up the rules as we go along.

Anyone up for trolling? Step right up. The thread awaits you, you emotionalistic second-hand evaders...

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Michael, I unwittingly presented my trolling credentials even before you suggested a contest. I wrote -- post #9, at

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...?showtopic=5856 -

From Bill P to Brant:

"Did you not get yesterday's email directing you to show up in Michael and Kat's living room Wednesday at 1900 for a discussion of your sense of life and fundamental violations of Objectivist principles? There's a special chair for you."

Sorry, Bill, but Michael and Kat are amateurs. It's my living room that Brant is to appear in. For that matter, I expect you to be there, too -- as well as that presumptuous newcomer, Don Grimme, who wilfully evaded the fact that The Psychology of Self-Esteem is an evil book (yes, I know that Ayn Rand said it was a work of genius, but that was before she discovered the true nature of Nathaniel Branden), that Roger Callahan, who took the side of the Brandens, was a conscious agent of evil, and that the Smiths, by allowing a line in The Night of January 16th to be changed, were out to destroy Objectivism; that he liked The Passion of Ayn Rand is too unspeakable an evil for me even to speak of.

I intend to see to it that the three of you are made aware of the social metaphysical nature of your epistemologies, of your craven acceptance of the Kantian ideology that is destroying the world, and of your hatred of the good for being the good. Out of my overflowing benevolence, I shall endeavor to bring you to virtue by demonstrating that you are worhless human beings,

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Troll Garden

Let's take a stroll down the Troll Garden to get warmed up.

I am not posting these images in any particular order and their numbered titles are linked to the original sources. I, for one can think of tons of quips for them. Some of these are dead ringers for my mental images of some posters in O-Land. A Drooling Beast's delight...

Enjoy the troll stroll...

Michael

Troll Garden No. 1

Troll Garden No. 2

Troll Garden No. 3

Troll Garden No. 4

Troll Garden No. 5

Troll Garden No. 6

Troll Garden No. 7

Troll Garden No. 8

Troll Garden No. 9

Troll Garden No. 10

Troll Garden No. 11

Troll Garden No. 12

Troll Garden No. 13

Troll Garden No. 14

Troll Garden No. 15

Troll Garden No. 16

Troll Garden No. 17

Troll Garden No. 18

Troll Garden No. 19

Troll Garden No. 20

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, I unwittingly presented my trolling credentials even before you suggested a contest. I wrote -- post #9, at

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...?showtopic=5856 -

From Bill P to Brant:

"Did you not get yesterday's email directing you to show up in Michael and Kat's living room Wednesday at 1900 for a discussion of your sense of life and fundamental violations of Objectivist principles? There's a special chair for you."

Sorry, Bill, but Michael and Kat are amateurs. It's my living room that Brant is to appear in. For that matter, I expect you to be there, too -- as well as that presumptuous newcomer, Don Grimme, who wilfully evaded the fact that The Psychology of Self-Esteem is an evil book (yes, I know that Ayn Rand said it was a work of genius, but that was before she discovered the true nature of Nathaniel Branden), that Roger Callahan, who took the side of the Brandens, was a conscious agent of evil, and that the Smiths, by allowing a line in The Night of January 16th to be changed, were out to destroy Objectivism; that he liked The Passion of Ayn Rand is too unspeakable an evil for me even to speak of.

I intend to see to it that the three of you are made aware of the social metaphysical nature of your epistemologies, of your craven acceptance of the Kantian ideology that is destroying the world, and of your hatred of the good for being the good. Out of my overflowing benevolence, I shall endeavor to bring you to virtue by demonstrating that you are worhless human beings,

Barbara

Barbara,

Your post crossed with the Troll Garden.

Yes, you definitely are a strong contender.

Michael

[Mike11]

9. Count 'em, 9 bannings over at OO.net.

I win.

[C. Jordan]

This discussion is perfectly useless. After all, Ayn Rand once denounced humour qua humour, because one doesn't laugh at a hero. She also said some nice things about James Bond, but that is not the point.

The point is: HOW DARE YOU introduce humour on a board which YOU CLAIM to be dedicated to Ayn Rand. You can't be a halfway Objectivist. It's all or nothing. It's black or white. If you think that is a black-and-white philosophy, then I say unto you: DUH! Objectivism IS a black-and-white philosophy, with no room at the table for the half-Objectivist-half-subjectivist.

It stands to reason that (1) Ayn Rand said something bad about humour (2) and Ayn Rand created Objectivism, which means (3) to make jokes is to betray true Objectivism. It is to make Immanuel Kant sit up in his grave and cheer. It is to break open the dam that keeps us protected from a flood of pure, naked evil.

Making jokes on this board will lead us to Doomsday. You heard it here first.

What is bad? That Michael Stuart Kelley has posted all of those pictures, which reveal a revolting metaphysics. (Don't ask me how I know they're evil, if you need to ask, it proves your psychology is filled with subjectivism and dissectivism and jismism and other meaningless -ism's.) It is self evident that to look at those pictures means you hate life for being life, you hate heroes for making the Sun shine on your shoulders, and you hate reality because, well, because you stink. So there! Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!

But what is worse? Barbara Branden did a parody of Objectivist self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is a virtue. She doesn't seem to know that to be righteous, you need to have a self, and that self-righteousness is the ultimate virtue. Unless you disagree with what I'm saying, in which case you are misusing the concept. But from a true Objectivist, such as myself, self-righteousness is the disinfectant which will one day clean socialism, socialising, and society itself from the world. For Barbara Branden to make write a parody is to subject the good to the evil.

This is worse than the time she tried to slip amphetamines into Ayn Rand's coffee. Let us rise up and denounce Barbara Branden. She is the second-worst monster there is.

Who is the worst? None other than Chrysaor Jordan. He is a liar, and the proof is that even he himself says so. "I lie all the time," said Chrysaor Jordan, just now. There it is, quod erat demonstratum! What more do you need? Mr. Jordan doesn't believe a word he has just written.

Let's burn him in effigy!!!

[the post was edited for grammatical mistakes, which, if left uncorrected, would say something obscene about my Sense of Life]

Edited July 25, 2008 by C. Jordan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What is bad? That Michael Stuart Kelley has posted all of those pictures, which reveal a revolting metaphysics.

Chys,

If this isn't trolling, I don't know what is.

My name is Kelly, not Kelley.

Michael

[Judith]

My name is Kelly, not Kelley.

By removing the e from your name you are upseting the numrology thareof and will have very bad luck in your life, you shoud seriously reconsidur this decision because now is a fortuitus time according to the stars and you dont want to upset the balances.

Someone who cares