One of the many great things about Ricochet is that it's a troll-free zone. Sure we in this community have our areas of disagreement - sometimes to the extent that I have been forced to deploy the blogger's nuclear option: the snarky put down - but on the whole, being as we're all basically conservatives, the debate is extremely civilized. For which, much thanks.
Some readers may be surprised to hear me say this. After all, isn't contention the very life-blood of the blogpost? Er, up to a point. The posts I write for the Telegraph are probably subject to as much heavy troll activity as any in the blogosphere: often the comments run into the thousands, at least half of them from people who believe that I have nothing of interest to say on any subject whatsoever - and keep coming back day after day to tell me as much. In some ways, I suppose, this is a good thing. As the saying goes: "When you attract lots of flak it means you're over the target." But I can't pretend I don't find the relentless ad hom attacks, straw men arguments, and appeals to authority wearisome in the extreme. For once, really just for once in my life, I'd love one of my detractors actually to come back with an argument sufficiently lucid for me to bother engaging with.
They never do, though. Rarely do they even bother to respond to the post I've actually written. It's like trying to debate with a five-year old. Every day, pretty much, I go out there to try and fight on behalf of empiricism, free markets, liberty, small government, important stuff that I think really matters and is worth laying your neck on the line for. And every day, what I get in return is the equivalent of: "Pooh! We hate you! Your bottom smells and you wee wee your pants!"
Does this mean - as I suspect - that the green-liberal-left has no real arguments to back its case? Are the any writers on the liberal-left today who are saying anything, on any subject, which ought to give us pause to consider the error of our ways?