A thought experiment with someone who can’t think

I decided to have a comment war with a MAGA guy for fun and to see how many of their classic “argumentation” tropes they’d engage in. It was highly entertaining. I picked someone trolling an Instagram post by a prolific commentator, whose comment was just a boring old ad hominem attack on the OP. Ho hum. I figured he could do better than that, and sure enough, he did better.

Here are some of his gems, with the facts.

[Full disclosure: I admit, I egged him on using some of his own tactics.]

Context: This is on Harry Sisson’s Instagram account. Sisson responds to a video of a guy (I have no idea who) acting smug about the stock market performance after the Felon-in-Chief announced the 90-day pause in tariffs. Sisson explains that the stock market’s bounceback brought it back to less than before it crashed.

The commenter (bhuffd), one of those alt-right types who likes to troll anti-alt-right posts, responds:

You think you know what you are talking about ? How about tell us why your talent agency dropped you instead?

Right away, we have a nice combination of questioning the poster’s knowledge, false equivalency (“your personal situation” is equal to “how the stock market’s performing”), and an ad hominem attack that combines deflection with whataboutism (as in “you’re so terrible your talent agency dropped you, and that’s more important to focus on than the economy” with an allusion to a minor scandal involving the poster–more on that below).

I decided to bait because he’s used this tactic before. I called him “the MAGA dipshit [who] can’t stay on topic.” (Context: In a comment thread, he called me a “dipshit” and a “shitlib,” so I knew using a similar term would would trigger him.) Dirty pool, I admit, but the results were perfect.

this is the topic for little Harry and his 11 underage women 😂

Note the “underage women” comment. So now it’s a much more blatant ad hominem attack (“he’s a pedo”) with no sources to back up the claim, doubling down on the deflection. This comes in later, too.

His response when I called him out on attacking the messenger and ignoring the message?

says the shtlib getting their news from Harry.

So now it’s an ad hominem attack on me (not the first time, since he started that up on another post, before I called him a “dipshit” to trigger him).
Interesting that he seems to assume I don’t get news from any other sources.
Also interesting is that he’s the one who initially responded to this post, so if the OP is an inaccurate news source, what’s he doing here if not to troll?

Didn’t you tell me npr and pbs were right leaning? Bahahahahaha

Context: He’s referring to a comment thread on another post where he called NPR “all left” (maybe he means “alt-left”?) and “far left.” When I pulled up a media bias site that ranked NPR as centrist, he changed his tune to “center left” because that’s what another media bias site ranked NPR. (Actually, his link pointed me to a ranking of NPR’s opinion pieces, not their actual news reporting, but I’ll let that slide because NPR’s news reporting got the same ranking.)
Here we see that bhuffd’s trying to deflect with “you’re clearly wrong because you said X,” with X being (to put it bluntly) a lie. After all, he can’t “win” (his goal in this “argument”) with the truth.

When I “remind” him of this context and throw him an ad hominem bone suggesting he’s, um, obsessed and infatuated with the OP, bhuffd replies:

nah, just come here to trigger shtlibs and watch them cope and seethe.

Typical alt-right inability to admit he’s really following this entire Instagram account because he’s triggered by anything negative about his alt-right buddies and probably also jealous of Sisson’s publicity.

He continues:

PBS and NPR are all left. Didn’t you watch the subcommittee hearing with npr and pbs? Full staff liberal and donations to the DNC.

Context: He’s referring to the March 26 DOGE subcommittee hearing organized by Margie Greene¹ in which Jimmy Jordan cites Uri Berliner’s essay in the Free Press² about the lack of registered Republicans in NPR’s DC editorial offices. He brings this up again later.

Probably not since Harry didn’t cover it.

Doubling down on the assertion that I don’t get news from sources other than the OP, even though I’ve included receipts.

“Grow a pair, snowflake”.

He’s quoting me, and I admit I baited him again. I get a laugh out of his responses.

