One Abusive Anonymous Bloke

One Abusive Anonymous Bloke, one toxic forum, a poor advertisement for ‘the labour left’.

There were generally some very good discussions at The Standard on Little: Labour to Defy TPPA.

However one of the most negative aspects of The Standard was also on display – one of their resident trolls, ‘One Anonymous Bloke’. They (their gender is uncertain) have a history of persistent personal attacks that are a major factor in The Standard being seen as an abusive toxic forum weighted heavily in favour of long term abusers.

‘One Anonymous Bloke’ chose to target one person, as has been their habit for years.  In one thread here are all their responses to ‘acrophobic’

#1

Liar – the GST increase more than clawed back the income tax cut.

Why do you tell so many lies?

#2

Something can be highly unlikely because it’s prevented by the Greens’ rules, to whit: Green Party members would have to forget that the National Party is a slow civil war upon New Zealand in order to go into coalition with them.

I expect you to fail to understand that, like a:

a: failure or,
b: liar.

Which is it?

#3

Yes, by removing the first part of my comment, you can produce a quote that makes it look as though I said something different.

Are these sort of Kindergarten pratfalls the best you can do?

Yes, they are.

“By removing the first part of my comment, you can produce a quote that makes it look as though I said something different” is very ironic given OAB’s habit of doing just that.

#4

Misrepresenting what Weka said too, eh Wormtongue.

#5

Too funny: fish, meet barrel.

#6

Labour controls the weather. You need to get out more.

#7

Of course there isn’t, you dimwit, since the TPPA is not in force all we have to go on is informed opinion (which doesn’t include yours).

The lying Prime Minister says the government (ie: taxpayers – again not you, you’re a drain on society) will fund the extra costs to keep the retail price of medicines unchanged.

If you had a clue you’d know that, and you don’t.

#8

I have plenty of clues, moran, not that you’ve provided any. For example, Northshoredoc is a better source on this subject: a better wingnut than you’ll ever be.

#9

Are you dense as well as dishonest? What part of all we have to go on is informed opinion are you having trouble with?

#10

You can call it what you like, and that says something about you. You Tory wankers want to restrain my trade to satisfy your Yankee crush: do it on your own dime, shitheel.

#11

Criticising National Party sycophancy is not xenophobia.

If you don’t know how the TPPA restrains trade you haven’t been paying attention.

#12

Please explain why you’re contradicting your lying Prime Minister. Do you think the lying Prime Minister is lying, or are you:

a: Lying or,
b: Running off at the mouth in incompetent ignorance for which you will demonstrate no personal responsibility.

Which is it Glibertard?

#13

I am, liar.

Why do you tell so many lies? Can we charitably assume that you tell so many lies because you’re utterly devoid of original thoughts or opinions, or are you in fact a mendacious wretch, like the Prime Minister?

#14

Your rote-learned lies (all of them) on the Greenhouse Effect are lies. Your rote-learned lies on Lab5’s economic competence are lies (note that I’m not saying Lab5 were economically competent, just that the rote learned lies you tell on the subject are lies). Your rote-learned lies about poverty, are lies.

Your rote-learned lies about the TPPA, are lies.

Even Bill English contradicts your rote-learned lies. Even the lying Prime Minister contradicts your rote-learned lies when it suits him.

Why is that?

#15

I already have, multiple times, on multiple threads. “This is the rainy day the government has been saving up for” ring any bells?

Your lies about welfare have been debunked so many times by so many people – check out Werewolf’s ten myths about welfare and see how many boxes you tick – pretty sure it’s all of them.

Your lies about the Greenhouse Effect come straight from the list of denier lies, as can be seen by cross-reference with Skeptical Science.

I’m inclined to be charitable and assume that you believe these lies because you’re biased and stupid, rather than that you’re deliberately mendacious, but really, who cares: kids are still dying while you tell them.

#16

For example: “many living in poverty do so because of poor choices”

All you’ve offered in support of this vile hate speech is to confess your disgusting betrayal of people who’ve turned to you for help.

Lie number one. I’ve referred to others above.

This is typical behaviour of ‘One Anonymous Bloke’, targeted personal attacks and attempts to discredit someone they choose to try and drive away. I’ve seen them do it frequently and have been on the receiving end.

They have been allowed to continue like this for years with little or no challenge from Standard moderators. It is accepted behaviour, it’s even encouraged. And it is onbe of the main reasons why The Standard is seen as a toxic forum that reflects poorly on ‘the labour left’ and by association, on Labour.

At the end of the thread One Anonymous Bloke’s behaviour was challenged:

Mark:

Easy to tell when [deleted] has been proved a liar…it gets very abusive.
Good on you acrophobic..no doubt you will get slapped with a ban shortly for a few inconvenient truths however.
☺

[You’re a sad wee misogynist, Mark. People don’t get banned here for inconvenient truths, and even if they were, I don’t see much truth in anything acrophobic has written anyway, so if a ban comes, it won’t be on those grounds. TRP]

Misogynist…really?
You have some assumption about a word I used?
OAB gets to abuse anyone exposing his/her/it’s nastiness & lies, anyone else gets a petty little telling off.
The utter failure, nastiness, hypocracy & dishonesty of the Left exposed in just a few comments.
Pfft…

[Two words, Mark. I left the word “it” undeleted, just so the readers can get an idea of how you see women. TRP]

TRP targets the use of ‘it’ while supporting OAB’s persistent personal attacks. Unfortunately this is also typical of The Standard standard.

