Newbie's Guide To Pro-China Internet Trolls

Unforgiven · Post by **Unforgiven** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:26 pm

http://godism.blogspot.com/2008/04/newb ... ernet.html

China.

A nation with a far-reaching history, a unique and diverse culture, beautiful locales, and a constantly growing economic superpower.

It is also a nation whose government shits on human and animal rights, establishes nation-wide censorship on all media including the Internet (The Great Firewall of China), where any critic of government policy is punished with a trip to the re-education camps, where you can't vote out the current Government as there can ONLY BE ONE, not to mention all the lead-filled low quality products, where the pollution in the air is VISIBLE and SMELLABLE, and who the fuck knows what else is going on in China but is not reported.

Worst of all however, are the Pro-China apologists who are possibly being paid by the Chinese Communist Party (hereafter refered to as the ChiCom Party) infiltrating internet forums and spreading the Pro-ChiCom Government line by upplaying China's strengths and downplaying, denying or even justifying their many weaknesses and atrocities.

These apologists are by far, most commonly found in the large media corporation news websites which offer a "comment on the article" section. Of course, the article would relate to China in some way. Pro-China apologists can also be found on internet forums although their numbers are smaller (between 1 to 5).

This guide allows you to delve considerably into the minds of such Pro-China trolls, how to identify them, and how to attack their weakly-set up (most of the time) arguments and how to defend your own.

No doubt the Pro-China trolls already follow a guide similar to this to defend China on the internet with.

A healthy debate requires the contributions of two or more sides to make all sides accountable.

This is your chance to protect freedom of speech and a censorship-free Internet before it is over-run by the millions of Chinese trolls.

Tallgeese · Post by **Tallgeese** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:56 pm

...No offense, but this is pretty asinine. The person who wrote it is an idiot on the level of Dawkins if not dumber.

Johan_H · Post by **Johan_H** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:40 pm

Metatron wrote:...No offense, but this is pretty asinine. The person who wrote it is an idiot on the level of Dawkins if not dumber.

Richard Dawkins? He seems like an intelligent person to me. Why do you think he's an idiot?

Clements · Post by **Clements** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:47 pm

Yeah, he has 9 doctorates in total, I believe.

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:55 pm

Clements wrote:Yeah, he has 9 doctorates in total, I believe.

Study =/= Intelligence

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:59 pm

Joe Camacho wrote:
Clements wrote:Yeah, he has 9 doctorates in total, I believe.
Study =/= Intelligence

If you believe being a doctor == intelligence, explain Dr. Phil or other doctors that are complete douchebags.

Post by **badinsults** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:02 am

I haven't noticed pro-China trolls on the news websites I frequent. However, pro-Conservative trolls abound. It is funny watching them all gang up and call me a Liberal, lol.

Clements · Post by **Clements** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:21 am

Joe Camacho wrote:
Clements wrote:Yeah, he has 9 doctorates in total, I believe.
Study =/= Intelligence

Actually, most of the diverse range of his doctorates in science and literature and achievements like his fellowship to the Royal Society are in honour of all his work, rather than just through his academic work. Look him up if you haven't already.

The definition of an idiot is an "uneducated or ignorant person".

An idiot could never get an honorary DSc from Oxford University, for instance. It takes decades of continued research and contributions to science, and even then is rarely awarded.

On merit, I can safely say that Dawkins has achieved more in his life time than all the active members of this board combined. He is no doubt a highly gifted man by almost any measure. Branding people idiots since they do not share the same views as you is very unfair. You can't really call someone like Sir Isaac Newton an idiot because he supported a few crackpot ideas in his later life (although Dawkins views I mostly agree with).

I definitely could not write something on a par with The Selfish Gene, so I could not call him an 'idiot' without coming across as extremely arrogant myself. If Dawkins is an idiot then that leaves little hope for 99.9% of people.

Deathlike2 wrote:
Joe Camacho wrote:
Clements wrote:Yeah, he has 9 doctorates in total, I believe.
Study =/= Intelligence
If you believe being a doctor == intelligence, explain Dr. Phil or other doctors that are complete douchebags.

Even I probably have more peer-reviewed journal articles than Dr. Phil. Dawkins is in a different league.

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:35 am

Clements wrote:On merit, I can safely say that Dawkins has achieved more in his life time than all the active members of this board combined. He is no doubt a highly gifted man by almost any measure. Branding people idiots since they do not share the same views as you is very unfair. You can't really call someone like Sir Isaac Newton an idiot because he supported a few crackpot ideas in his later life (although Dawkins views I mostly agree with).

I definitely could not write something on a par with The Selfish Gene, so I could not call him an 'idiot' without coming across as extremely arrogant myself. If Dawkins is an idiot then that leaves little hope for 99.9% of people.

Isn't this the guy that attacks religion as "the root of all evil"?

