Comments on: Trollbait http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Fri, 25 May 2012 04:28:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Nabakov http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10948 Nabakov Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:12:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10948 "Ambiguity is counter-produtive." Could you be a bit clearer about that? “Ambiguity is counter-produtive.” Could you be a bit clearer about that?

]]> By: Keith M Ellis http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10947 Keith M Ellis Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:33:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10947 In this case it's a good foundation upon which to build a standard because the context in which the standard would apply is a <i>social</i> context that requires a minimal level of agreement. Ambiguity is counter-produtive. In this case it’s a good foundation upon which to build a standard because the context in which the standard would apply is a social context that requires a minimal level of agreement. Ambiguity is counter-produtive.

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10946 dsquared Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:10:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10946 <i>Believe me, I agree that there are provocations that are, nevertheless, “civil”. But I use the “civility” standard as primary because it is the least ambiguous</i> Almost always a bad reason to choose a standard in any field of life; it's the equivalent of looking for your car keys under the streetlamp because that's where you can see the best. Believe me, I agree that there are provocations that are, nevertheless, “civil”. But I use the “civility” standard as primary because it is the least ambiguous Almost always a bad reason to choose a standard in any field of life; it’s the equivalent of looking for your car keys under the streetlamp because that’s where you can see the best.

]]> By: Antoni Jaume http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10945 Antoni Jaume Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:23:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10945 Wau (That's digamma) who has proved that these are choices? Especially when there is, latent, the claim that since it is a choice then the one that "made" it has to bear the brunt in full. DSW Wau (That’s digamma) who has proved that these are choices? Especially when there is, latent, the claim that since it is a choice then the one that “made” it has to bear the brunt in full. DSW

]]> By: digamma http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10944 digamma Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:32:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10944 I just read the whole thread. I respect Amartya Sen, so can someone please answer Winston's question and explain how Sen accounted for differences in lifestyle choices? I just read the whole thread. I respect Amartya Sen, so can someone please answer Winston’s question and explain how Sen accounted for differences in lifestyle choices?

]]> By: Zizka http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10943 Zizka Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:19:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10943 I was offended above all by the swarming effect and by what I remember as the monologue quality of a lot of the anti-Sen posts. I did notice what I thought was veiled racism, which allowed me to put the anti-Sen people into a category, but I might have been willing to pass by that. Overt racism is such a taboo that you hardly ever find it. Even someone like David Duke, or someone in the CCC (KKK heir) will often use coded language and veiled expressions. So I think sometimes you have to draw the inference. I was offended above all by the swarming effect and by what I remember as the monologue quality of a lot of the anti-Sen posts. I did notice what I thought was veiled racism, which allowed me to put the anti-Sen people into a category, but I might have been willing to pass by that. Overt racism is such a taboo that you hardly ever find it. Even someone like David Duke, or someone in the CCC (KKK heir) will often use coded language and veiled expressions. So I think sometimes you have to draw the inference.

