How to be a typical Internet drone

[Darth Wong]

I don't read Huffington Post, but I occasionally wander through the cesspool of comments that people leave on news websites. It is a useful way to keep in touch with what ordinary morons think. By the way:

35. Always keep a library of pompous quotes (preferably from American "Founding Fathers") involving words like "freedom" and "tyranny" which you can throw at people in lieu of an argument.

[Havok]

I have to be honest, I don't think typical internet drones will be able to remember all these rules.

[PainRack]

17. Write a long winded Essay in order to win a debate. Writing a long winded reply means you are now a person who is very well-educated.

What the fuck are you talking about? The Internet forum political drones we're talking about always argue with talking points, not essays.

Wall of Text. Otherwise known as Darkstar and An Ancient.

[The Yosemite Bear]

All else fails edit the Wiki page to support your viewpoint.
or complain that the wiki page has been unfairly altered because it doesn't support your view.
basically act like Steven Colbert, but not for jokes.

[Haruko]

When asked to support a claim, use Google to search through various sources until you find one that supports you. Do not worry if the source is a mere blog, or appears to be politically motivated. If you look for evidence against global warming and you find it on a site whose domain name is globalwarmingisahoax.com, just go ahead and use it. Why would you doubt the integrity of such a source? Avoid sources which are difficult to read and which don't give you convenient and simple talking points.

This reminds me of S&L, a former member of my forum and a Christian fundamentalist. He often lectured people on the importance of decent, impartial sources, yet his sources were usually such nuggets as WorldNetDaily and Answers in Genesis, and he used as his source for the claim that atheist Anthony Flew converted to Christianity a blog post by Dinesh D'Souza, a guy who's credentials is "guy who wrote a Christian apologist book, and couldn't figure out where atheists were during a 9/11 memorial gathering because, I guess, nobody had horns."

[PeZook]

36. Strongly insist you could do a better job than any politician you don't like. Unless his opinions agree with your, then praise him endlessly for being a true statesman.

37. Remember, running foreign policy is simple. Everyone saying otherwise is a dirty liar.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

38. Say something barely tangental to the thread so you can justify adding your favoritest link in the world. Cool Site!1

privacy-tools.tk




Yes, I know it's a spambot, but HuffPo threads (or political/WTF/etc threads literally _anywhere_ else this side of Reddit) wouldn't be complete without this shit.

[Hillary]

39. Falsely extrapolate your opponent's argument to make him seem the looney tunes one - i.e. "You don't support the death penalty? So you think it's OK to murder and rape babies then, you sicko"

40. Tell your opponent to "go live in Iran/Russia/Pakistan, if you like it so much" if they don't agree that the West is utterly perfect in every way.

[The Yosemite Bear]

41. TV shows are credible sources. (especially you know, 24, CSI, etc)
42. Preemptively accuse the other side of what ever dishonest tactic or fallacy your committing.

[The Spartan]

He often lectured people on the importance of decent, impartial sources, yet his sources were usually such nuggets as WorldNetDaily and Answers in Genesis, and he used as his source for the claim that atheist Anthony Flew converted to Christianity a blog post by Dinesh D'Souza, a guy who's credentials is "guy who wrote a Christian apologist book, and couldn't figure out where atheists were during a 9/11 memorial gathering because, I guess, nobody had horns."

That's because this sort of person's definition of impartial or unbiased is actually, "Agrees with me."

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I have to be honest, I don't think typical internet drones will be able to remember all these rules.

Well, look at it this way. The universe in general doesn't remember the basic laws of physics it operates by because it is a largely mindless entity acting as its nature dictates. The internet religio/politico-drone doesn't remember the basic rules it operates by because, again, it is a largely mindless entity acting as its nature dictates. For both, interested researchers simply try to label trends of behaviour as 'rules' and 'laws' so that we can better comprehend and predict their actions.

[Yona]

You're missing one of the most "important" .

36.) If it was posted on the Internet, or received in a mass emailing from a "friend", it must be true!

