Astroturf libertarians a threat to internet democracy

[wintler2]

So the libertarians here don't like the ,message and, ignoring the evidence, jeer at the messenger .. making his point abundantly clear - thanks guys.

[elfismiles]

So the libertarians here don't like the ,message and, ignoring the evidence, jeer at the messenger .. making his point abundantly clear - thanks guys.

On the contrary, THIS left (lowercase) libertarian welcomes any message educating others about all political machinations of message but especially prefers them to point to examples across politcal spectrums so as to most effectively show the maximum potential number of listeners / readers how ALL messages transmitted by individual humans and there proxy govt/corporate parasite machinery are manipulative.

And besides, quantify your statement per # of libertarians here and jeering...

- 1 raising of the glass (by what political affiliation?)
- 1 agreeing statement (by what political affiliation?)
- 1 brief agreement against Libertarians (by what political affiliation?)
- 1 "dismissive" pfft (by small l left libertarian) that was just pointing out that this goes on across politcal party lines - and I've harped endlessly here about/against astroturf and sock-puppetteering
- 1 dismissive post (by a possible libertarian?) that again seems mainly dismissive of it being only libertarians using these online tactics though it does criticize the author but not the poster
- 1 sober and direct addressing of your post (by a lefty?)
- 1 dismissive comment against the author of the article while admitting liking the author (by lefty liber... ah heck I don't know)
- 1 dismissive comment (by a most definite libertarian?) that attempts to quantify and define supposed libertarian demographics by citing the kinds of skeptics I personally typically "despise" (Schermer and the Skeptibunker/Humanist/Atheist crowd)
- 1 supportive sympathetic comment that leans away from the idea of such astro-turfing being committed by only 1 party by observing the pinballing of humanity by the two-party-pinball-flippers
- 1 short but deep observation (politics is like a burrito, the extreme edges of the tortilla overlap at the ends - that's how my highschool social studies teacher characterized it) ... (by what political affiliation?)
- 1 quoting of the above by our host (and beautiful northern lefty) speaking to his disdain for extremists of any stripe
- 1 return voting / posting by our previous glass raiser, this time chiming in against the idea of only 1 party being guilty of online shenanigans and criticizing all such chicanery (by libertarian?)
- 1 more returning poster (by libertarian?) again returning to the theme of getting beyond party labels and recognizing the bad behaviors across political spectrums...

So, yeah, more probable self-described libertarians but most of the lefty perspective allowing them to probably feel more at home here at RI than at more right-leaning forums. And what is there criticism of the op but against the focusing upon 1 party being to blame. It's hard not to self-identify, but I also have a "defend the underdog" and "rescuer" traits that often makes me want to wade in to defend even those I might otherwise dislike or disagree with.

But anyway, I think that's likely NOT the majority of actual libertarians here at RI ... at least I suspect there are more. But again, mostly left leaning probably. Anyway, it's understandable for those who self-identify as libertarians to comment as we have. Just as more self-identified liberals would chime in against the same article if it focused exclusively on democrats.

I apologize for not actually responding to your comment/question requesting tactics against such activity:

wintler2 wrote:
I'm interested in how to deal with the bullshitters: on public pages, some moderating of comments seem to be best defence (e.g. theoildrum.com, realclimate.org). Here on RI, we do it the very long winded and labour intensive way, which doesn't always work, and never for long when it does. The "no disinfo agent accusations" rule here seems to have morphed into "no labelling at all of propagandists", which is naive disarmament, imho.

Thing is, just about all the activism I've participated in is about trying to convince folks of my perspective and though most "true activists" volunteer their time and energy to flood comments areas with their issue's / agenda's perspective, some of them are lucky enough to get paid to do it. It's of course the deceptive element that I think we can all agree is the problem with astro-turfing and sock-puppeting.

I agree with Jack:

It may sound like a powerless formality but I think it would be a start to have a rule made clear to all new members (on this and any political discussion board) that people must announce themselves when they join or post at the request of a lobby, corporate PR wing, government agency, ARG or other third party with an interest in the issues on which they post, whether they do so for pay or otherwise (or when they post on a subject on which they have an obvious material conflict of interest).