]]> By: Keith M Ellis http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10942 Keith M Ellis Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:59:15 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10942 <blockquote>"<i>By and large, conservatives whose hobby is visiting liberal sites are indignant that anyone might want to develop their site that way — for me their indignation is further evidence against them. Their feeling of entitlement goes against their own philosophies and to me is evidence of some sort of personal problem.</i>—Zizka</blockquote> Boy, you said it. There is an evident hypocrisy among many of them. It sort of reminds me of the "whiny conservatives" thing. Anyway, I don't visit conservative sites very often, but when I have I certainly haven't seen the swarms of angry contrarians that one sees at any liberal site. Angry contrarians really rub me the wrong way in general, but conservative angry contrarians are insufferable. But I've seen so, so many much worse examples of this than TW or infamouse that they seem acceptable. I still think they mostly just disagreed; and, as wtb says, perhaps it wasn't clear (is it ever?) whether the subject was Sen or Chris's comment on Sen. Believe me, I agree that there are provocations that are, nevertheless, "civil". But I use the "civility" standard as primary because it is the least ambiguous. Everything else degenerates into "yes, you are", "no, I'm not". My impression about all this is that in some people minds, the behavior of the so-called "trolls" in that thread satisfied <i>two</i> conditions: 1. They were arguing more in bad-faith than in good-faith; and, 2. The positions they took were <i>prima facie</i> offensive. Were both conditions not thought to have been met, perhaps they would have been given the benefit of the doubt. But, in my opinion, it's not clear that either of the two conditions were met. Maybe they were. But Thorley, I think, could have been arguing in good faith; and, furthermore, that he was being "racist" was an <i>implication</i>, not something that is incontrovertible. In the end, my impression is that Chris (and others) assumed the worst and reacted in accordance with that assumption. For me, even though it's much more ambiguous, the real test of another's contribution is whether I feel that it is in good-faith. I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they are acting in good-faith, and they're being civil about it. But, yes, there's lots of people who act "civilly" whose intent, nevertheless, doesn't involve furthering productive discourse. They like conflict, their contributions are acts of vanity or narcissism, or even simple boredom. But it can be very difficult to "prove" that this is the case. People will argue passionately about it. This is the bane of all text-based network discussion forums. So it goes. Sometimes a meta-discussion like this can be very productive. This one hasn't seemed to me to be a waste of time.
“By and large, conservatives whose hobby is visiting liberal sites are indignant that anyone might want to develop their site that way — for me their indignation is further evidence against them. Their feeling of entitlement goes against their own philosophies and to me is evidence of some sort of personal problem.—Zizka
Boy, you said it. There is an evident hypocrisy among many of them. It sort of reminds me of the “whiny conservatives” thing. Anyway, I don’t visit conservative sites very often, but when I have I certainly haven’t seen the swarms of angry contrarians that one sees at any liberal site. Angry contrarians really rub me the wrong way in general, but conservative angry contrarians are insufferable. But I’ve seen so, so many much worse examples of this than TW or infamouse that they seem acceptable. I still think they mostly just disagreed; and, as wtb says, perhaps it wasn’t clear (is it ever?) whether the subject was Sen or Chris’s comment on Sen. Believe me, I agree that there are provocations that are, nevertheless, “civil”. But I use the “civility” standard as primary because it is the least ambiguous. Everything else degenerates into “yes, you are”, “no, I’m not”. My impression about all this is that in some people minds, the behavior of the so-called “trolls” in that thread satisfied two conditions: 1. They were arguing more in bad-faith than in good-faith; and, 2. The positions they took were prima facie offensive. Were both conditions not thought to have been met, perhaps they would have been given the benefit of the doubt. But, in my opinion, it’s not clear that either of the two conditions were met. Maybe they were. But Thorley, I think, could have been arguing in good faith; and, furthermore, that he was being “racist” was an implication, not something that is incontrovertible. In the end, my impression is that Chris (and others) assumed the worst and reacted in accordance with that assumption. For me, even though it’s much more ambiguous, the real test of another’s contribution is whether I feel that it is in good-faith. I’ll give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they are acting in good-faith, and they’re being civil about it. But, yes, there’s lots of people who act “civilly” whose intent, nevertheless, doesn’t involve furthering productive discourse. They like conflict, their contributions are acts of vanity or narcissism, or even simple boredom. But it can be very difficult to “prove” that this is the case. People will argue passionately about it. This is the bane of all text-based network discussion forums. So it goes. Sometimes a meta-discussion like this can be very productive. This one hasn’t seemed to me to be a waste of time.

