On the malignancy of trolls
One of the many great things about Ricochet is that it's a troll-free zone. Sure we in this community have our areas of disagreement - sometimes to the extent that I have been forced to deploy the blogger's nuclear option: the snarky put down - but on the whole, being as we're all basically conservatives, the debate is extremely civilized. For which, much thanks.
Some readers may be surprised to hear me say this. After all, isn't contention the very life-blood of the blogpost? Er, up to a point. The posts I write for the Telegraph are probably subject to as much heavy troll activity as any in the blogosphere: often the comments run into the thousands, at least half of them from people who believe that I have nothing of interest to say on any subject whatsoever - and keep coming back day after day to tell me as much. In some ways, I suppose, this is a good thing. As the saying goes: "When you attract lots of flak it means you're over the target." But I can't pretend I don't find the relentless ad hom attacks, straw men arguments, and appeals to authority wearisome in the extreme. For once, really just for once in my life, I'd love one of my detractors actually to come back with an argument sufficiently lucid for me to bother engaging with.
They never do, though. Rarely do they even bother to respond to the post I've actually written. It's like trying to debate with a five-year old. Every day, pretty much, I go out there to try and fight on behalf of empiricism, free markets, liberty, small government, important stuff that I think really matters and is worth laying your neck on the line for. And every day, what I get in return is the equivalent of: "Pooh! We hate you! Your bottom smells and you wee wee your pants!"
Does this mean - as I suspect - that the green-liberal-left has no real arguments to back its case? Are the any writers on the liberal-left today who are saying anything, on any subject, which ought to give us pause to consider the error of our ways?
Discuss.
- Comment (90)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Not that I've heard.
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Certainly not you!
But I do believe being a Ricochet Contributor carries the obligation to stay in a comment thread and talk it out with as many commenters as possible - in fact I thought that is what the name meant - a comment would "Ricochet" off the Contributor and come back in the form of a response.
That to me is what makes Ricochet unique. On other websites you can comment until you are blue in the fingers and never hear from the contributor who wrote the post, as if their post came from an ivory tower like a decree to be accepted.
Here the Contributors and Members are equal so long as we mix together.
Edited on December 23, 2011 at 8:46pmOct '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
James Lileks:
By the way, let’s be fair - trollerism isn’t confined to the raw outlands of the left. The bilous drivel on right-leaning sites’ comment section is just as crass and boring - Dummycrats! Libtards! Hyuk, hyuk. The difference is usually contempt for the opposition’s stupidity, instead of contempt for the opposition’s craven evil, as with the left.
This is the only site where I actually look forward to comments. Aside from my own. (Mostly.)
This is why I proudly own a James Lileks Giant Foam Finger(tm). It's not something that is Left specific. The comments over at NRO are pretty cringeworthy (it's a perfectly cromulent word) at times.
May '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
I have had a similar discussion with intelligent liberal members of my family. I give, say, Charles Krauthammer as an example of an outstanding conservative voice, someone who is really smart and clear and almost always gets it right in my view. Then I ask for a liberal analogue, someone I might try to read regularly to get an intelligent presentation of their views. The best response I've gotten is Thomas Friedman.
Make of that what you will, but to me it means the answer to James's final question is "no."
Sep '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
What Midge said!
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Pot, meet kettle :-) ...
I think you're mistaken to consider lack of concession on what to you seems a simple, obvious point for willful refusal. After all, when people disagree, it's often because they have differing visions of what the "simple points" undergirding the area of contention truly are.
So maybe others aren't simply refusing to concede a point out of sheer orneriness or whatever, but rather are still unable to concede it honestly, because they still see "the simple things" differently from how we see them. And we can't see why they see it that way, because we see things differently from how they do. It's a conflict of visions. Frustrating, but hardly trolling. Not even passive-aggressive trolling.
What's remarkable is that rational discourse is ever possible at all, not that it so often falls short of perfection.
Not even a CoC guarantees that honest discussion won't be frustrating. · Dec 23 at 9:49am
Edited on Dec 23 at 10:03 am
May '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
I think the civility issue is Internet-based, not ideologically-oriented. There are plenty of trolls on both sides -- and some of the more conservative trolls even have their own AM radio shows.
But James, I have a question for you: Do you regularly reply to the New York Times editorial page with civil, thoughtful rebuttal to the arguments that are made there? They may be wrong-headed and insidious, but they are typically well-expressed.
Do you provide the likes of Paul Krugman that level of earnest, but civil engagement that you profess to seek?
Mar '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
I dispute the idea that Ricochet is a troll-free zone. There is a reduced tendency towards this behaviour in Ricochet , but some members are unable to control themselves and some topics seem positively to repulse rationality.
Mike Murphy, anyone? His interview some months ago caused a torrent of bile that drowned lucid criticism.
Kenneth? A controversialist, to be sure, but he prompted some of the most interesting discussions on Ricochet until his opponents cried "Make the mean man go away!"
If you cannot make a rational argument, do not post your comment. Sanctimony is for trolls.
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Canuckski: I dispute the idea that Ricochet is a troll-free zone. There is a reduced tendency towards this behaviour in Ricochet , but some members are unable to control themselves and some topics seem positively to repulse rationality.
Mike Murphy, anyone? His interview some months ago caused a torrent of bile that drowned lucid criticism.
