XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: katt@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 18:29:58 -0800,  Alan says...   
      
   > > and she still managed to hit him.   
   >   
   > Only because he stopped in front of her when he had been walking out of   
   > the way.   
      
   So... a cop stops in front of your car after you've been told to stop and get   
   out of the car, but yu should just keep on going?   
      
   So... you advocate murdering a cop because he's "supposed" to get out of the   
   way.   
      
   Gotcha.   
      
   You are fucking ridiculous, faggot.   
      
   Lose an argument, revert to shit NO ONE said or thought.   
      
   Faggot trolls on Usenet keep losing time after time after time, so what do   
   they do to keep their narcissistic asses from hanging themselves because their   
   self-esteem is taking too many hits   
      
   Obfuscation   
   Fogging   
   Seeding The Doubt   
   Shifting Focus From Acts Reus To Mens Rea   
   Rules Lawyering Or Pedantry.   
   Muddying The Waters   
   Legal Fallacy   
   Intent Fallacy   
   Moral Equivalence Distraction   
   Action Vs. Intent   
   Arguing Thought Processes   
   Good Intentions   
      
   What is the term or name for what trolls on Usenet do, when they try to bring   
   in all the minutiae they can to muddy the waters and to convince others, that   
   THEIR logic is sound, when it's not   
      
   Case in point that in the righteous Minneapolis shooting, Good's thought   
   process is what counts... not the fact that she hit a FEDERAL AGENT, and we   
   all know what happens when you use a vehicle to injure or kill LEOs.   
      
   (Only because he stopped in front of her when he had been walking out of the   
   way.)   
      
   The specific behavior you are describing-focusing on IRRELEVANT details to   
   distract from the central, undeniable fact-is known as The Gish Gallop or,   
   more specifically in a legalargumentative context, Obfuscation by Minutiae.   
      
   LOL   
      
   I didn't even KNOW this term, but have been using it for years to describe   
   what rich boy Baker does when he loses an argument, and his narcissism   
   punishes him for that.   
      
   By flooding the discussion with what-ifs, technicalities about the weather,   
   or the driver's internal state of mind, they attempt to create a forest for   
   the trees scenario where the primary act (striking the agent) is lost in a   
   sea of secondary details.   
      
      
   WHY Trolls Like Ski Bunny Do This   
      
   On Usenet, these trolls aren't usually trying to win a LEGAL argument; they   
   are trying to win an Attention War.   
      
   1. Exhaustion By making you research 50 tiny points about thought   
   processes, they drain your energy.   
      
   (not really, but do go on)   
      
   2. Validation They want to make the defendant look like a victim of   
   circumstance rather than a perpetrator of an action, because of their TDS.   
      
   3. The Well, Actually...  Trap They use (pansy-ass pussy) pedantry to MAKE   
   THEMSELVES FEEL INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR while ignoring the human cost (the   
   injured agent).   
      
   Fuck you, faggot. The jig is up.   
      
   How long have I been saying that EXACT thing, without ANY formal training   
      
   =====   
      
   The term for what these trolls are doing is Obfuscation, but in the specific   
   context of Usenet and online debate, it is often called Fogging or Seeding   
   the Doubt.   
      
   They are trying to shift the focus from Actus Reus (the guilty act-hitting   
   the agent) to a hyper-fixation on Mens Rea (the guilty mind-what she was   
   thinking or intending).   
      
   The Usenet Term In old-school forum culture, this is often called Rules   
   Lawyering or Pedantry. It involves using tiny, irrelevant technicalities to   
   'muddy the waters so that the clear, central fact-the use of a vehicle as a   
   weapon-gets buried under a mountain of trivia.   
      
   The Legal Fallacy   
      
   The specific logical move they are making is often called the Intent   
   Fallacy or Moral Equivalence distraction.   
      
   Action vs. Intent In many jurisdictions, hitting a law enforcement officer   
   (LEO) with a vehicle is a Strict Liability or General Intent issue. The law   
   cares that the act happened because the vehicle is inherently dangerous.   
      
   The Troll's Maneuver By arguing about her thought process, they are trying   
   to turn a clear-cut physical event into a philosophical debate about her good   
   intentions, which legally does not negate the physical reality of the injury   
   to the agent.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)