]]> By: Pouncer http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10941 Pouncer Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:57:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10941 Brad DeLong and I have been discussing the "civility" issue over at McGuire's "Just One Minute" blog. Brad is fairly gracious in general, though strongly a Democratic partisen. I'm a "public choice" skeptic regarding both parties and so find myself agreeing with him sometimes (criticizing Shrub) while skeptical othertimes (when he suggests Democrats are intrinsically better.) But the context of the blog-comment debate goes to the civility, or shrillness, of the MAINSTREAM opinion makers. Candidates, columnists, and television talking heads. I deplore the environment in which advocates for a reasonable position attribute evil, stupidity, conspiracy, and incompetence to those who advocate any OTHER reasonable position. And I especially resent the "copycat" nature of commentary in these sorts of discussion boards. Tell me I'm mistaken, and I'll consider your argument. Call me a moron, and we're done. I really wish the project to "raise the tone" of discourse in our capitol had garnered more bipartisen support. Brad DeLong and I have been discussing the “civility” issue over at McGuire’s “Just One Minute” blog. Brad is fairly gracious in general, though strongly a Democratic partisen. I’m a “public choice” skeptic regarding both parties and so find myself agreeing with him sometimes (criticizing Shrub) while skeptical othertimes (when he suggests Democrats are intrinsically better.) But the context of the blog-comment debate goes to the civility, or shrillness, of the MAINSTREAM opinion makers. Candidates, columnists, and television talking heads. I deplore the environment in which advocates for a reasonable position attribute evil, stupidity, conspiracy, and incompetence to those who advocate any OTHER reasonable position. And I especially resent the “copycat” nature of commentary in these sorts of discussion boards. Tell me I’m mistaken, and I’ll consider your argument. Call me a moron, and we’re done. I really wish the project to “raise the tone” of discourse in our capitol had garnered more bipartisen support.

]]> By: Zizka http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10940 Zizka Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:42:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10940 I've been in this kind of dispute before. There's a certain kind of conservative (sometimes libertarian, sometimes contrarian) who dedicates himself to visiting liberal/ left comments sections and vigorously, aggressively, and voluminously arguing the conservative position. My first point is that the host of a site might simply not want the site to develop that way. He might actually want the site to be a chat among more-or-less like-minded friends who develop their ideas together. There can still be disagreements, and will be, but within a certain range. By and large, conservatives whose hobby is visiting liberal sites are indignant that anyone might want to develop their site that way -- for me their indignation is further evidence against them. Their feeling of entitlement goes against their own philosophies and to me is evidence of some sort of personal problem. Another way to put this is to say that a certain philosophical consensus might be assumed by a site. I would have liked to have discussed Sen with people who didn't entirely reject the idea that there is such a thing as a social problem. Even someone who wanted the full range of debate, though, might not want to be swamped by the opposition. The onslaught of anti-Sen arguments was intimidating in its bulk. As I remember, three to five of the anti-Sen participants each commented more times than any one pro-Sen or neutral participant. I would have liked to have seen what other people had to say about the utility function, which is something Sen talked about which I don't understand well, and which seems to be the link (or barrier) between economics and more inclusive notions of human and social welfare. This was prevented from happening, and I said some bad words. If civility is the only test, then I'm the bad guy, but there were problems on the thread long before I showed up. And the problem wasn't with the hosts, in my opinion, but in some rather overbearing guests. I’ve been in this kind of dispute before. There’s a certain kind of conservative (sometimes libertarian, sometimes contrarian) who dedicates himself to visiting liberal/ left comments sections and vigorously, aggressively, and voluminously arguing the conservative position. My first point is that the host of a site might simply not want the site to develop that way. He might actually want the site to be a chat among more-or-less like-minded friends who develop their ideas together. There can still be disagreements, and will be, but within a certain range. By and large, conservatives whose hobby is visiting liberal sites are indignant that anyone might want to develop their site that way—for me their indignation is further evidence against them. Their feeling of entitlement goes against their own philosophies and to me is evidence of some sort of personal problem. Another way to put this is to say that a certain philosophical consensus might be assumed by a site. I would have liked to have discussed Sen with people who didn’t entirely reject the idea that there is such a thing as a social problem. Even someone who wanted the full range of debate, though, might not want to be swamped by the opposition. The onslaught of anti-Sen arguments was intimidating in its bulk. As I remember, three to five of the anti-Sen participants each commented more times than any one pro-Sen or neutral participant. I would have liked to have seen what other people had to say about the utility function, which is something Sen talked about which I don’t understand well, and which seems to be the link (or barrier) between economics and more inclusive notions of human and social welfare. This was prevented from happening, and I said some bad words. If civility is the only test, then I’m the bad guy, but there were problems on the thread long before I showed up. And the problem wasn’t with the hosts, in my opinion, but in some rather overbearing guests.

