That would be quite something! Shall we compare the reverent citations to Michael Moore to the reverent citations to, say, HH Hoppe in the forum?

The complaints about "forum rules" re: this thread are at worst disingenuous and at best silly.

protip: soliciting someone's opinion of you is best done over PM if you think that a response might be a "personal attack".

Also, I'm pretty sure nibbles' guess of "under" the over/under on the number of posts it would take before people complained about the thread title. Sorry I couldn't come up with something like "All Government Programs Are Evil" or "Was there a plan for when it is impossible for the government to fear the people" or "Will America Follow Britain into the Orwellian Abyss?" or "Mentally Ill Soldiers Kept in Dilapidated Limbo Until They Agree to be Redeployed" or "Government Thugs Kill Mayor's Dogs" or "Does Phone Booth Understand the Austrian Business Cycle Theory" or "Leaders ban greatest invention, replace with poison".

ElliotR for mod imo. The hypocrisy is so brazen and ridiculous. I was too lazy to go through and cite the endless laughable thread titles employed by the same people and ideological allies bitching about this one who are all mysteriously silent about how those thread titles ruin all the "good discussion" around here and they can't post anymore because of them.

Not saying anything about the thread title, just having a problem with daxx's attitude ITT. If what he is doing isn't trolling I probably don't know what trolling is.

Hypocrisy? I don't think I posted in a single one of the threads mentioned by Elliot. Those are great examples of threads that don't bring about good discussion, and that's why I ignored them.

OTOH, when such a title is created by a mod and attacking my particular viewpoint, then yes, I will say something. Something like "Racists among the ranks of libertarians" would have been a perfectly acceptable description of this thread's content.

lol you think Daxx is posting in the spirit of the forum rules? What a joke.

I think that you are deliberately baiting him, which is itself not "n the spirit of the forum rules", and so I've already suggested that you take it to PM. Now let me make it more explicit:

Take it to PM.

What in the world makes you think he is talking about this forum?

I Elliot's change-of-thread-titles.

How in the world was I baiting him? I simply asked him to support his assertions. That is your definition of baiting?

be careful, don't bait Elliot now!

I want to be clear that a bunch of the forum rules are silly and the whole "you're baiting me" stuff is equally silly.

I think it's perfectly fine to demand daxx to support his assertions.

In fact I think most of this is a valid criticism of daxx's posting, from marnxivdb:

However, he did MOST of this stuff at your's and others' behest.

So I don't think he violated forum rules or whatever, but I frankly don't care. But if you guys sincerely think he violated forum rules, you should at least realize you pretty much asked him to, yes?

I mean if you ask someone if they think you're a neo-confederate racist, and the guy answers a way you don't like, I don't think you can consider that to be a personal attack, even if the answer is wrong and poorly-defend or not at all defended.

Would it be fair if I was like "do you think I, DVaut1, is an idiot", and you were like "yah sure you're ******ed", and then got lazy and didn't want to explain it, and then I went all "FORUM RULE VIOLATION ITT!!!"?

Is this one of those things where people who do link a lot of mises stuff list other great minds they hold in higher regard than they do the people mentioned by and your opinion is not changed either way? Because I am sure I am not alone when I say that, even though I agree with those people politically, I don't home then in the same regard as someone like Dawkins, Kevin Kelly, or Ray Kurzweil to name a few.

edit to add since it's appropriate: I would put jared diamond on the list as well.

Glad to see dvaut is still on hijack patrol.

This thread is beyond any real "point" at this point imo

NB4ZLOX!

True. I think we passed that point at post 1.

It would be more like if I said "All you statists in this forum are ****ing ******ed." That is imo a broad-brush attack against a particular ideology, which is against the rules. If I don't support it, then it is unsubstantiated posting, also against the rules.

I wouldn't call what Daxx wrote a "personal attack" against me. I was asking him to elaborate on his assertions, knowing that I am not a racist, have never posted anything racist, and that any reasonable person could see anything he comes up with is bs. But his posting in this thread consists entirely of "broad-brush" attacks against libertarianism, and unsubstantiated ones at that. And as another poster said, if his posts aren't trolling then I don't know what trolling is.

pvn,

Someone has to tell the large number of Misesians and Rothbardians that read this forum that they are mostly racists and neo-confederates, amirite? Otherwise, how are they to know?

This is pretty much the definition of Fly, BuddyQ, Daxx, etc. This is an online community with a large contingent of Misesians/Rothbardians who read and link a lot of material from Mises and LRC. Since we actually read the stuff and know that it is neither racist nor "neo-confederate" (lol), it is pretty offensive to us to be characterized this way. The entire purpose of this thread, enabled by the mod, is to troll Misesian/Rothbardian libertarians.

I'll probably be the one to get infracted, of course.

lol at "we read it and we knows these things, therefore contradicting us is trolling". Sounds like a great standard.

Less sarcastically, that definition is ridiculous and people have "emotion responses" to all kinds of things, many of which are completely over-the-top, unnecessary, and unjustifiable, and "invoking an emotional response" from someone is just subjective nonsense. It's patently easy to just sit there and get emotional about what you're reading and therefore claim what you're reading is "trolling".

The "on-topic" discussion Fly's "OP" distracted from was posted in a low-content thread.

That the forum IS modded this way, at least sometimes, is in fact a big problem imo. It's what fuels the whole "well I'm pissed this guy said something I don't like, time to notify the moderator, and see here, the Wikipedia definition supports calling this guy who pissed me off a troll, because he provoked an emotional response in me", which leads to ridiculous infractions and then endless tit-for-tat nonsense moderator notifications that result in more stupid infractions.

Contradicting Borodog's assertion that Rothbardians in general are not neo-confederates and racists isn't trolling if one has evidence that they are racists and neo-confederates. Do you think Fly et al presented any substantial evidence that shows Rothbardians in general and the Mises institute in particular to be racist?

I'm pretty sure the person doing the baiting was the one who said "Well actually its the libertarians on this forum who strike me as racist", then saying it was all of them, and then posting one one sentence or picture replies. I doubt you're stupid enough to believe that isn't trolling and isn't against the rules, it probably just entertains you because it gets people you disagree with riled up.