That’s rich, you openly admit to being a “cat dad” and your overweight boyfriend has a pink haired Mohawk. I’m sure you would have a purple one if you had hair. You dont have an ounce of testosterone between the both of you. Bahahahahaha

He proves he knows how to look up my public profile (note that his is private). Let’s ignore that he couldn’t figure out that PJ and I are married, and he’d have no way of knowing that I’d never get a purple mohawk because it just isn’t my style. However, let’s pay attention to his toxic masculinity “strategy” here:
- He assumes being a cat dad is tied to a lack of “testosterone” (his stand-in for machismo).
- He assumes any form of self-expression that he doesn’t like (in this case, PJ’s haircut) is “non-masculine” and therefore “bad.”
- Let’s not forget that he also calls PJ “overweight” (as if I’m not [insert eyeroll]) as though that proves something other than he’s got the maturity level of a shallow child.
So what this tells me about him is that he’s homophobic and misogynistic (typical alt-right characteristics). Probably racist, too.

Another commenter entered the fray and pointed out that he had no proof of his claim about the OP “grooming” underage girls. His reply:

bahahahaha. Did you watch the interviews? One chick openly admitted she couldn’t discuss age because it would effect her lawsuit 😂😂

“Chick”? Definitely misogynist.
I did a Google search using “harry sisson underage.”³ The results were articles that cited the scandal, but I didn’t see anything alleging that any women were underage.
One of the sources I found (interestingly enough, in the Free Press, which published Uri Berliner’s essay) was an op-ed piece that considers the whole matter a tempest in a teapot and suggests that these are all college-age women, which would put them around Sisson’s own age.⁴ It’s an interesting viewpoint on the allegations.

Coming back to the main topic, when I asked him for a source proving his allegations about NPR and PBS donating to the DNC and being “full liberal,” his original response is to cite Fox News⁵, and when I laughed at that, he replied,

so you get to choose the media?

Considering Fox News is listed by every media bias site as factually unreliable? Yes, I think I get to choose something more reliable.

It was in the congressional hearing. It’s all over the media. Just chose faux to trigger you. Job done.

Laughing at an obvious alt-right choice of news is “triggered”?

So you are saying it isn’t true? If it is, will you admit you were wrong and that npr is far left?

And we’re back to “NPR is far left.” Poor bhuffd can’t make up his mind whether they’re “center left” or “far left.”
Note also, it’s about “you’re wrong, and I’m right.” Typical alt-right. They don’t care about facts; they care about “owning the libs.”

faux news was bait. Here’s the trap. NPR openly admitting it.

“Trap”? What, does he think he’s Emperor Palpatine and I’m Admiral Ackbar?
Also note that he’s doing a kind of “backpedal doubling down” by doubling down on “I just used Fox News to trigger you” while basically admitting that Fox News isn’t a trustworthy news source. I love how he even refers to it as “faux news” her.

Sucker. Game. Set. Match. So long, gay boy.

Back to “I win” and a dose of homophobia to round it out.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243755769/npr-journalist-uri-berliner-trust-diversity

If you read the article, you’ll see that it’s a summary of Berliner’s claims, the context in which it fits with what conservatives are saying, and the response from the NPR newsroom. So I’m not sure what kind of “admission” this is. Admitting that a senior editor wrote an essay sparking controversy?
This isn’t to say that NPR hasn’t botched some stories. Go to the links about the Congressional hearing, and you’ll find that NPR’s CEO owns up to these missteps, even though they occurred before she took over. You’ll also see where she admits she sent some, um, unflattering tweets that she wishes she could take back. But “far left”? Nobody’s saying that in this article.
This is also when I replied to the “donations to the DNC” part with NPR’s OpenSecrets profile, which points out that NPR can’t contribute to political campaigns as an organization.⁶

keep trying. You lose. 87 libs, 0 republicans. She was also asked under oath 😉

Coming back to that “87 libs,” Jordan asked NPR CEO Katherine Maher to verify Berliner’s claim that NPR’s DC editorial office was staffed with 87 Democrats (not liberals) and no Republicans. Maher’s response was “neither confirm nor deny” because, she said, NPR doesn’t collect voter registration data on its employees.

