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:
Mar '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
I didn't intend to turn this into a debate on Kenneth.
But what about troll behaviour on Ricochet?
Dec '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
I think most internet comments are kind of like signatures insofar the more you have to write the same things the worse it gets until you end up with a cursive J and a line. Snark and not terribly lucid comments I think are just this end of the spectrum. Liberals and conservatives just fundamentally reject inherant and necessary premises on the nature of the individual, they just short hand it all into something snarky and call it a day. Nobody actually cares, or even has a mind to change, least of all on the internet where other people are even more dehumanized than even regular life leaves them.
Edited on December 23, 2011 at 9:06pmRe: On the malignancy of trolls
EJHill
Tommy - If rules are unenforceable then why have them? Either the COC is to be enforced or it's not. If you find them funny then I invite you break them with impunity and see how Peter, Rob and the editors react. I would hope you would be treated equally. Otherwise we might as well scrape the subscription model and become just another site on the internet.
I took no position against Kenneth's banishment EJ. I know nothing of it.
I was making a joke.
You see he was banned for impersonating, and the guy who annonced it was impersonating, and...
well I guess it's ruined now.
May '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
I don't think the line between "Your argument is flawed" to saying "I think you're stupid" is all that fuzzy. It's pretty bright and stark. That's what the "FLAG" button is for.
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
EJHill
I don't think the line between "Your argument is flawed" to saying "I think you're stupid" is all that fuzzy. It's pretty bright and stark. That's what the "FLAG" button is for. · Dec 23 at 12:09pm
Until I just read this, I never noticed the "Flag" button. Has it always been there?
Edited on December 23, 2011 at 9:13pmJul '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Tommy De Seno
EJHill
I don't think the line between "Your argument is flawed" to saying "I think you're stupid" is all that fuzzy. It's pretty bright and stark. That's what the "FLAG" button is for. · Dec 23 at 12:09pm
Until I just read this, I never noticed the "Flag" button. Has it always been there? · Dec 23 at 12:12pm
Edited on Dec 23 at 12:13 pm
Until I read this, I never noticed Contributors don't have the "Flag" button.
Apr '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
The Left believes that a perfect world is attainable if we all just fall in line. When someone speaks out against their do-goodery, they take that as an assault on decency. While in theory, they might have some noble ideals, reality flies in their face time and time again, yet they refuse to see it and instead of coping with it, they blame it on those who dare to go against the word of the elites who should be running the show.
I think the Left considers the Right evil, while we generally consider them to be naive children who refuse to grow up and look at the world the way it actually is instead of looking at what they can do to try to change that which is unchangeable. Eventually, all of their rules and regulations break down and people return to their natural behavior patterns.
Lastly, the Left seems to view the world as a static entity that can easily be manipulated without fear of unintended consequences. The cause de jour takes precedent over all else, and they think they can just fix the subsequent problems as they come, since they are finite. Well, their wrong.
Oct '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
mostly tolls are just full of resentment. Here's what I find: they think life owes them something and it has NOT delivered. They are not responsible; their response is to hate everyone and everything. It's what they do.
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Jimmy Carter
Tommy De Seno
EJHill
I don't think the line between "Your argument is flawed" to saying "I think you're stupid" is all that fuzzy. It's pretty bright and stark. That's what the "FLAG" button is for. · Dec 23 at 12:09pm
Until I just read this, I never noticed the "Flag" button. Has it always been there? · Dec 23 at 12:12pm
Edited on Dec 23 at 12:13 pm
Until I read this, I never noticed Contributors don't have the "Flag" button. · Dec 23 at 12:16pm
Thank goodness!
May '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Jimmy Carter Until I read this, I never noticed Contributors don't have the "Flag" button. ·
Tommy De Seno Thank goodness!
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
EJHill
Tommy De Seno Thank goodness!
Dec 23 at 12:46pm
Awesome EJ!
