Don't Feed the Trolls!

[Kevin Beal]

Don't Feed the Trolls!
An appeal to your love for truth and your fellow (wo)man - by Kevin Beal

 

What are Trolls?
 
By "troll", I mean a person who speaks with the intention that you believe they are interested in the truth and personal integrity in order to advance an agenda which is anti-rational. Someone who benefits from your commitment to the truth while making up the rules of a debate as they go along (i.e. a philosophy counterfeiter).

You care about the value of money, which is why counterfeiting is so profitable. Counterfeiters want you to believe that they are providing value when they are actually robbing you blind. Similarly, trolls want you to believe that they are providing value in the form of rational debate, but this is not the case.
 
"How can we know such a thing?" you may ask. It's not necessary to be able to read minds; you can tell from their behavior. You can know these people by paying them back in the coin they pay you in.
 
If you use their own arguments and apply it to them, and they reject it, don't want to have anything to do with it, then you know that they are arguing in bad faith, just as you know when a counterfeiter doesn't want to get the same bills back (s)he paid you in, they know that the bills are fake (or at least suspect it without telling you first).
 
Stef has a great series about this (easily one of my favorites):

• Despair
• The Zen of the Zeta Jones's Ass - Email of the Year End
• Counterfeiter Payback!

Here are some possible motives that I think all have merit, because I have been guilty of each one, in the past:

• Maybe they are narcissistically using you to reinforce their own rationalizations.
• Maybe they have regressed to a time in the past where someone they knew bullied them and some part of them believes they are defending themselves in the present moment.
• Maybe they have a powerful dislike for you and want to ruin your day, and have it in their mind that dishonesty is justified because you really are that bad a person.
• Maybe they are taking out some displaced anger on you; anger that is more appropriately targeted at someone who was/is in an unshakable denial from their past.
• [insert your own experience of a troll here]

 

Combating Denial
 
In any case, it is some false self aspect of their personality acting out. They are in a little bubble reality, unaware of the world outside their distorted version of reality. And when people criticize that distortion, it is itself seen as denial, if not hostility. Their denial has been upgraded to the status of projection.
 
To take a silly example, if you told me that I'm not a human at all, but actually a very human looking feline and you were trying to convince me of it by coming up with elaborate arguments, then I would not in any way believe that you were arguing in good faith, that you actually believed this or were open to looking objectively at the question. Something, anyway, is seriously wrong with the interaction, and it's not me that is the source of it.
 
You are not going to convince a troll that they are wrong.
 
But it's worse than that, because now they have developed sophisticated rationalizations in response to your arguments, fantastically false premises that make them more effective trolls in the future. It may even be that the better your arguments, the worse they get. The sharks now have developed the taste for humans.

 
War of Attrition
 
You are at a disadvantage. Trolls are really only ever talking to themselves because (at least in the moment) they are not really seeing anyone else. And their unwavering conviction in believing irrational things is the degree of the self doubt they themselves feel. It's something they live with and need to manage regularly. They have a lot of experience managing it. And if you treat it like your appeal to reason is going to slap some sense into them, then I really don't think you get just what you're dealing with.
 
If you are about the truth, then you are going to crack far sooner then they will. You have 3000 years of philosophy weighing down on you and they have incredibly strong rationalization muscles. Good luck!

 

And they don't want their workout to end, so they have a fantastic way to get their hooks into you: they will misrepresent you or the things you value. That is, they will appeal to your commitment to the truth. Not because they care about the truth, but because they know that you do.

 

 

Reasons to Engage

 

I've heard a lot of reasons that people have as to why they engage trolls, even after being aware that the person is a troll. The more I observe them, however, the more convinced I am that there is never any good reason. (Although there is a very funny example of Stef trolling a troll in the video series I linked above).

 

Reason #1 - "They are misrepresenting me and I need to set the record straight"

 

I don't think I've ever seen this one work out for anybody. It seems to always escalate, from what I've seen. And that presents a problem, logically for the person offering this reason to engage: if your claim is to achieve X and you repeatedly achieve the opposite of X and continue anyway, then either you are insane or you are only claiming to care about X.

 

Reason #2 - "I need to alert other people by exposing the troll by engaging them"

 

This is similar to reason #1. But I don't think that gives other people very much credit. Do you think that other people cannot see what you can see? Maybe not, but I think you should get some evidence that other people don't see it first. The degree to which you don't care about evidence that other people have been duped is very interesting, I think.

 

Reason #3 - "Trolls are good sparring practice"

 

How is this not like saying that playing chess with someone who breaks all the rules makes you better when it comes to the real deal? It will certainly make you better at having pointless "debates" with trolls in the future, but I'm not convinced that this is a good skill to have. Why not have debates with people who actually care about the truth, where things can actually be productive?!

 

There are more reasons than just these 3, but these are the most common ones I've heard.

 

 

Punishment

 

There are infinitely better things to do with one's time than engage in something futile and endlessly frustrating, so why then? I think it's because we want to punish them.

 

It reminds me of dysfunctional romantic relationships where they claim it's over, but the more they want to punish their partner, the more you get the sense that it's not over. Or when you go on a date with someone fresh out of a breakup and they want to talk about how terrible their ex was. You immediately get that something there is unresolved. When you are truly done with a relationship, you are just simply done, and that's all there is. You have no desire to enact punishment.