Of course agents will lie but hey, it's a start.

- SMiles

[Searcher08]

So the libertarians here don't like the ,message and, ignoring the evidence, jeer at the messenger .. making his point abundantly clear - thanks guys.

C'mon, that is feeble.

The point about Monbiot is that it is really important to look at oneself first and the message one is putting out.

To me, Monbiot seems to have little self-reflection. If one doesnt start with oneself - how might I, myself be doing this pattern I intend to accuse others of - well it tends to turn into little more than self-righteous BS.

There is a tsunami of whiney MSM Dem talking points bullshit from places like HuffPo and outraged MSM Repub talking points bullshit from places like FauxNews.

I have (much loved!) relatives who are card-carrying decent 'Dems'. Their response to my trying to talk about anything small-'l' libertarian with them is to say "hey, libertarians are just Republicans who smoke dope!".

Afghan war? "Numb Stares"
Iraq occupation "Shoegazing"
Guantanamo still open "Shuffle feet"
... uncomfortable pause... and change subject


I think it is really important to open up lines of communication between those who are focused on caring about the weakest in society and who care about justice... and those who care about freedom and liberty.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[23]

"I think it is really important to open up lines of communication between those who are focused on caring about the weakest in society and who care about justice... and those who care about freedom and liberty.

The two are not mutually exclusive." - Searcher08

[wintler2]

So the libertarians here don't like the ,message and, ignoring the evidence, jeer at the messenger .. making his point abundantly clear - thanks guys.

On the contrary, THIS left (lowercase) libertarian welcomes any message educating others about all political machinations of message but especially prefers them to point to examples across politcal spectrums ..

Then i guess it is up to you to provide examples from other parts of the political spectrum. The OP cites several from the 'libertarian'/neo-right, i know of plenty more like it (pro-polluter & anti-green especially), if you think there are left wingers doing it, stop merely claiming so and prove it.

..I agree with Jack:

It may sound like a powerless formality but I think it would be a start to have a rule made clear to all new members (on this and any political discussion board) that people must announce themselves when they join or post at the request of a lobby, corporate PR wing, government agency, ARG or other third party with an interest in the issues on which they post, whether they do so for pay or otherwise (or when they post on a subject on which they have an obvious material conflict of interest).

I'd agree it is worth a try, how exactly? - a sticky thread with a polite request to state any vested interest? Sure the paid spammers will lie initially, but at least they'll have written the rope that'll hang them.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Then i guess it is up to you to provide examples from other parts of the political spectrum. The OP cites several from the 'libertarian'/neo-right, i know of plenty more like it (pro-polluter & anti-green especially), if you think there are left wingers doing it, stop merely claiming so and prove it.

Perhaps the real problem is that the egs Monbiot uses are ... "libertarian/neo-right"

See to me dropping the word "libertarian" in there was unnecessary, cos libertarians do not equal the neo right. I'm a leftist libertarian, cos the opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism, which I'm not a big fan of.

What monbiot is claiming can be attributed to the neo right on its own.

There is a tendency to associate libertarianism with the tea party in its current form for example. That seems inaccurate to me. Its like its trying to change the meaning of the word, and mind control us with grammer, and with another wedge.

wintler the sort of stuff Monbiot is talking about falls (to me) into the same category as what Clive palmer and his mates did in response to the RSPT last year. The resistence, for example the astro turfed anti AGW bullshit is not coming from libertarians, its coming from far right republican affiliated rich bastards, who are only libertarian when it suits them and authoritarian if their profits come under threat.

The meme at the moment is Libertarians = rich pricks who don't want to pay taxes and don't want any regulation (over minimum wages, safety and environmental standards etc etc.)

When the reality is this has always been the mo of the rich and powerful. Like the tea party itself.

Rich powerful corporate pricks are using these terms to say "look over there and don't watch me."

