It’s not only a thing of beauty…
…it’s what will fund the Blogger’s Union Guild.
A comment here by rightinaleftworld was the inspiration. In full:
Thinking about this, the thought of blog trolls now paying for my benefits and retirement is just too good to pass up.
Trolling is voluntary, like drinking alcohol. Both can be detrimental to innocent bystanders. Drinkers sometimes damage other peoples’ lives and property. But trolls always hurt bloggers’ feelings. So if alcohol should be taxed, trolling must be taxed.
The authorizing legislation is the “Minimizing Hitler’s Influence Act”. Thus to oppose it is to be objectively pro-Hitler.
Passage of the
Bloggers’ Slush Fund Hitler Tax is therefore guaranteed.
But this Act will tax a lot more than Nazis. Progressives oppose “violent” speech and incivility, right? Just ask them.
Obviously bloggers can’t be taxed for shouting “Hitler Hitler Hitler!” on our own sites. It’s forbidden by the 1st Amendment (and more importantly, B.U.G. bylaws). But commenters spraying Godwin’s Law on our digital property? Hey, dweller-under-the-bridge?
You spray, you pay.
Make me the president of B.U.G. and I’ll do to trolls’ bank accounts what liposuction would do to Michael Moore.
(Obviously commenters would be taxed for a slam like that. But never bloggers. We’re the victims here, brothers and sisters!)
The tax code will be progressive. Using “crosshairs” imagery? A penny or two for the violence. A penny for the mildly racist “take back America”. But no less than a dime per Führer!
And wait…what about “The N Word”? Ooooh. It must match or exceed even Hitler. Try to imagine what we’ll rake in from the rapper/hip-hop sections of the Internet!
Once you’ve identified an unsympathetic minority it’s easy to tax it. Well…target acquired.
So now just be vigilant!
Look for the union libel.
I’ve been accused of being a troll. It’s not that i’m trying to be disruptive, it’s just a consequence of my strongly held beliefs. I often find myself matching knowledge and wits with people who charge into a discussion unprepared for an opposing view. Often it just turns into a flame war, and therefore no real discussion takes place.
What many people don’t seem to understand is that I am actually fairly objective, and willing to listen to their argument. Often though, I quickly realize that my argument often renders their’s null, but I am unable to convey the salient points of it quickly enough for them to realize it before they start attacking me.
People often find it easier to accept a simple fallacy over a complex reality, and they will not willingly be persuaded from their simple idea(s).
This is why I’ve quit trying to interact with these folks. Click through my latest post to see datechguy trying to communicate with wonkette commenters.
You said, “I am unable to convey the salient points of it quickly enough for them to realize it before they start attacking me.” That’s exactly why we need to craft “silver bullet” arguments. Ideally we kill their logical argument with one short statement.
Not that even those will change progressives. But if we destroy their arguments impressively enough, we’ll win over those who do care at all about the truth.
Love your closing sentence, DL. Many of us, even those on and in the right need to remain personally vigilant. One of the tragedies of maturity is realizing that nothing is black and white.