Edited on December 23, 2011 at 9:48pmSep '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
I view all Ricochet participants as pleasing life forms to amuse me while I stroll my virtual yard. I hope that was arrogant and condescending enough to keep my street cred intact while I eat my daily can of tuna.
Nov '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
I think the main reason for the relative intelligence and restraint apparent on Ricochet is economic .
People pay a non-zero sum to be here. They must forfeit that sum if they misbehave. No such condition applies to most online forums. I would hypothesize that a liberal forum imposing the same joining costs would be more civil and enlightening too.
Also, the fact that Richochetoise-to-be choose to pay the fee in advance means that (a) malcontent freeloaders are weeded out in advance, and (b) Richochetoise-to-be commit themselves to making the most out of Ricochet.
Otherwise, the absence of nonverbal cues over the internet (which often mute resentment-fuelded escalations of incivility) and the absence of personal identifiability (which reduces responsibility for personal behavior) tend to make internet interactions between strangers unproductive.
It's an object lesson in how the best things in life are not free.
Apr '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Being that Liberalism is a new term for an old disease known as "Never Growing Up" it makes perfect sense that the arguments are those of children.
Since my Constitutional Conservative ways are not in error, I will not give pause, let alone reconsider, my ways. In that they are continually and vociferously in error it is their responsibility to reconsider their own ways. This creates a catch-22, as children do not reconsider without punishment. Maybe it's time for them to be punished.
Apr '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
EJHill
Jimmy Carter Until I read this, I never noticed Contributors don't have the "Flag" button. ·
Tommy De Seno Thank goodness!
Dec 23 at 12:46pm
Beautiful EJ
Sep '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
They must forfeit that sum if they misbehave.
Its the difference between skin in the game and sin in the game.
May '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
EJHill
Tommy - If rules are unenforceable then why have them? Either the COC is to be enforced or it's not. If you find them funny then I invite you break them with impunity and see how Peter, Rob and the editors react. I would hope you would be treated equally. Otherwise we might as well scrap the subscription model and become just another site on the internet.
Having been at the heart of several of Kenneth's personal attacks, (I was accused of being an anti-Semite and a few other things), I can attest that the violations were not one-offs. He decided that certain people (myself, Lance and a few others) did not meet his standards. We were "graffiti" that blighted his neighborhood of enlightened political thought.
I remember he once accused me of engaging in mere provocation (this is before he argued on behalf on using nuclear weapons against Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran).
Dec '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
James D - maybe you need a short break from hard-hitting political analysis. Perhaps you and Douglas Murray should produce your own Christmas music album in the same style as Mark Steyn/Jessica Martin; see what the Telegraph trolls make of that :-)
Nov '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
KarlUB: Kenneth must have gone off the rails when I was on hiatus, or on threads in which I did not participate. I never saw anything at all beyond the CoC. Can someone direct me to an example?
Sorry to hear his absence is permanent. · Dec 23 at 11:26am
I'm very new here, so all this Kenneth business is a mystery to me, too, but, for some reason these very interesting (and, admittedly, somewhat intriguing) comments are making me think of the old joke about the guy who walks into a bar with a frog on his head and the bartender says, "What's up with that?" And the frog answers, "I don't know, it all started out as a boil on my butt..."
Oct '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Henry Scanlon
KarlUB: Kenneth must have gone off the rails when I was on hiatus, or on threads in which I did not participate. I never saw anything at all beyond the CoC. Can someone direct me to an example?
Sorry to hear his absence is permanent. · Dec 23 at 11:26am
I'm very new here, so all this Kenneth business is a mystery to me, too, but, for some reason these very interesting (and, admittedly, somewhat intriguing) comments are making me think of the old joke about the guy who walks into a bar with a frog on his head and the bartender says, "What's up with that?" And the frog answers, "I don't know, it all started out as a boil on my butt..." · Dec 23 at 4:42pm
HaHa. Henry, I think you'll fit in fine around here.