[Simulist]

On the political spectrum, I'm about as far left as it's possible to be and about as "libertarian" (as in non-authoritarian) as one can get.

Anyone who supposes that libertarians are all right-wing ideologues is full of it.

[stickdog99]

liberty, equality, fraternity

[wintler2]

Libertarianism is many things to many people, i'm interested in its expression in mainstream society, which is imho implicitly pro-planetfucker.

Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government
www.lp.org/

Minimum government is just what the Koch brothers and similar fascists want - no entity as big and powerfal as them, no entity able to mobilise similar forces in law or fact to limit the power of money. 'Rugged individualism' = powerlessness, thats why Hollywood has been selling it to us for decades, and haven't they succeeded very well. Sigh.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Ok so how do you feel about Clive Palmer?

And while we are on the subject of the Koch brothers, what they want isn't libertarianism, they aren't for less govt when it comes to protecting their interests.

These days there are people, especially in Australia, who think right wing libertarianism is basically for republicans who choof.

This is one of those attempts to control the use of language through context and its highly sus.

It causes no end of confusion in our country wintler. People think Sarah Palin is a libertarian.

[wintler2]

Ok so how do you feel about Clive Palmer?

Dunno much about him, except he helped roll Rudd on the mining tax, a nice recent example of the 'government=bad' line paying off big for billionaires.

And while we are on the subject of the Koch brothers, what they want isn't libertarianism, they aren't for less govt when it comes to protecting their interests.

Yet they're funding the semi-libertarian-branded tea party .. out of the goodness of their hearts, or cos the libertarian rhetoric suits their bankrolls? (the latter of course). And before you say (as i would in your position) that its not the libertarians fault that the Kochs jump on their bandwagon, a) who paid for the bandwagon? & b) why don't 'real' libertarians scream about the billionaire fakes? I hold all christians responsible for the evil christians cos they don't challenge their own, same goes for libertarians.

These days there are people, especially in Australia, who think right wing libertarianism is basically for republicans who choof.

Explain how, in practical terms, there is a significant difference.

This is one of those attempts to control the use of language through context and its highly sus.

Its just standard rhetorical camoflage, you expact Palin to call herself a fascist?!

It causes no end of confusion in our country wintler. People think Sarah Palin is a libertarian.

If 9 evil fuckers calling themselves libertarians stage a murder with 1 real libertarian along as patsy, you think cops shouldn't look for libertarians?

[23]

"If 9 evil fuckers calling themselves libertarians stage a murder with 1 real libertarian along as patsy, you think cops shouldn't look for libertarians?"

That's a great question. The answer lies within it.

I don't know any libertarians who rub shoulders with conservative authoritarians or right wing reactionaries. And I have the pleasure of rubbing shoulders with a few libertarians.

So if you don't have a libertarian joining in the murder plot, the plotters can call themselves whatever they want. A mask is still a mask.

Conservative authoritarians... or liberal ones for that matter too... can co-opt whatever label they want to get undiscerning people to call them that (i.e. libertarian, progressive, etc.).

Discernment is rarely a defining quality of the majority. And co-option works just fine on them.

The masquerader has accomplished his purpose... when you identify him by his mask, instead of his face.

Conversely, he is exposed as a masquerader when you don't.

[stickdog99]

Libertarians have good ideas about getting government out of citizen's personal lives.

Libertarians have great ideas about getting the US government out of the business of fucking with every other government on the planet.

Libertarians have demonstrably wrongheaded ideas about the power of capital to self-regulate for the good of society.

[elfismiles]

Libertarians have good ideas about getting government out of citizen's personal lives.

Libertarians have great ideas about getting the US government out of the business of fucking with every other government on the planet.

Libertarians have demonstrably wrongheaded ideas about the power of capital to self-regulate for the good of society.

Yeah, its that last one that makes me a Lefty lowercase "l" libertarian. I don't trust big-business any more than I trust big-government.

[23]

For anyone who might be curious what elfismiles is referring to:

http://leftlibertarian.org/