5 ms·

Its the certainty with which some people express there opinion as absolute reality, dogmatism and fanaticism, that attracts the trolls. If you would take a loo

Its the certainty with which some people express there opinion as absolute reality, dogmatism and fanaticism, that attracts the trolls. If you would take a look at the "victims" you often discover that a meaningful exchange of arguments wouldn't have been possible in the first place. If someone runs with the -ism crowd, has his eyes opened by using the ideologys inherent errors or has otherwise encapsulated himself in his own little information cyst, any disturbance from the outside will be a troll. If you dislike the troll, you just can starve him, by being reasonable, emotionless and calm. If you demand special protection rights for your opinions, and are unwilling to rebut attacks with good arguments you disserve to be trolled else you could damage the public.

rustynails 10y ago
That creates a difficult balance. I agree with everything you said (except he instead of they). Where we are let down with that approach is if businesses, media or government don't take responsibility to manage prejudice and bullying. Imagine being Jewish in Germany just before WWII. Now my argument may sound like political correctness, but it's not for a few reasons. You avoid prejudice by avoiding topics of gender, race, etc. You ensure people have the opportunity, which doesn't guarantee an outcome. You don't need equal numbers, just don't alienate. These 3 things encapsulate my beliefs and are the antithesis of political correctness. So, you are right in that individuals should have the right to their views and should expect them to be challenged. Also recognise that Facebook and co will magnetise these marginalisers to each other, giving them a collective voice which can easily turn into a mob (as it often does). If you don't have responsible leadership (and we don't), these mobs become vicious and destructive. Compound this with political correctness and you have a toxic, self righteous and highly prejudiced mob of hate and bullying! With policies of both US candidates being so openly prejudiced (eg. Trump on Mexicans, Clinton on her gender card), the future for more hate and bullying looks certain.
- wyager 10y ago
  > Imagine being Jewish in Germany just before WWII. Really? Getting trolled online is like the holocaust?
  - aswanson 10y ago
    I think he's saying the criticizing of stigmatizing Jews back then by the media and a political party would have been met with the same "shut up and stop being politically correct" dismissals that are echoed today in certain circles. Basically, large scale trolling isn't something that can be shrugged off, it may be signaling something that requires serious thought.
    - Pica_soO 10y ago
      Large scale trolling is a sign, that something with the troll targeting is seriously wrong. I guess the difference is between what the troll actually wants to archive. Is the target a eye-opening process through which you might suffer- or is the target attacking you to archive a feeling of superiority and group cohesion. It boils down to the old who watches the watchmen question, making trolling the police brutality of internet conversation. A troll community internal communication media would be necessary, that allowed too question the motives, and display your biases by showing whose opinion is harassed how much. It would allow to separate those "knowing-nothing" from those who know everything and just spread the hurt. I find both extremes disgusting, the mob - and the state media, that try to propagandize everyone into sleep. And i still like some of those trolls.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        I've wondered for a long time what the translation of "Who trolls the trolls?" would be.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  So say You ensure people have the opportunity isn't actually happening. How do you fix it while avoiding topics of gender, race, etc.?
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    By helping everyone regardless of their gender or race. Build a soup kitchen and feed anyone who's hungry. We manage to help children from sex predators despite the fact that it's taboo to talk to children about sex. In a similar way, we don't need to discuss race at the office to prevent racial discrimination.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      So what if you build your soup kitchen in a spot that ends up benefiting one group more than another (say it is closer to where they live)? Is it then taboo to notice that and consider moving the kitchen?
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        Build it where there's the most hunger and avoid the issue completely. If the discussion is towards feeding more people, then yes move the kitchen. If the discussion is about equality quotas, dismiss it and move on. Almost all race-based charity could be targeted at the poor and actually reach the same people, but it hurts everyone to dwell on that fact. The real problem with "X" based charity, where X isn't "need", is that they adjust slowly to the changing landscape. And they waste money on the needless question of who to help rather than helping anyone who needs it.
- pavlov 10y ago
  ... both US candidates being so openly prejudiced (eg. Trump on Mexicans, Clinton on her gender card) ... From a European perspective it's hard for me to understand this. It seems like a textbook case of false equivalence. I watched the last debate. Trump talked about "very bad hombres". If Clinton were equally prejudiced against men, I'd expect her to have said something like "men are selfish shitbags". Of course she said nothing of the sort. How do you see Clinton playing the gender card? On the abortion question, she talked reasonably about the difficult situations that women face, while Trump was yelling about "ripping babies out of the womb one day before birth". The rhetoric of the two is so different, I just can't see why you equate them as hateful bullies.
  - dom0 10y ago
    > From a European perspective it's hard for me to understand this. From a (my) European perspective it's hard for me to understand any of the Trump/Clinton ... thing.
mtberatwork 10y ago
> If you demand special protection rights for your opinions, are unwilling to rebut attacks with good arguments you disserve to be trolled else you could damage the public. How does that work with opinions that are demonstrably false though? How many times must we keep supplying creationists, flat-earthers or any other conspiracy theorists with rebuttals before it's enough? The problem here is that what constitutes a "good argument" is entirely subjective to your view of reality and these days you can find any number of websites that will support whatever opinion you wish to take.
mistermann 10y ago
> Its the certainty with which some people express there opinion as absolute reality, dogmatism and fanaticism, that attracts the trolls. This is it for me....whenever I encounter someone passing an opinion as fact, it is irresistible to have some fun. I make no claim to expertise in most any subject, but the benefit of spending 10 hours a day thinking in a nearly pure logical form, it is pretty easy to tear apart any incorrect position, the logical inconsistencies are usually plentiful enough to make it like shooting fish in a barrel. Of course, very few people will ever change their mind based on logic or facts, but it's still fun.