And under protection of site moderation One Anonymous Bloke continued:

My challenge to Acrophobic is very simple: to produce evidence – not personal anecdotes or assertions – of the right wing dogma they have learned so well.

Where Bill English and the Prime Minister contradict their assertions, I feel confident in calling them lies. Where the academies of science of every country that has an academy of science contradicts the right wing dogma they have learned so well, I feel confident in calling them lies.

When Epidemiology contradicts the right wing dogma they have learned so well, I feel confident in calling them lies too.

If you don’t like that, get some personal responsibility and rebut my criticisms. Why am I obliged to tolerate or be polite in the face of lies in politics?

acrophobia responded:

So:

1. You think lied because I apparently contradict something John Key says yet you call John Key a liar?
2. You think I lied because I question some notion you have of scientific consensus. You do realise that challenging scientific theory is not only an exercise in free speech it is also part of the scientific method? Would you have accused Galileo of ‘lying’ for opposing the prevailing consensus that the earth was the centre of the universe?

If you made any criticisms of worth I would be happy to engage. Instead you resort to ad-hominem almost from the get-go, accompanied by a flurry of irrational diatribe.

My challenge to you is simple. Quote a single instance where I have lied. Just one.

One Anonymous Bloke #17:

For example: “many living in poverty do so because of poor choices”

All you’ve offered in support of this vile hate speech is to confess your disgusting betrayal of people who’ve turned to you for help.

Lie number one. I’ve referred to others above.

It’s ridiculous to call that a lie, but that’s how One Anonymous Bloke ‘argues’ against things they (presumably) disagree with, repeated accusations of lying.

This disagreement by abuse is sadly common from the left and on The Standard.

One Abusive Anonymous Bloke sadly sums up the state of left wing debate. It is also one of the most negative aspects of The Standard and it has been their trademark for years.

23 Comments

  1. Pete Brian

     /  9th January 2016

    I couldn’t figure out which one was suppose to be the troll. There’s a lot of this nonsense on whale oil blog as well, making it another “abusive toxic forum”.

    • Whale Oil can be an “abusive toxic forum” at post level but in comments is now very sanitised and sychophantic due to excessive moderation and controlling the message.

      And The Standard may be very one sided in it’s moderation at least it is done openly, unlike the silent censorship at WO.

      • Kevin

         /  9th January 2016

        Prentice is a bully and loves to throw his weight around. If he can humiliate someone he disagrees with and make them look stupid he will. And he very rarely, if ever, gives someone the right of reply after publicly humiliating them. For the world’s greatest legal expert he sure doesn’t know much about the concept of natural justice.

      • Moonie01

         /  9th January 2016

        You are completely correct. what has happenned to Whaleoil is a tragedy. One wonders how on earth Slater thought bringing in a paranoid power freak like Belt was a good idea.
        Perhaps he had no say.

    • Kevin

       /  9th January 2016

      And with regards to “Mark” mentioned in your post here’s what lprent had to say to him:

      [lprent: Fuck off flamestarting dipshit. I’d suggest that you took lessons from phobic about how to argue your side without having a bigot pole stuck up your arse to keep your brain alive, but you are obviously too persistently stupid to comment here. I’m tired of banning you for being a repetitive diversion idiot. ]

      The amusing thing is Prentice really has no idea just how predictable he is. He tries to portray himself as intelligent but the reality is when you get past all the blather he’s as thick as mud in a pig stye.

      • Moonie01

         /  9th January 2016

        You have to admit though, he has a great turn of phrase?

    • kittycatkin

       /  9th January 2016

      i scrolled down most of it, as it seemed to be the mixture as before. It’s bizarre that some people must have so little going on in their own lives that they have to resort to this. When they were at school, they probably wrote spiteful remarks on loo walls and bailed up smaller kids and taunted them. If they were at school in Palmerston North, the question ‘Does your mother go to PDC ?’ (a department store) ‘Yes.’ (everyone did) ‘Then she’s a Public Dunny Cleaner.’ would have been considered by them to be the height of wit.

      Before computers, they would probably ring people up and breathe into the phone or shriek insults and hang up.

      They need help. But they will never have it because they don’t know that they need it.

      • Moonie01

         /  9th January 2016

        The poor bastards are socialists after all, you can’t expect them to be like normal people. Probably something went wrong early in their lives which sent them down the wrong path, drugs, booze, losing a job.

  2. Kevin

     /  9th January 2016

    It’s actually worse than what you portray. Much, much, worse.

    OAB is Prentice’s hound. And if you’re a Game of Thrones fan you’ll know what I mean by that.

    In a thread a while back Prentice admitted that he “uses” OAB to find people and ban them. So if OAB has targeted someone this will get Prentice’s attention who will then ban the target if he finds reason to (which I suppose would be quite often as one poster has figured out):

    “Easy to tell when [deleted] has been proved a liar…it gets very abusive.
    Good on you acrophobic..no doubt you will get slapped with a ban shortly for a few inconvenient truths however.”