That's pretty pretty unfair right there. He can have a thousand phds for all I care, and he can know his multiplication table, but someone that can easily say that religion is evil and not look at the good side of it, in any other matter too actually, can't be that intelligent.

Clements · Post by **Clements** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:46 am

Joe Camacho wrote:
Clements wrote:On merit, I can safely say that Dawkins has achieved more in his life time than all the active members of this board combined. He is no doubt a highly gifted man by almost any measure. Branding people idiots since they do not share the same views as you is very unfair. You can't really call someone like Sir Isaac Newton an idiot because he supported a few crackpot ideas in his later life (although Dawkins views I mostly agree with).

I definitely could not write something on a par with The Selfish Gene, so I could not call him an 'idiot' without coming across as extremely arrogant myself. If Dawkins is an idiot then that leaves little hope for 99.9% of people.
Isn't this the guy that attacks religion as "the root of all evil"?

That's pretty pretty unfair right there. He can have a thousand phds for all I care, and he can know his multiplication table, but someone that can easily say that religion is evil and not look at the good side of it, in any other matter too actually, can't be that intelligent.

That's a strawman. If you read his book, he does not say religion is the root of all evil. Actually, in response to the title of his Channel 4 series 'The Root of All Evil?':

"The title itself is one in which Dawkins did not have a say and with which he has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction."

The arguments he puts forward against religion are reasonable. I guess Sam Harris and the great Bertrand Russell are also idiots since they were also critical of religion.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:51 am

Joe Camacho wrote:
Clements wrote:On merit, I can safely say that Dawkins has achieved more in his life time than all the active members of this board combined. He is no doubt a highly gifted man by almost any measure. Branding people idiots since they do not share the same views as you is very unfair. You can't really call someone like Sir Isaac Newton an idiot because he supported a few crackpot ideas in his later life (although Dawkins views I mostly agree with).

I definitely could not write something on a par with The Selfish Gene, so I could not call him an 'idiot' without coming across as extremely arrogant myself. If Dawkins is an idiot then that leaves little hope for 99.9% of people.
Isn't this the guy that attacks religion as "the root of all evil"?

That's pretty pretty unfair right there. He can have a thousand phds for all I care, and he can know his multiplication table, but someone that can easily say that religion is evil and not look at the good side of it, in any other matter too actually, can't be that intelligent.

It is possible to like a person, even if you disagree with certain views. It is still possible to be intelligent, yet be really crazy. These dynamics exist, so there's not much you can do about it...

With that said though religion does have its purposes, but when used to control people through fear and intidimatation.. it is relatively evil. I'm not really into religion, but positive values that religion brings are probably the best thing it does for people...

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:06 am

You are right, but still, I like to judge by their actions, he can be intelligent in the field of science, but he can be an idiot in his manners or actitude.

And I have known Phds in law that can't even write a lawsuit, so Phds don't really impress me.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:15 am

Joe Camacho wrote:You are right, but still, I like to judge by their actions, he can be intelligent in the field of science, but he can be an idiot in his manners or actitude.

And I have known Phds in law that can't even write a lawsuit, so Phds don't really impress me.

That's probably because they teach.

Clements · Post by **Clements** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:20 am

Dawkins has done us a great service by writing books about Evolution targeted at laypeople to clear misconceptions, and to prevent creationism being taught in science classrooms. If Dawkins credentials do not impress you, then probably nothing will. I would be more than happy with an 1/8 of what he has achieved so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Da ... ecognition

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:52 am

Clements wrote:Dawkins has done us a great service by writing books about Evolution targeted at laypeople to clear misconceptions, and to prevent creationism being taught in science classrooms. If Dawkins credentials do not impress you, then probably nothing will. I would be more than happy with an 1/8 of what he has achieved so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Da ... ecognition

He could do all that without acting as if religion is the root of all evil, correct? I mean, I'm all for evolution, the scientific method and secular schooling, but I don't go around saying that religion is the root of all evil.

Rashidi · Post by **Rashidi** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:49 am

religion is the root of all evil

the way i see it, religion do have "potency" to attract evil and nurture it

ex:

why catholic bishop-ry have tendency to attract pedophile, so Pope himself must address this issue with G.W.Bush ?
why Islamic have tendency to become violent, such demonstrated with Dannish Cartoon, Pope sermon, and condition in Pakistan, Afgani, and more... ?

sure religion have its good side, but one must not overlook the atrocities that come after the implementation of said religion (either that was intended or not)

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:19 am

Rashidi wrote:
religion is the root of all evil
the way i see it, religion do have "potency" to attract evil and nurture it

ex:
why catholic bishop-ry have tendency to attract pedophile, so Pope himself must address this issue with G.W.Bush ?
why Islamic have tendency to become violent, such demonstrated with Dannish Cartoon, Pope sermon, and condition in Pakistan, Afgani, and more... ?
sure religion have its good side, but one must not overlook the atrocities that come after the implementation of said religion (either that was intended or not)

There are pedophiles who are not "man of the cloth" too, just like politicians and celebrities, people make scandals of common crimes because said people that commit them are "important" to society.