rustynails 10y ago

That creates a difficult balance. I agree with everything you said (except he instead of they). Where we are let down with that approach is if businesses, media or government don't take responsibility to manage prejudice and bullying. Imagine being Jewish in Germany just before WWII. Now my argument may sound like political correctness, but it's not for a few reasons. You avoid prejudice by avoiding topics of gender, race, etc. You ensure people have the opportunity, which doesn't guarantee an outcome. You don't need equal numbers, just don't alienate. These 3 things encapsulate my beliefs and are the antithesis of political correctness. So, you are right in that individuals should have the right to their views and should expect them to be challenged. Also recognise that Facebook and co will magnetise these marginalisers to each other, giving them a collective voice which can easily turn into a mob (as it often does). If you don't have responsible leadership (and we don't), these mobs become vicious and destructive. Compound this with political correctness and you have a toxic, self righteous and highly prejudiced mob of hate and bullying! With policies of both US candidates being so openly prejudiced (eg. Trump on Mexicans, Clinton on her gender card), the future for more hate and bullying looks certain.

wyager 10y ago
> Imagine being Jewish in Germany just before WWII. Really? Getting trolled online is like the holocaust?
- aswanson 10y ago
  I think he's saying the criticizing of stigmatizing Jews back then by the media and a political party would have been met with the same "shut up and stop being politically correct" dismissals that are echoed today in certain circles. Basically, large scale trolling isn't something that can be shrugged off, it may be signaling something that requires serious thought.
  - Pica_soO 10y ago
    Large scale trolling is a sign, that something with the troll targeting is seriously wrong. I guess the difference is between what the troll actually wants to archive. Is the target a eye-opening process through which you might suffer- or is the target attacking you to archive a feeling of superiority and group cohesion. It boils down to the old who watches the watchmen question, making trolling the police brutality of internet conversation. A troll community internal communication media would be necessary, that allowed too question the motives, and display your biases by showing whose opinion is harassed how much. It would allow to separate those "knowing-nothing" from those who know everything and just spread the hurt. I find both extremes disgusting, the mob - and the state media, that try to propagandize everyone into sleep. And i still like some of those trolls.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      I've wondered for a long time what the translation of "Who trolls the trolls?" would be.
maxerickson 10y ago
So say You ensure people have the opportunity isn't actually happening. How do you fix it while avoiding topics of gender, race, etc.?
- EdHominem 10y ago
  By helping everyone regardless of their gender or race. Build a soup kitchen and feed anyone who's hungry. We manage to help children from sex predators despite the fact that it's taboo to talk to children about sex. In a similar way, we don't need to discuss race at the office to prevent racial discrimination.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    So what if you build your soup kitchen in a spot that ends up benefiting one group more than another (say it is closer to where they live)? Is it then taboo to notice that and consider moving the kitchen?
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      Build it where there's the most hunger and avoid the issue completely. If the discussion is towards feeding more people, then yes move the kitchen. If the discussion is about equality quotas, dismiss it and move on. Almost all race-based charity could be targeted at the poor and actually reach the same people, but it hurts everyone to dwell on that fact. The real problem with "X" based charity, where X isn't "need", is that they adjust slowly to the changing landscape. And they waste money on the needless question of who to help rather than helping anyone who needs it.
pavlov 10y ago
... both US candidates being so openly prejudiced (eg. Trump on Mexicans, Clinton on her gender card) ... From a European perspective it's hard for me to understand this. It seems like a textbook case of false equivalence. I watched the last debate. Trump talked about "very bad hombres". If Clinton were equally prejudiced against men, I'd expect her to have said something like "men are selfish shitbags". Of course she said nothing of the sort. How do you see Clinton playing the gender card? On the abortion question, she talked reasonably about the difficult situations that women face, while Trump was yelling about "ripping babies out of the womb one day before birth". The rhetoric of the two is so different, I just can't see why you equate them as hateful bullies.
- dom0 10y ago
  > From a European perspective it's hard for me to understand this. From a (my) European perspective it's hard for me to understand any of the Trump/Clinton ... thing.

mtberatwork 10y ago

> If you demand special protection rights for your opinions, are unwilling to rebut attacks with good arguments you disserve to be trolled else you could damage the public. How does that work with opinions that are demonstrably false though? How many times must we keep supplying creationists, flat-earthers or any other conspiracy theorists with rebuttals before it's enough? The problem here is that what constitutes a "good argument" is entirely subjective to your view of reality and these days you can find any number of websites that will support whatever opinion you wish to take.

mistermann 10y ago

> Its the certainty with which some people express there opinion as absolute reality, dogmatism and fanaticism, that attracts the trolls. This is it for me....whenever I encounter someone passing an opinion as fact, it is irresistible to have some fun. I make no claim to expertise in most any subject, but the benefit of spending 10 hours a day thinking in a nearly pure logical form, it is pretty easy to tear apart any incorrect position, the logical inconsistencies are usually plentiful enough to make it like shooting fish in a barrel. Of course, very few people will ever change their mind based on logic or facts, but it's still fun.