I'm probably just going to downvote you from here on out but let me respond one last time: I did NOT tell you to go away. I did NOT tell you to stop talking. Whatever you may have thought of my tone or ALL CAPITAL LETTER SHOUTING, my message is different. When you say "I think x, and those idiot followers of y disagree with me!" and I tell you to NOT say that last part, that is not the same as telling you to stop talking or go away.

If you look through my comments, you'll see plenty end up negative and people yell at me for saying dumb shit. But what they're saying isn't GO AWAY or SHUT UP, it's BE BETTER. Obviously if you refuse to understand this I do in fact want you to go away, but I hope that instead you'll realize what you've been doing wrong.

Because it's trying to tell you why you are getting the reaction you are, and people are agreeing with it.

So either do your research, come up with a refutation of objectivism based on actually reading it, or DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. Mentions of things you disagree with as crazy in an offhanded way is exactly what we don't want.

a crazy rant

Looks like it's not working too well though.

Because if you read the recommendations they are none of them objectionable though some may be mistaken if taken as moral injunctions rather than as guides to bear in mind. Your post otoh, is mealy mouthed misdirection combined with "Boo blues!".

Don't discuss politics, discuss policy, unless you're aiming to overthrow the system because even if you devote your entire life to one singular policy goal, and get elected to your national Parliament your chances of achieving your goal is not great.

Anyway, I think it's interesting that I make a post about certain parties being crazier than others, and everyone concludes that I mean the republican party.

Largely for the same reason that, when someone makes a comment about the downfall of social mores over the last fifty years, it's going to get a comment about listening to conservative talk radio. There are certain ideas that -- no matter how unique and individual your method of getting to them are -- happen to have five or six decimal places worth of correlation with particular ideologies and listening to other particular sources.

Fake humbleness might be better than no humbleness. But I'd actually recommend a degree of genuine humbleness. If you're not open to the possibility that the policies you support are the crazy ones and the people who you disagree with are right then I wouldn't want you discussing politics on Less Wrong either. If you want to discuss politics just so you can correct the views of others, that sounds really terrible.

Doesn't that strongly imply that everyone on Less Wrong thinks on some level that Republicans are crazy?

I think it strongly implies everyone on Less Wrong has a decent model of the average European's politics and common political rhetoric in general.

it's interesting that I make a post about certain parties being crazier than others, and everyone concludes that I mean the republican party. Doesn't that strongly imply that everyone on Less Wrong thinks on some level that Republicans are crazy?

That is a possible explanation, indeed.

Another possible explanation could be that everyone on LessWrong thinks that saying "my enemies are crazy" without providing specific arguments why is how Democrats typically speak. (Or perhaps that a Republican would likely use some other word, such as "godless" or "commie".) In which case, it's a simple logical deduction that if author speaks like a Democrat, his supposedly crazy enemies are most likely Republicans.

Yet another possible explanation could be that majority of American LW readers are pro-Democrats, therefore "crazy enemies" of a random person (in context of speaking of USA's two major political parties, which excludes Libertarians etc.) are most likely Republicans.

I'm not endorsing any of these views here; just saying that all of these are plausible explanations why someone might guess you meant Republicans, and the other explanations are not evidence for Republicans being crazy.

A different example: If you meet a guy on the street and he starts talking to you about "inferior races", are you able to guess whom he meant? Does your ability to guess correctly imply that you agree with him?

It feels really disingenuous though, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to have to ask those questions and pretend I don't know the answers just because it makes me seem less confrontational.

LessWrong isn't terribly off-put by confrontation, it's the idea that is voted on.