3 ms·

Folks who overgeneralize like that are incredibly easy (and unsatisfactory, due to the predictability of a negative response) to troll. Merely be pedantic, prov

Folks who overgeneralize like that are incredibly easy (and unsatisfactory, due to the predictability of a negative response) to troll. Merely be pedantic, provide a counter example, or suggest a thought experiment in which their generalization may not be true.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
karlerss 5y ago
Well who is trolling who - if their overgeneralization prompts you to correct them or provide a counterexample, maybe you're already feeding the troll. Was I trolled into pedantry by your comment?
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  It’s trolls all the way down. This is why forms of trolling that aren’t blatant flaming get under people’s skin: it’s taking normal good-faith but ignorant user behavior and sending it into the uncanny valley. One troll shutting down a whole community is more often the case of the community having a pre-existing affinity to develop a digital autoimmune disease: once the users start treating good-faith users as potential trolls, the community turns irredeemably toxic.
Dracophoenix 5y ago
>>Merely be pedantic, provide a counter example, or suggest a thought experiment in which their generalization may not be true. It solves one problem but walks right into another. Your counterexample would be observed as so-called sealioning[1], "concern trolling", or one form of the ever-expanding nebulousness of "gaslighting". How does one diffuse obstinate hypocritical crusaders while proving one's own point? The solution doesn't seem to be making a well-made statement. Disagreeing is considered making a "bad-faith" arguments. The answer isn't pointing out their fallacies and thought-terminating clichés. You'll be accused of co-opting an dog-whistling. The only solution I've seen is to do or say as one will as though others don't exist. A lesson learned in one of Aesop's fable, The Miller, His Son and His Ass. [1]https://wondermark.com/1k62/ https://wondermark.com/1k62/

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

karlerss 5y ago

Well who is trolling who - if their overgeneralization prompts you to correct them or provide a counterexample, maybe you're already feeding the troll. Was I trolled into pedantry by your comment?

BeFlatXIII 5y ago
It’s trolls all the way down. This is why forms of trolling that aren’t blatant flaming get under people’s skin: it’s taking normal good-faith but ignorant user behavior and sending it into the uncanny valley. One troll shutting down a whole community is more often the case of the community having a pre-existing affinity to develop a digital autoimmune disease: once the users start treating good-faith users as potential trolls, the community turns irredeemably toxic.

Dracophoenix 5y ago

>>Merely be pedantic, provide a counter example, or suggest a thought experiment in which their generalization may not be true. It solves one problem but walks right into another. Your counterexample would be observed as so-called sealioning[1], "concern trolling", or one form of the ever-expanding nebulousness of "gaslighting". How does one diffuse obstinate hypocritical crusaders while proving one's own point? The solution doesn't seem to be making a well-made statement. Disagreeing is considered making a "bad-faith" arguments. The answer isn't pointing out their fallacies and thought-terminating clichés. You'll be accused of co-opting an dog-whistling. The only solution I've seen is to do or say as one will as though others don't exist. A lesson learned in one of Aesop's fable, The Miller, His Son and His Ass. [1]https://wondermark.com/1k62/ https://wondermark.com/1k62/