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
James,
Do you recall Chesterton's wonderful quip about trying to argue with a madman?
Nov '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
'Tis the Internet.
All the more reason not to read comments on new articles. It angers up the blood.
Jul '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Being correct too soon is often viewed as socially unacceptable. Your logic offends their sense of fairness and equal results for all.
Sep '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
No.
Jun '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!"
Now that I have that off my chest, have you ever read Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind"? Our education system has failed about three generations of American students. Blind adherence to an ideology now passes for argument. Self-righteousness and character assassination pass for debate. Because when you're right, who needs to address issues and ideas? Or something like that, you winging, Pommy, bas . . .
Sep '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
~Paules: "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!"
Now that I have that off my chest, have you ever read Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind"? Our education system has failed about three generations of American students. Blind adherence to an ideology now passes for argument. Self-righteousness and character assassination pass for debate. Because when you're right, who needs to address issues and ideas? Or something like that, you winging, Pommy, bas . . . · Dec 23 at 8:55am
Yes, but its worse than that and happened much longer ago. John Henry Newman in his wonderfully underread Idea of a University predicted the disintegration of the modern university into a multiversity when they confidently expunged theology from the curriculum.
Jul '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
And as a troll-free zone We have broken Godwin's Law.
Sep '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
These folks are religious fanatics. They believe, and you are threatening their belief system. Therefore they must denounce you as a sinner, or a witch. They believe the majority rules (when they can assemble one) and they believe others are influenced by whatever the "majority" thinks. Therefore they actually believe that 1000 comments against your argument, however idiotic and lame, wins the day.
But you know this, don't you?
Apr '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
I'm with Mrs. Charing on this. Reading the comments on progressive articles could easily lead one to believe, on the same principles, that conservatives had no argument. The comments to articles and blog posts just don't tend to be the right place to find them. Ricochet is a happy oasis, but there are liberal oases, too. Friends of mine run a liberal group that used to be based in Pittsburgh that was once frightfully erudite (although, obviously, indisputably wrong about almost everything).
It turns out that having a measure of exclusivity is terribly helpful. It also turns out that maintaining this is difficult. I have high hopes for Ricochet, as we have a superbly polite and gentlemanly set of role models, but we must be vigilant in retaining our civility. I'll note that I have watched several of the initially ruder immigrants to the community (obviously, I have only been able to witness this since I have joined) becoming far more polite with time, so efforts are paying off.
Mar '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Nope.
Well, Hitch - but he has gone now. He was unique.
I'm thinking the Presidential debates are gonna be an exercise in futility with Mr Obama - he will lose the debates on substance but the media will say he won, effortlessly, on style.
As Mr Steyn is fond of saying, Mr Obama is a symptom of the problem, not the root cause, which as others have pointed out, goes back a long way.
So the trolls are another symptom of the the same problem.
May '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
James Delingpole: [...] 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. [...]
Hi James,
What you said here, this observation, I believe, is the key.
A "troll", pretty much by definition of the word, has no interest in contributing to a discussion in a positive way. The troll's goal is to throw chaos into the conversation and possibly be entertained by the results, or possibly be in service to a larger strategy.
The existence of trolls doesn't necessarily mean that the green-liberal-left has no arguments, but it does mean that they're not actually presenting any arguments in the current discussion.
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
While we have outward civility here on Ricochet, there is sometimes a passive-aggressive form of trolling I suppose no website can stop.
Refusal to concede the simplest point is a way of bringing a good, progressing discussion to a halt. Even Keynes and Hayek occasionally said the other was right.
I'd also like to see more respect for corrected positions. For instance, after you've made a point that I misinterpreted, upon correcting me, I see it as my duty to go forward accepting the clarification you've given me. Sometimes, I suppose to halt the progress, I find people will ignore a clarification, causing you to address the matter that was long ago, and multiple times, covered.
Edited on December 23, 2011 at 6:36pmOct '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
A staple of online discourse is the attitude that states, "I'm right. You disagree. Therefore, you're evil and/or stupid."
I've seen some of that here, but very little. I have also observed the same mellowing of some of the more strident people here that James of England describes. Peer pressure does have its benefits.
Edited on December 23, 2011 at 6:44pmMar '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Those that bug me most, whatever their political inclinations, are the ones who keep their goalposts mounted on wheels. I have no patience for it and quickly move on.
Aug '10
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Pot, meet kettle :-)
But in all seriousness, 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.
Edited on December 23, 2011 at 7:03pmRe: On the malignancy of trolls
My, my. When I read you, James, I'm the opposite of a troll. I have nothing to add or on which to elaborate. I simply find myself thinking, "Lord, this man can write."
But I suppose that's not much use either, really, is it?
To make one final comment that fails to advance an argument, Merry Christmas.
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Still waiting for this long list of "liberal-left writers whose arguments should give us pause." I agree, @davidwilliamson, that the Hitch was great. But like a lot of the best writer/thinkers on the right - think Paul Johnson - he was a leftist who saw the light, rather than a leftist who said left-wing things which all should heed. 9/11 brought out the best in - ooh - I'd say a good 10 or 20 per cent of the liberal intelligentsia. I think of Martin Amis and Ian McEwen, both high priests of the liberal chatterati, who recognized it as a call to arms for Western Civilization - as too did Nick Cohen.
What I can find is any examples of lefties saying stuff that is true that we on the right weren't aware of years ago.
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
@tommydeseno. Whoops. Hope you don't mean me? My technique is to whizz through comments, swooping magpie-like on the shiny comments that please me, signally ignoring the others. It's what you learn from dealing with troll-infested blogs.
@peterrobinson. Merry Christmas, you smooth-talking ****ard, you!
Mar '11
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
James Delingpole: Still waiting for this long list of "liberal-left writers whose arguments should give us pause." I agree, @davidwilliamson, that the Hitch was great. But like a lot of the best writer/thinkers on the right - think Paul Johnson - he was a leftist who saw the light, rather than a leftist who said left-wing things which all should heed. 9/11 brought out the best in - ooh - I'd say a good 10 or 20 per cent of the liberal intelligentsia. I think of Martin Amis and Ian McEwen, both high priests of the liberal chatterati, who recognized it as a call to arms for Western Civilization - as too did Nick Cohen.
What I can find is any examples of lefties saying stuff that is true that we on the right weren't aware of years ago. · Dec 23 at 9:56am
On the other hand, finding those on the "right" who have acquiesced to the nagging of the left is far too easy.
Re: On the malignancy of trolls
Whenever I read an article and see “1,794 Comments” at the bottom, I think of that Hell Well hoax, and the sounds of the damned shrieking in eternal contention.
It makes you wonder who, upon seeing there are 1,794 comments, would think that the world needs #1,795.
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.)