[Darth Fanboy]

37. Constantly refer to a mysterious "Rule Number 36" as a rule that must always be followed that conveniently aupports your position. When anyone claims that such a rule does not exist, simply argue that it does based on the existence of Rules 35 and 37. After all, if there is a 35 and 37, there MUST be a 36. This provides unimpeachable authority for any argument.

[Yona]

37. Constantly refer to a mysterious "Rule Number 36" as a rule that must always be followed that conveniently aupports your position. When anyone claims that such a rule does not exist, simply argue that it does based on the existence of Rules 35 and 37. After all, if there is a 35 and 37, there MUST be a 36. This provides unimpeachable authority for any argument.

This is starting to sound like the "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" !

[TheKwas]

38. If someone uses 'ad absurdum' as a rebuttal, completely misunderstand the point and ridicule your opponent for saying silly things.

Example: Wat? a flying spagetti monster created the earth using his noodley appendage???1? Tats stupid hahaha i hope GOD opens your eyes so you can realize how stupid u r.

39. Use grade 3 level science to debunk leading scientists.

Example: "Al Gore and the IPCC say that sea levels are gonna rise due to Global warming, but that's bullshit because water EXPANDS when it freezes so if the earth warms up sea levels should go DOWN. lol OWNED"

[Darth Fanboy]

And I fail the thread for getting my numbers wrong.

WAIT, But according to Rule 36, I couldn't have failed because thread equilibrium was not exactly acheived at that point and it downgraded several previous posts into a new paradigm.

[sketerpot]

40. Practice this phrase: "You have your opinion, and I have mine." It lets you disregard facts, and makes you feel more mature than your opponent! There's no downside! Bonus points if your "equally valid opinion" is completely absurd, like believing that spent nuclear fuel rods can spontaneously explode like an atom bomb.

41. Instead of arguing, write a vaguely resentful post predicting what your opponents are going to say. Strongly imply that they're ignorant sheep.

42. hi every1 im 12 years old! global warming is a hox! i think we need 2 see barrack HUSEIN obamas birth sertificate, hes not from around here lol

42(a). OMG im 12 years old to! i heard obama is a muslim and my 40 friends will be posting roughly teh same thing i did!! GOD bless

42(b-z). [Pretty much the same as 42(a). Swarms are hard to argue with because there are so many of them, and none of them can read.]

43. Just start making up religious tenets and immediately believing them.

[Scottish Ninja]

39. Use grade 3 level science to debunk leading scientists.

Example: "Al Gore and the IPCC say that sea levels are gonna rise due to Global warming, but that's bullshit because water EXPANDS when it freezes so if the earth warms up sea levels should go DOWN. lol OWNED"

Rush Limbaugh said this back in the 90's, so it must be true! Why would Rush lie to us?

[Yona]

39. Use grade 3 level science to debunk leading scientists.

Example: "Al Gore and the IPCC say that sea levels are gonna rise due to Global warming, but that's bullshit because water EXPANDS when it freezes so if the earth warms up sea levels should go DOWN. lol OWNED"

Rush Limbaugh said this back in the 90's, so it must be true! Why would Rush lie to us?

Because it's his "stock and trade", or because "Global Warming" doesn't fit into his agenda, and he doesn't appear able to understand anything formulated at any higher level.

Of course, he could always hijack a rule number and explain it that way.

I guess I should relabel this one 36b

36.) If it was posted on the Internet, or received in a mass emailing from a "friend", it must be true!

[PainRack]

Rule 44: Fuck the strawman. Repeatedly. Jism on it even.
Example Drone: That's why they call it faith.
A: Who gives a fuck about it being faith, I'm talking about the actual physical, emotional and spiritual harm done by faith healers.
Drone: But if they have faith, its alright.
A: You can have faith in god, prayer, spiritual, but what about the harm these people.....
Drone: That's why you must follow God will and God word, not man!
A: Great, so, that means you agree with me that these people are....
Drone: But that's why you need FAITH.