Tim Lee

A Note to Ron Paul Activists

While I’m on the subject, I wish someone would explain to the rank-and-file online Ron Paul activists how badly their behavior reflects on the campaign, and on libertarianism more generally. Ars did a story on the spambots similar to Wired’s story, and the comment section was flooded with comments by people who had registered for accounts the day before. The comments ranged from boilerplate campaign talking points to comments that make them look completely insane. For example:

I find it far more likely that this botnet spam attack is not the design of the Paul campaign or any of its supporters. It is far more likely that this is the release of a first round of direct cyber attack against the Ron Paul campaign. I base this opinion on the fact that the attack is becoming clearly targeted at the youtube videos of Ron Paul. Youtube links to his videos are beginning to be inserted into the the body of these spam message and as a direct result the video’s are being pulled by youtube for violation of their terms of use policy.

This attack method can do far more harm than good for the Ron Paul campaign so I will make a guess that this is the work of those in the NSA using cyber war tactics out of loyalty or possibly under orders to use this stealth attack method to derail the Ron Paul campaign by using the campaign’s online strength against them.

Yup, that definitely sounds like the most plausible explanation. In fact, I can’t believe I didn’t think of it myself!

This army of over-enthusiastic online supporters puts the Paul campaign in a bit of a bind. It’s not like they can put out a press release saying “Dear supporters, please stop making fools of yourselves.” And because these campaigns are spontaneously organized, it’s not clear who the campaign would contact to privately ask them to tone it down. On the other hand, if my first exposure to Paul’s candidacy was a comment-spam flood in the comment section of my favorite blog, I’m pretty sure I’d be turned off.

Even worse, it’s likely that the most obnoxious comment spammers are also the least likely to realize that they’re among the obnoxious ones. So the Paul campaign might be able to tone down the volume of commenting, but at the cost of making the median comment even nuttier.

Since the Paul campaign probably can’t say it, I will. Maybe if I say it a few of the comment-spamming horde will find their way here. Ron Paul comment spammers, you’re making fools of yourselves and embarrassing the campaign you want so much to help. An occasional, respectful post supporting your candidate is great. A flood of angry, paranoid rants is just going to turn people off. If you want to see Ron Paul win the election, please knock it off.

Update: Sigh, you can click the comments for several examples of the point I’m making here. For Ron Paul supporters who are new to this blog: I’m a libertarian and I gave Paul $50 yesterday. So I’m not criticizing Paul or his views. Rather, my point is that you’re not going to win any converts through angry rants or indiscriminate comment spam. All you’re going to accomplish is to irritate people who might otherwise be sympathetic to your message.

November 6, 2007 | Comments |

Viewing 34 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    We won't knock it off until he wins the election. We're here for the big win, not just a statement.
    • ^
    • v
    How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Whacky Followers.

    Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
    By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
    By word gaming. As Lenin advised, “First, confuse the vocabulary.”
    By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
    By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call them a cult.
    By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
    By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
    By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his person.
    By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the answer you want.
    By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don’t report his reasoning.
    By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
    With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them generously.

    But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.

    - Moderno Machiavelli
    • ^
    • v
    Amen disinter!
    • ^
    • v
    I guess you have no one to look bad to Tim Lee, since nobody reads this blog, but you really need to grow up, you're coming off as an extremist, kook, and conspiracy theorist.
    • ^
    • v
    Tim, I would recommend updating your post to state that you are a libertarian, a Ron Paul sympathizer (which I assume you are), and a Ron Paul supporter (if you are).

    It appears from the early posts that they are running over here and commenting without any context about who you are or what you think.

    This is no guarantee of success, of course. The folks making Ron Paul look bad probably don't have the self-awareness to realize they are doing it, and they won't be perceptive enough to recognize that you are sympathetic with their views. But maybe you should try by making clear on this page what your views are.
    • ^
    • v
    Provide a link to your earlier post too . . .
    • ^
    • v
    What a kook! Who wrote this blog? Wow, we can invent spambots to donate $4.3M in one day, we must be pretty darn good eh? What conspiracy theories! LOL

    And my behavior is now worse after seeing this article:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/polit...

    The gloves are off. The mainstream media like CBS is no longer credible when it can allow slurs like this, so anything fired back verbally is FAIR GAME. Have at them boys!!!!!!!!!
    • ^
    • v
    While I commiserate with your concerns to a degree, I'd have to counsel that you be a little less uptight about these things.

    As you noted, there is no way to stop it and therefore no reason to feel guilty about it. People will espouse their opinions in whatever manner they personally deem appropriate.

    And when it comes to politics/religion, the old adage about them not necessarily being welcome as dinner guests proves true.

    Good luck to ya!
    • ^
    • v
    People were angry about the Wired story because of the dishonest way in which the story was written.

    The story said, essentially, "Many people have claimed that Ron Paul doesn't really have any supporters, and that his apparent online popularity is being faked. That was proven to be true today when email spam was uncovered that had apparently been sent by a botnet."

    People naturally respond badly to being told they don't exist, and are merely a figment of some botnet criminal's joke.