    Yes, indeed. And speaking of inconvenient truths I got banned by the world’s greatest sysop and now world’s greatest legal expert and called a liar for pointing out truths about the Kim Dotcom case. It was pretty funny though as all I did was arrange passages from the judge’s decision under headings so Prentice was actually calling the judge a liar ! (Prentice tried to defend himself in this forum by arguing that I had used the word “judgement” incorrectly).

    And being targeted by OAB and then banned has happened to me.

    “By removing the first part of my comment, you can produce a quote that makes it look as though I said something different” is very ironic given OAB’s habit of doing just that.

    Yep, and Prentice does it too, except Prentice will remove your entire post leaving just a few sentence, if that. He did it to me, at least twice, each time removing words that contradict whatever his reply is.

    “They have been allowed to continue like this for years with little or no challenge from Standard moderators. It is accepted behaviour, it’s even encouraged. And it is one of the main reasons why The Standard is seen as a toxic forum that reflects poorly on ‘the labour left’ and by association, on Labour.”

    All of the above plus more.

    And good to see you balance your criticisms of WO with some criticism of The Standard.

  3. It to me that there isn’t more moderation of the Pet trolls there.
    There’s some intelligent well-thought out discussion there, but I’m afraid I turn off when you get the words “lying” and “liar” bandied about inappropriately. It’s even more asinine when the users of the phrases are those most prone to truth stretching themselves.
    Failure to moderate idiots like OAB is all that keeps that blog from better things. I enjoy most articles even when I profoundly disagree, but can’t stomach ignoramuses like that one and the other gargoyles. No idea why they don’t have a good purge.

  4. Iceberg

     /  9th January 2016

    It’s hard to know what the Standard is trying to achieve. If it closed tomorrow, the net effect for the left would be hugely positive, wouldn’t it?

  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  9th January 2016

    The UK courts have started calling for psychiatric reports on trolls: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12089554/Twitter-user-20-admits-trolling-mother-of-tragic-toddler-Jamie-Bulger.html

    Maybe needed for a few bloggers and moderators too?

    • kittycatkin

       /  9th January 2016

      The mother of James Bulger will probably never, ever stop blaming herself on some level for letting this happen-but who can keep an eye on small children every minute ? I used to wander as a child, and went a long way once when each of my parents supposed I was with the other.. A friend and I were minding two small children, one in a pram. We went up a hill, all our attention on the pram…and when we looked around, the other child was gone. By the time we found him, he had gone a surprising distance.

      All the people who saw James being taken away would have thought that it was a little brother being taken home by his older brother/s and having a tantrum because he didn’t want to go. We’ve all seen this. Who’d do anything except pity the older children for being embarrassed and then never think of it again ?

      This was so long ago-this young woman might not even have been born then. What an evil person she must be.

      The word troll is a handy hook on some blogs for anyone who expresses an opinion that is different to the people running it-my comments on the food bill, which were rational and not confrontational were seldom used and the reason for the others being discarded was that I was a troll. I stopped bothering as I had better things to do.

  6. Brown

     /  9th January 2016

    I got called a troll by a religious minister with a blog simply because I politely queried his theology and thereby the point of the project he’s working on. Its a subjective term and my view is that opinions of any sort are OK as long as they are politely expressed so to be a real troll you must be pretty awful. The left leaning seem consistently more strident than KG etc… in my view. Is there a pattern here or am I being some sort of ….ist?

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  9th January 2016

      Our cockroach friend achieved “pretty awful” simply by posting an avalanche of crap one evening. It’s almost a shame it didn’t get before a judge as I’m pretty sure he would have been tempted to call for the men in white coats though maybe a blood test at the time would have had an interesting result.

  7. Happy New Year, Pete and readers.

    I edited out one misogynist word and later on Mark confirmed that he uses misogyny as a regular form of abuse. That’s sad for him (and presumably for the women in his life). I didn’t “support” OAB, or acrophobic, because in the exchanges between them they gave as good as they got. It wasn’t worth my intervening because they pretty much cancelled each other out. I’m trying to keep the moderation to a minimum at the moment and, generally, it seems to be that a light touch is working. Surprisingly, on a post with nearly 500 comments, the amount of flaming and trolling was remarkably light.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  10th January 2016

      PG has proven that tolerant moderation and intolerant scorn of trolling and personal attacks works very well.

    • “Surprisingly, on a post with nearly 500 comments, the amount of flaming and trolling was remarkably light.”

      I agree. But OAB continued a long record of targeted harassment, which was a shame in an otherwise generally good thread.

    • Kevin

       /  10th January 2016

      “I edited out one misogynist word and later on Mark confirmed that he uses misogyny as a regular form of abuse.”

      Bullshit. This is what Mark actually said:

      “FYI precious soul, I use the term Bitch to describe anyone who is obviously full of rancid shite – my use of “it” saves a few words that some PC twat may get offended by as gender specific.”

      And saying using the word bitch is misogyny is like saying saying using the word bastard is
      misandry.