]]> By: wtb http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10939 wtb Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:09:10 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10939 More "What went wrong on the Sen Thread" post mortem: After reading the whole thing again, it looks to me like a simple misunderstanding about the subject of the thread produced a lot of the friction. In my posts I assumed that the subject under discussion was not Sen's data, but rather Chris's comment on Sen's data. In fact, I'm happy to take Sen at face value as a starting point for further discussion. I admittedly haven't read Sen's book but I didn't see this as an impediment to responding to Chris's comments. However others on the thread thought that it was devoted to commenting on Sen's data; which, of course, means that there's not point in posting if you haven't read the book. I may well have been mistaken about the subject of the thread, but it still isn't clear to me what we were all talking about. This has been enlightening for me. I don't usually post much on CT or anywhere else. I learned how easy it is become involved in unproductive squabbles. I found myself imputing views to others that were not evidence from their postings and saw others impute views to me that I didn't display and in fact have never held. Katherine's right: "this is the problem with making inflammatory rhetoric the test". The truly dangerous dehumanization that occurs in online debate isn't so much abuse, which is so egregious that you can't confuse it with reasonable discourse. The danger is that if you're not careful you treat everyone in the debate as a straw man. More “What went wrong on the Sen Thread” post mortem: After reading the whole thing again, it looks to me like a simple misunderstanding about the subject of the thread produced a lot of the friction. In my posts I assumed that the subject under discussion was not Sen’s data, but rather Chris’s comment on Sen’s data. In fact, I’m happy to take Sen at face value as a starting point for further discussion. I admittedly haven’t read Sen’s book but I didn’t see this as an impediment to responding to Chris’s comments. However others on the thread thought that it was devoted to commenting on Sen’s data; which, of course, means that there’s not point in posting if you haven’t read the book. I may well have been mistaken about the subject of the thread, but it still isn’t clear to me what we were all talking about. This has been enlightening for me. I don’t usually post much on CT or anywhere else. I learned how easy it is become involved in unproductive squabbles. I found myself imputing views to others that were not evidence from their postings and saw others impute views to me that I didn’t display and in fact have never held. Katherine’s right: “this is the problem with making inflammatory rhetoric the test”. The truly dangerous dehumanization that occurs in online debate isn’t so much abuse, which is so egregious that you can’t confuse it with reasonable discourse. The danger is that if you’re not careful you treat everyone in the debate as a straw man.

]]> By: Chris Bertram http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10938 Chris Bertram Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:08:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10938 Now I'm definitely renting "Rashomon":http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/r/rashomon.html .... Now I’m definitely renting Rashomon href=”http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/r/rashomon.html” rel=”nofollow”>http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/r/rashomon.html ….