    It was a ragingly dishonest claim, because of the fundamental limits of what can be done by a botnet. A botnet simply CAN'T scan the blogosphere and swarm anti-Paul blogs with pro-Paul context-specific comments. It can't be done, and the writers at Wired KNEW that and chose to lie. So they got complaints. Those are the breaks.
    • ^
    • v
    • ^
    • v
    If you write false things, you should honestly expect such responses. And if you want to start highlighting crazy's, lets start with people who want to nuke any arab in the world, who do you think they support? But you don't see many Ron Paul supporters going there. Why? Because we don't have to, the message is good enough on it's own.
    • ^
    • v
    I would rather have bad manners than be a neocon-loving PRO-WAR, PRO-NORTH AMERICAN UNION asshole traitor, like yourself.

    So FUCK YOU.
    • ^
    • v
    Sarah 'Lie' Stirland at Wired has been writing some really nasty, disingenuous slanted stuff against Ron Paul. And she's still doing it.

    Those of us who support Ron Paul have been putting up with loads of BS for a long time now. I wouldn't expect much tolerance.
    • ^
    • v
    This is fascinating!

    I think most of us TLFers, most having worked in Washington, D.C., recognize that persuading people starts with courtesy and respect. I've been assuming, as I think Tim does, that Ron Paul's supporters want to persuade others to join their cause - but maybe that's not the case.

    Would anyone who has posted incendiary comments here, or on any other blog or site, care to explain what motivates you? Are you a genuine Paul supporter who also believes it is good to alienate others from supporting him? Why is that a good thing to do?
    • ^
    • v
    Jim, I post on many sites. Most of them are purely political, although some aren't.

    There are sites where I am on my best behavior, and sites where I am not.

    My criteria for deciding when to bring the flamethrower out is pretty basic: if it's plain that I'm dealing with a hater who could never be persuaded anyway, I will flame away without remorse.

    Many Paul supporters have this fantasy of rescue, where just because they're nice and polite to some junior Hannity, they melt all the hatred away and all the neocons in the world are morally redeemed. That's just not going to happen, no matter how many flowers you stick into guns. There are many people who are possible Paul converts: older "East Coast Establishment" Republicans, Independents, antiwar Democrats who don't trust their own party any more, religious conservatives [of the homeschooler variety, and not really of the Dobson or Gary Bauer variety], economic conservatives, disillusioned veterans, etc. But Freepers are never, ever, ever going to be convinced, and neither are most Townhallers or RedStaters. There's really no appropriate mechanism for interacting with them other than with flames. Politeness will just be interpreted as weakness. That's the way all their heroes act, so that's the way they will act.
    • ^
    • v
    so shouldnt you be happy people are registering for your site?
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for sharing your thinking, Fluffy. I know my own practice with people that can't be persuaded is to move on, if for no other reason than because talking to them is a waste of my time.

    There may be an exception, but flame wars almost never change anyone's mind. What they do is make both participants look bad to outside observers, including the person who might have been persuaded to consider the value of Ron Paul's views but who is alienated by the ugliness of the argument.

    I don't think you personally need this advice - you've already proven yourself thoughtful and polite. But perhaps other Ron Paul supporters like "brody" and "Jim Kelly" do. They might as well be, and may actually be, opponents of Mr. Paul. Their manners give credibilty to posts like the one by Michael Pugliese. His is a simple form of ad hominem attack called "Poisoning the Well," but "brody" and "Jim Kelly" make it a lot easier for him to do it. Too bad.
    • ^
    • v
    Kind of reminds me of the <a href="
    http://www.suck.com/daily/99/12/13/daily.html" rel="nofollow">"Linux Possibly Defamed Somewhere" phenomenon.
    • ^
    • v
    You know, you may have distaste for me, but it is nothing compared to my distaste for the MSM propaganda and yr blog actually. In fact, since you can't attack Dr. Paul with any force, you resort to going after the supporters. What a coward.
    • ^
    • v
    Congratulations, Tim, you've been promoted to the MSM. I never knew you were pro-North American Union, though.
    • ^
    • v
    Your article just shows that, not only do you cut down REAL AMERICANS that support this man for the message of maintaining freedom and liberty that is slipping away in this country, but you also are cutting down ALL the VFW members nationally that have now endorsed Ron Paul, and also, the military members and their families that have contributed the MOST donations to Ron Paul's campaign than any other candidate. OH and did I mention pretty much every gun owner that hears Ron Paul's message and his stance on protecting the constitution and the 2nd amendment. So choose wisely what you say, you are talking about a lot of people, Americans, that actually give a damn about what their children are going to deal with for the rest of their lives.

    So, watch it next time, because you sound like a douche bag!
    • ^
    • v
    oh yes, I forgot to ask. Which big government, neo-conservative, gun taking, war mongering, tax laying, lying, thief, on either the dem. or rep. side are you going to vote for? Why dont you write an article about who we as "Paulites" have any other choice to vote for??? There is not another candidate worth any vote of mine. Unless you just want more of the same distrust you have in government as you do right now.