Kenneth? A controversialist, to be sure, but he prompted some of the most interesting discussions on Ricochet until his opponents cried "Make the mean man go away!"
If you cannot make a rational argument, do not post your comment. Sanctimony is for trolls. · Dec 23 at 10:23am
I miss Kenneth.
May '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
James, the left has basically abandoned traditional religion and created one in it's own image. And like most nascent faiths it feels the need to conduct purity trials that is driven by emotion and not reason. It's the early stages of the French Revolution 140 characters at a time.
Any one who disputes the Trinity (abortion, classification and redistribution) is an enemy that must face the Inquisition. Nobody Suspects the Liberal Inquisition!
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
I agree with Trace and will add that I've always found distance to be the problem.
In my law practice, I will sometimes get an angry letter from another attorney, prompting me to ask myself, "What did I do to this guy; I've never met him before?"
When I later talk to him on the phone, he is more polite than in the letter, but still acting rather tough with me.
Then when I see him for the first time in Court, he acts like we are old school chums.
I realized from seeing this pattern repeated that the more distant humans are from the communication, the more likely the participants are to be impolite.
On the Internet, the communication is so distant you often don't know the other person's real name. That probably explains why the discourse can be so abrasive.
It's the impersonal and distant relationship that seems to release the beast.
Edited on December 23, 2011 at 7:31pmAug '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
PJ: ...Then I ask for a liberal analogue, someone I might try to read regularly to get an intelligent presentation of their views. The best response I've gotten is Thomas Friedman.
Make of that what you will, but to me it means the answer to James's final question is "no."
Oh PJ, you made me laugh so hard that now I have coffee down my front. Thanks!
Trace Urdan:
Do you provide the likes of Paul Krugman that level of earnest, but civil engagement that you profess to seek?
I wouldn't. But then... it's Krugman.
Guess the urge to regard certain members of the other side as mere figures of fun is a universal human weakness. But here's my take:
I wouldn't waste time my time trying to engage the NYT's editorial board -- my bet is they're too stuck on themselves. I'd rather use my time to respectfully engage leftists who are likely to be less self-important and more approachable, like my friends or lesser-known figures.
Jun '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Paul Johnson is a true gem, and he comes from a long tradition of leftists who moved right: James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, Frank Meyer, Sidney Hook, Melanie Phillips, David Mamet, Tom Sowell, and on and on.
Can anyone produce a list of great thinkers who went from right to left: David Brock (who will prostitute to whomever will pay him), David Brooks (he may no longer be of the right, but he's still in touch with us; ditto David Frum).
Isn't the reason that conservativism (or classical liberalism) is based on first principles and liberalism/socialism is based on the current fad of the moment?
Sep '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Care to name names?
In my opinion it is quite difficult to "troll" for three hours a day, five days a week, and retain a commercially viable audience size. As I recall there was an attempt at such a format (Air America), and it failed spectacularly.
May '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
We all cross the snarky line from time to time, but no one did it more consistently than Kenneth. His brilliance was held hostage to the bitterness that made him make unfounded accusations, his zeal to win an argument and denigrate opposition at times overcame any need for consistency in thought. In the end the COC either meant something or nothing. The editors obviously chose the former.
Sep '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Plato parodied eristic combatants in the Euthydemus.
Aug '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Do you not know that the defining characteristic of the Modern Liberal is the failure to pass from childhood into adulthood? Hence the Liberal debate style: shouting down your opponent. The Liberal political strategy: the temper tantrum.
Seriously, when you watch Modern Liberals in action, ask yourself this question, "Is that how I expect a child to behave?"
May '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Everything is subjective... but one name on the right stands out for me - Michael Savage.
Aug '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
EJHill
We all cross the snarky line from time to time, but no one did it more consistently than Kenneth. His brilliance was held hostage to the bitterness that made him make unfounded accusations, his zeal to win an argument and denigrate opposition at times overcame any need for consistency in thought. In the end the COC either meant something or nothing. The editors obviously chose the former.
While I was too fond of Kenneth to see him in such a harsh light myself, and I personally miss him very much, I wouldn't care to second-guess the editors' decision, either. He knew the rules of the game, and knew what might happen if he kept crossing the line... and he did it anyhow.
I'm sad that Kenneth couldn't better adapt his very interesting personality to Ricochet's modest requirements, but apparently he couldn't. And the requirements are there for a reason.
For those of us who miss Kenneth, his exile is a misfortune. But it's hardly an injustice.
Mar '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
EJHill
We all cross the snarky line from time to time, but no one did it more consistently than Kenneth. His brilliance was held hostage to the bitterness that made him make unfounded accusations, his zeal to win an argument and denigrate opposition at times overcame any need for consistency in thought. In the end the COC either meant something or nothing. The editors obviously chose the former. · Dec 23 at 10:42am
Christopher Hitchens would have been unpublishable here.
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
James, I wouldn't single out a particular writer, but I do think that, in America at any rate, left wingers sometimes keep conservative/libertarians honest about civil liberties. Because I am a national security hawk, I tend to support the war on terror, but I listen to what the ACLU has to say because I do think they sometimes have valid criticisms *and* they've been consistent in attacking Obama when he continues Bush's policies.
In other words, although I do not find that liberals are good at refuting our first principles, they do have useful things to say about the application of those principles.