Why are you people so obsessed with kids and your “love is love” bullsht? Should be woodchippers for all of you.

So bhuffd brings up underage girls and spews homophobic crap, but “you people” (who?) should be tossed in the woodchipper a la Fargo? Someone needs anger management counseling.

He then claims

Anyway, this conversation has exceeded your mental capacity. I’m out.

Another famous alt-right “strategy”: Claim the person you’re unable to prove wrong is mentally inferior.

Since I was having so much fun and wanted to continue this thought experiment, I sent him a set of media bias rating links going back to his “NPR is far left” assertion.⁷ This is also when I sent him the link that corrected his “87 libs” claim⁸ and debunked the “underage girls” myth⁹ I ended with “you lose,” because I knew “I’m out” would reverse itself real quick, and I wasn’t disappointed:

what did I lose?

Only his entire argument, to factual sources.

You just proved my point 😂😂😂 You said it was center and center right

I’m presuming he means NPR–which, of course, I’ve never claimed was “center right.” The “center right” sources I referred to were the sources covering the Sisson scandal. Another alt-right tactic: Confuse the issue with contradictory and false claims.

and even rejected a pbs article supporting my argument

PBS article? I guess bhuffd meant the NPR article he cited as a source of how NPR is “far left,” even though the article says nothing of the sort.

saying it’s Trump owned right wing media lol.

I don’t know where this one came from, unless it’s a reference to his Fox News link, but we all know Fox News a) isn’t Trump-owned and b) is considered “right” by all media bias evaluation sites I checked.¹⁰

You got absolutely owned. It’s hilarious that you are losing your sht 😂😂

So bhuffd “absolutely owned” me because a) he lied about what I’d written and b) he absolutely has to “win” so he can “own the libs.”

That was enough fun for one night, so I closed with this:

I was “owned” how? Because you can’t read? Because you’ve changed your claims every time I prove you wrong? Because you now had to resort to lying? My goodness, I’m so “owned” by a man who thinks he can call NPR “far left” and then claim I said it was “center right” (which, if you were remotely literate, you’d know I didn’t say in the least–see receipts). You say I claim a PBS article (it was NPR, BTW–do you even know what you’re writing?) is “Trump owned right wing media.” Receipts? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any because you’re just making shit up to say you “owned” me. You also clearly think you have to have the last word since you’re still replying after you said you were finished. Triggered much, snowflake? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

It was a good night.

Notes:

As Republicans Denounce NPR and PBS, Democrats Mock Hearing ↩︎
I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust. ↩︎
harry sisson underage – Google Search ↩︎
The Perils of the Situationship ↩︎
NPR editor found registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans 87 to zero in newsroom ↩︎
National Public Radio Profile: Summary • OpenSecrets ↩︎
AllSides rates NPR online news as “Lean Left” (-2.00 on a scale of -9 [farthest left] to +9 [farthest right])
Media Bias/Fact Check rates NPR as “Left-Center” with a Factual Reporting level of “High”
Ad Fontes Media rates NPR as “Middle” (-4.20 on a scale of -42 to +42) with a reliability score of 43.10 out of 64 ↩︎
4 takeaways from PBS and NPR’s testimony on Capitol Hill ↩︎
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-perils-of-the-situationship-harry-sisson?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web ↩︎
AllSides rates Fox News as “Right” (+3.88)
Media Bias/Fact Check rates Fox News as “Right” with a Factual Reporting Level of “Mixed,” classifying the site as “Questionable”
Ad Fontes Media is more charitable on Fox News’s website’s reliability, rating it as “Skews Right” and a reliability score of 35.38 ↩︎