And I can't really blame islamic people to be pissed off when they invade their countries and associate a religion with terrorism, when secular people can be terrorists too. Then again, the Christian God talks to G.W. Bush, so they might as well be evil.

Heh, what about the "God Warrior"? Or Jesus Camp? You can find examples of really intolerant and aggressive people in any religion, well, to be honest, I haven't heard of any shinto, budism, taosim, hinduism, et al agressive examples.

Across history, you will find examples of human tragedy in the name of religion, just like any other idea that can be used brainwash people to do what you want them to do, that doesn't make the idea evil.

Religion has as much potency of attracting evil as any other mean for human beings to gain power.

Johan_H · Post by **Johan_H** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:36 am

Joe Camacho wrote:Heh, what about the "God Warrior"? Or Jesus Camp? You can find examples of really intolerant and aggressive people in any religion, well, to be honest, I haven't heard of any shinto [...] agressive examples.

WW2?

Regardless of religion's potency to attract "evil" or whatever, it does have a tendency to make people stupid, as in rejecting simple and observable facts because they contradict a faith.

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:45 am

Johan_H wrote:
Joe Camacho wrote:Heh, what about the "God Warrior"? Or Jesus Camp? You can find examples of really intolerant and aggressive people in any religion, well, to be honest, I haven't heard of any shinto [...] agressive examples.
WW2?

Regardless of religion's potency to attract "evil" or whatever, it does have a tendency to make people stupid, as in rejecting simple and observable facts because they contradict a faith.

Good point, I hadn't thought about the japanese, but I thought their stance in WW2 was more cultural or racist, rather than religious, I'll have to look into that.

But then again, you can't blame religion, it's just easier for people to accept religion stories than think about their surroundings. Religion is more of a crutch than anything else, religion doesn't impose itself on people, people impose religion, as an idea, to other people.

And again, there are a lot of people that embrace a religion and are perfectly logical human beings.

Neo Kaiser · Post by **Neo Kaiser** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:08 am

Religion is so old that it may be encoded on the genes. Humans always feels that there is a higher presence from ancient times.

Johan_H · Post by **Johan_H** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:24 am

Neo Kaiser wrote:Religion is so old that it may be encoded on the genes.

What's your point? The same can be said about racism, greed and oppression.

Human genes suck. Hupefully people will fix them up in a distant future.

I.S.T. · Post by **I.S.T.** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:26 am

Johan_H wrote:Human genes suck.

I can personally attest to that. I have Fibromyalgia.

Fuck you, DNA. Fuck you.

Tallgeese · Post by **Tallgeese** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:42 am

Joe Camacho wrote:You are right, but still, I like to judge by their actions, he can be intelligent in the field of science, but he can be an idiot in his manners or actitude.

Pretty much. I thus feel quite justified in calling him an idiot; though perhaps I should have called him insane or a fool in the area of presenting an argument in a manner that won't make him look like a spoiled, arrogant child; in order to prevent Clements and such from getting all flustered.

This shitstorm is absurd. I do not particularly care what Dawkins has done if he can't seem to conduct himself in a manner better than that of the standard internet religious/anti-religious troll. The author of this article is no better than the people he demeans regardless of whatever claims of intelligence or rationality he may make. Hence the comparison.

...I get the strong impression that Clements wouldn't have gone to all the trouble defending Dawkins if Dawkins' nationality wasn't British...

Johan_H · Post by **Johan_H** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:45 am

Metatron wrote:...I get the strong impression that Clements wouldn't have gone to all the trouble defending Dawkins if Dawkins' nationality wasn't British...

lol?

Clements · Post by **Clements** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:45 pm

Metatron wrote:
Joe Camacho wrote:You are right, but still, I like to judge by their actions, he can be intelligent in the field of science, but he can be an idiot in his manners or actitude.
Pretty much. I thus feel quite justified in calling him an idiot; though perhaps I should have called him insane or a fool in the area of presenting an argument in a manner that won't make him look like a spoiled, arrogant child; in order to prevent Clements and such from getting all flustered.

This shitstorm is absurd. I do not particularly care what Dawkins has done if he can't seem to conduct himself in a manner better than that of the standard internet religious/anti-religious troll. The author of this article is no better than the people he demeans regardless of whatever claims of intelligence or rationality he may make. Hence the comparison.

What Richard Dawkins says in his writings is no more critical of religion than Bertrand Russell, David Hume and a whole host of others. Religion itself isn't above criticism, and Richard Dawkins doesn't call religious adherents idiots. He has constantly expressed a great respect for Kenneth R. Miller, a Christian.

Metatron wrote:...I get the strong impression that Clements wouldn't have gone to all the trouble defending Dawkins if Dawkins' nationality wasn't British...

That's totally ridiculous.