Comments on: The Fascist Octopus Pipes Up from the Gamma Quadrant or the Region Surrounding Cygnus X-1, Depending

By: tjic.com » Blog Archive » wherein I am put in my place by “intellectuals”

Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:21:01 +0000

[...] As DF pointed out, Crooked Timber took note of my blog the other day, labeling me a “fascist” (probably based on the fact that I so often advocate A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. ) [...]

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:19:04 +0000

A troll post is an attempt to get attention.

And a non-troll post?

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:56:19 +0000

“A troll post is the equivalent of a rock thrown through your front window.”

Nah. A troll post is an attempt to get attention. The entire point is to get enraged responses. The only way to deal with a troll is to deny the troll what the troll wants, and ignore the troll.

This has been the common online wisdom for well over fifteen years now. Don’t feed the troll. (Too bad that blog comment threads don’t allow for killfiles, but one can do it mentally easily enough—so long as people aren’t feeding the troll, in which case the best idea is to quit reading the thread that people have ruined by responding to the troll.)

By: Anatoly

Anatoly — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:29:01 +0000

Walt, I think the first two sentences of Henry’s #35 answer your question. I would add to that my own belief that creating a groupthink atmosphere (even if originated as a response to someone you consider an undesirable commenter) both invites stupidity and repels thoughtful dissenters.

By: Scratch

Scratch — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:48:17 +0000

He wants to get that dog seen to.

By: Walt

Walt — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:40:35 +0000

But how is that not the point? A troll post is the equivalent of a rock thrown through your front window. I’m sure the first few times it’s a great conversation starter, but after a while all you’re doing is shoveling broken glass. I am a liberal. I know that liberals are supposed to never defend themselves, but if someone attacks liberals in a content-free manner, then I am going to respond in kind. This isn’t groupthink: it’s self-respect.

By: Anatoly

Anatoly — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:22:56 +0000

Walt: whether those particulars posters are trolls or not is not the point, but I’m tired of repeating the point so I won’t anymore.

Jonathan: you may be right. I agree with you that CT is nothing like the second option you describe, but I see its comment section atmosphere as worse than the first option you describe.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:33:18 +0000

“And even then, it’s not the plurals themselves which are evidence of groupthink but the group’s tacit acceptance of their deployment.”

The traditional response on Usenet when someone deploys a “we,” when an election hasn’t taken place electing the speaker as group spokesperson, is to ask a variant of “do you have a mouse in your pocket?”

By: Walt

Walt — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:24:46 +0000

Would anyone seriously argue that Steve is anything other than a troll? Raw Data is trolling 80% of the time. Seth isn’t exactly trolling, but it’s clear that he has a enemies list that includes all scientists, all engineers, and all analytic philosophers. If Steve and Raw Data never posted again, no one would miss them. If Seth never posted about how he hates 20% of the human race, no one would miss that either. Shit, if that’s groupthink, then sign me up.

By: brooksfoe

brooksfoe — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:31:59 +0000

Do the people who think CT posters are totalitarians not understand the meaning of the reference “crooked timber”? What more do you have to do to show you’re not a totalitarian than plaster Isaiah Berlin to your forehead?

By: jonathan weinberg

jonathan weinberg — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:09:41 +0000

Anatoly, I think you’re conflating two things here, one of which is basically fine, and the other of which isn’t. That there is a group identity of some sort, which may be expressed & defended in not-infrequently snarky ways, just shows that there is an intellectual community here of a snarky flavor. There’s nothing wrong with that, and likewise there’s nothing particularly wrong with an individual snarkifying in the name of the group when would-be interlocutors are making annoyances of themselves, e.g. by persistent threadjacking. I think there is evidence of this kind of benign (modulo the snarkaliciousness) community behavior here at CT.

But this is not the same as what you describe in the second part of your comment: a party-line that is enforced by refusing, as a group, to consider alternate viewpoints, and to snarkily eject any who would attempt to express such viewpoints. That’s just not generally the case here; or, at least, I have yet to see any evidence that it is so.

By: LowLife

LowLife — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:47:32 +0000

“the marked tendency of the wingnut blogs to display mean-looking dogs”

Wingnuts are making a lie of the old canard that in the internets no one knows you’re a dog. They put it in their masthead. We shouldn’t disparage their single deference to the truth.

In the spirit of anti-groupthink I dispute Belle, whom I always considered to be part of the League of Extrordinary Babes, for her space quote. Doesn’t it go: “in Myspace, no one can hear you moan”? I may be wrong so apply chainsaw as needed.

By: LowLife

LowLife — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:30:18 +0000

Perhaps you get a better quality of troll in your Russian language site, Anatoly. I would expect most like-minded people to think like-mindedly yet I’ve noticed no short of detail-oriented folks debating details here.

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:00:40 +0000

A commenter at another site recently noticed the marked tendency of the wingnut blogs to display mean-looking dogs as their logo. I note that this site does that fad one (err, four) better, by having the world’s most amateurishly photoshopped four-headed rottweiler as a logo.

By: Anatoly

Anatoly — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:57:45 +0000

Jonathan, not every snarky 1st person plural is evidence of groupthink, only those coming from a purported member of a group and directed at dismissing the outsider (who’s engaged in arguing with many members of the group) in the name of the group. And even then, it’s not the plurals themselves which are evidence of groupthink but the group’s tacit acceptance of their deployment. That’s my argument, more or less.

I write a blog (in Russian) which frequently sees spirited discussion in comments; on some issues most of my readers and I share roughly the same opinion (though I’m lucky enough that often this is not the case). When someone from the opposite “camp” of whatever issue’s being discussed comes in and argues against the consensus, I never allow myself to mock them with a first person plural, and would censure any of my commenters if they did that.