… and it’s not to stay on topic. No, no. That would be too difficult for the trolling wingnut. Instead, they’ve mastered the technique called deflection. Fred Dooley of Real Debate (ask Zach and capper) is especially good at this. Essentially, deflection is an attempt to hijack an argument because the deflector is either losing the argument, or came to play without a ball. Regardless, the deflector cannot argue intelligently. Here is an example from a post titled “Beware of the MacIver Spin Machine”. The very first comment was from Jason. It’s priceless and a perfect example of not being mentally prepared.
Jason: I can’t wait to read your similar expose on Media Matters and Think Progress… oh! the outrageous outrage.
Perfect. The comment had nothing to do with the topic and its intent was twofold: Gum up the argument, and cover up the fact the commenter is a slack-jawed ninny better suited for chasing gophers down their holes.
With time on my hands this evening, here are a few other examples of prime-time wingnuttery.
POST TOPIC: The MacIver Institute is mostly populated by semi-literate baboons, who if they had a couple eons to waste might be able to re-create the June 1969 edition of Mad Magazine.
COMMENT: Well, let’s see your expose on talking chimps.
Here’s a simpler one.
POST TOPIC: The Pack had a down year, only going 15-1.
COMMENT: How about using some of that hate for the Chicago Bears.
Even though the topic was incredibly easy to understand and might have engendered a lively conversation, wingnut responses are not always based on topic but simply because a liberal wrote the post.
POST TOPIC: I had my tonsils removed. It hurt. Then I ate ice cream. and it felt better, for a while.
COMMENT: Why don’t you save some of that anger for the brain surgery I underwent yesterday, you hypocrite.
POST TOPIC: I’ve heard that goat masturbation is something wingnuts do to relieve tension, right Brian?
COMMENT: I’ll sue.