A recent thread at Balkinization has me reconsidering the whole blog-comments pastime. Shouldn’t I have better things to do than argue with trolls?
What makes them so tempting? What makes it seem so worthwhile, until you wake up and realize the time you’ve wasted? Why are they so damned engaging?
It is easy to say, “Oh, I’ll read the posts and skim the comments and just respond to the folks who are worth the bother.” But that’s kind of like going window shopping with a wallet full of cash: It’s just too easy, and likely, that you’re going to find something you want to take home with you. In the same way, reading blog comments at a place like Balkinization, you will of necessity be reading the inflammatory posts of trolls. Even if you use a filter to excise the trolls posts, there is no credible way of filtering all posts that interact with the troll. And so you get sucked in.
I’m not a big believer in abstinence programs. Sure, it’s fine to lay off of this or that temporarily, tied to a goal. (As in, “I’m off coffee and alcohol until I hit 160″.) But vows of lifelong abstinence? Nah. Moderation does, however, take more work. Moderation requires more frequent and nuanced assessments of appropriateness, where abstinence only requires recognition as a prohibited item.
At the conclusion of his essay, “The Art of Controversy“, Schopenhauer writes:
As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one’s thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal: If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.
The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool - desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la verite. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace.(emphasis altered)
What can be done to counter the right-wing troll in its various guises, the willing if dim-witted parrot for the right-wing polititainment industry? Is there any point refuting them, engaging them? Probably not. Probably the best thing is to have better things to do, and better people to those things with and wherever possible foster a culture in which the market for hate radio is ever dwindling.
And while we’re at it, let’s end terrorism by ending the underlying injustices from which such tactics bloom. This is me, not holding my breath. As for tussling with the trolls, well, sometimes it’s fun to knock down the punching clown. Just don’t let it turn into punching the clown.
Tags: Uncategorized // 7 Comments »