]]> By: Anthony http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10937 Anthony Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:22:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10937 Henry, if the debate wasn't "very interesting", that's primarily the fault of Chris Bertram, who failed to address any of a large number of questions which would be reasonable for someone who had not read the book to ask of someone who had. T.W. was asking pointed questions rather sharply, but was willing to acknowlege a mistake he made, which is not the mark of a troll of any sort. Chris answered perfunctorily, saying essentially that "Sen took into account all that you're objecting to", without providing any explanation or examples; then he proceeded to attack the previous commenters by slurring them for making racist statements which they didn't make. The first really trollish statement was Chris Bertram's; after that, bigmacattack responded in a less-than friendly manner, then Zizka spewed out his trollish venom. Chris' closing statement " Read the book for yourself - I?m not your research assistant." is rather disingenuous considering that his post started as commentary on the facts presented in the book. If he's trying to make a case that the condition of poor people in America is rather shocking because poorer people in India and China live better in some ways, saying "Amartya Sen said it is so" is not a particularly convincing argument, Nobel Prize notwithstanding. T.W. and Vinetuil and others pointed out possible non-shocking explanations for what Bertram reported of Sen; to continue a productive discussion would require Bertram to address their points. If Bertram doesn't want to be people's research assistant, he should get a job insulting conservatives in a political campaign where research skills are unnecessary. Henry, if the debate wasn’t “very interesting”, that’s primarily the fault of Chris Bertram, who failed to address any of a large number of questions which would be reasonable for someone who had not read the book to ask of someone who had. T.W. was asking pointed questions rather sharply, but was willing to acknowlege a mistake he made, which is not the mark of a troll of any sort. Chris answered perfunctorily, saying essentially that “Sen took into account all that you’re objecting to”, without providing any explanation or examples; then he proceeded to attack the previous commenters by slurring them for making racist statements which they didn’t make. The first really trollish statement was Chris Bertram’s; after that, bigmacattack responded in a less-than friendly manner, then Zizka spewed out his trollish venom. Chris’ closing statement ” Read the book for yourself – I?m not your research assistant.” is rather disingenuous considering that his post started as commentary on the facts presented in the book. If he’s trying to make a case that the condition of poor people in America is rather shocking because poorer people in India and China live better in some ways, saying “Amartya Sen said it is so” is not a particularly convincing argument, Nobel Prize notwithstanding. T.W. and Vinetuil and others pointed out possible non-shocking explanations for what Bertram reported of Sen; to continue a productive discussion would require Bertram to address their points. If Bertram doesn’t want to be people’s research assistant, he should get a job insulting conservatives in a political campaign where research skills are unnecessary.

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10936 dsquared Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:54:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10936 <i>I think the only test that we can agree on is civility</i> Nope, I don't agree with that. Fuck the lot of youse. I think the only test that we can agree on is civility Nope, I don’t agree with that. Fuck the lot of youse.

]]> By: Chris Bertram http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10935 Chris Bertram Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:45:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10935 This is getting embarassing. Probably Henry's reference to the Onion should have been left to speak for itself rather than us getting into a further inquest. I plan to rent "Rashomon":http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/r/rashomon.html at an early date. This is getting embarassing. Probably Henry’s reference to the Onion should have been left to speak for itself rather than us getting into a further inquest. I plan to rent Rashomon href=”http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/r/rashomon.html” rel=”nofollow”>http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/r/rashomon.html at an early date.

]]> By: Henry http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/15/trollbait/comment-page-1/#comment-10934 Henry Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:10:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=757#comment-10934 Just to say that I think that there are trolls and trolls. Jumping into a debate on an author whom one hasn't read, and about whom one doesn't know very much in order to trot out your well-rehearsed (and rather poorly thought through) prejudices is not conducive to interesting conversation and is imo a variety of trollishness. Especially when you do it eleven times. It poisons the well of good conversation. I'm all on for engaging in debate with people of different political opinions (although I draw the line at certain opinions) - but I'm not interested in slagging matches which seem to be more about representing than about debating. Chris's post could have spurred a very interesting debate; it didn't. And I see no reason for patience with the people who made it turn out that way. To put it another way - does anyone want to argue that Thorley Winston and Anonymouse made a positive intellectual contribution to the argument? Just to say that I think that there are trolls and trolls. Jumping into a debate on an author whom one hasn’t read, and about whom one doesn’t know very much in order to trot out your well-rehearsed (and rather poorly thought through) prejudices is not conducive to interesting conversation and is imo a variety of trollishness. Especially when you do it eleven times. It poisons the well of good conversation. I’m all on for engaging in debate with people of different political opinions (although I draw the line at certain opinions) – but I’m not interested in slagging matches which seem to be more about representing than about debating. Chris’s post could have spurred a very interesting debate; it didn’t. And I see no reason for patience with the people who made it turn out that way. To put it another way – does anyone want to argue that Thorley Winston and Anonymouse made a positive intellectual contribution to the argument?

]]>