 

When we engage trolls, I don't think we are really seeing the person on the other end of the internet. Maybe we are displacing our anger, just the same as the troll. And maybe are at risk for our own rationalizations.

 

I notice that for myself, I have a loud part of me that would love to just say "to hell with admitting fault! Not if I'm dealing with a troll!"

 

As soon as you start justifying your own lack of integrity, I don't think there is any meaningful difference at that point. And there is a lot of energy pulling a lot of people in that direction. If you were raised in a family that had bullies and trolls, then I think it's something you need to be especially careful of.

 
Admitting Fault
 
One of the most important realizations I got out of FDR was that you can accept all of the premises of a bad argument and it will still fall. It's actually a great way to show just how bad an argument is by playing along with it. 6oodfella does this very well, especially in this hilarious video. Accepting your opponent's premises can actually make your case much more compelling.

 

This same principle applies with admitting fault. Instead of resisting admitting fault, or putting in qualifiers like "but it doesn't matter" or "but you are even worse" is only shooting yourself in the foot. Apologize without reservation. At least, when you have done something which is lacking integrity. By doing so, you don't prove they are right. You are only accepting a premise, or rather, that you are capable of being wrong. If they continue to give you shit for that, then they are revealed as jerks and you come off sympathetic. What's more, that is having integrity which is the whole point in the first place!

 

You do not lose anything by having integrity. Just because the other person doesn't have any is no excuse for anything.

 
Conclusion
 
That is not to say that you can't engage trolls. Just be aware that there are consequences. It's not harmless. And I think we all kinda get this instinctively; I just want to remind you of what you already know to be true.

 

I'm not proving anything. It's not that you should accept the conclusions I've put forward so much as you should take it seriously. It matters who you interact with and how you do it.

[MMX2010]

It's a nice idea, Kevin - but unless you name specific people and allow them to counter-argue, you're just allowing people to *wink, wink*, *nudge, nudge*, "Of course he's a troll; we all agree." 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Wehrd.

[MysterionMuffles]

Hm...sounds like someone I know. Sorry, not one, but many. Online and offline. All of which I thankfully no longer engage with.

[MMX2010]

Here's something you won't hear everyday. 

 

The Anonymous Conservative wrote the book "The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics" - which Stefan has enthusiastically recommended as part of his Gene Wars podcasts, but he also runs a blog containing a unique subset of knowledge referring to "amygdala attacks" and "rabbits". 

 

"Rabbits" are individuals with heavily r-selected personalities who have very many emotional needs and cannot participate in discussions without getting those emotional needs met.  So if you're having a heated, controversial discussion and no "rabbits" are present, you stand the best chance of finding the Truth.  And if you're having a heated discussion and one "rabbit" is present, you stand a pretty good chance of finding the Truth, provided you contain the "rabbit".  But if you're having a heated discussion and the majority of individuals are "rabbits", you have no chance of finding the Truth, because the "rabbits" will dominate the conversation and steer it towards a litany of emotional squabbles. 

 

The Anonymous Conservative suggests using "amygdala attacks" on "rabbits" - because "amygdala attacks" short-circuit "rabbits" from getting those needs met.  This short-circuiting inevitably makes the "rabbit" frustrated to the point where he leaves the discussion (a good thing), melts down and says something angry/crazy (a good thing, when he gets ostracized), or self-reflects and cuts-it-out (a good thing). 

 

This introductory post explains the brain-brokenness of a "rabbit" - (although, in this article, he calls a "rabbit" a narcissist, not a "rabbit") - http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/narcissism-and-the-fractured-amygdala/

 

And this eight-part series explains the brain-brokenness of a "rabbit" and how to trigger an "amygdala attack" - http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/

 

And, for even further reading, you can launch alphagameplan.blogspot.com and read all articles tagged "Gamma" or "Omega". 

 

---------------------------------

 

(Wow, MMX2010, that's a crap-ton of reading material and it has very technical language at times!  You don't expect us to read all of that, do you?)

 

No, you can do whatever you want, but I have read that material (more than once) and can speak from a unique and crucial perspective: (1) An "amygdala attack" is just a fancy word for trolling, and "amygdala attacks" are used to separate "rabbits" from "non-rabbits", which is necessary and good.  (2) If you try an "amygdala attack" on a non-rabbit, it doesn't bother them at all.  (This explains how some people can just ignore trolls, or just non-emotionally converse with trolls while wondering what all the fuss is about, while others need to be counseled into ignoring trolls.)   (3) If you combine an argument with a very small "amygdala attack", the "rabbits" will ignore the argument to focus on the "amygdala attack", while the non-rabbits will ignore the "amygdala attack" and focus on the argument. 

 

In short, "trolls" are an essential and necessary part of every message board.  Not nearly every troll is benevolent, but if you remove all trolls, you'll remove the beneficial trolls who separate the "rabbits" from the "non-rabbits".  This produces so much infighting that the entire board is ruined. 

[Omegahero09]

"beta tendancies"

[A4E]

Interesting. Have not seen such a definition of trolls before. Thanks.

 

I did not understand much of the "Combating denial" section. Would it be possible to get an elaboration? Because this was interesting and I want to make sure I understand your whole post.

[WasatchMan]

I think this is a great analysis Kevin, and I am pretty sure the first two reasons to engage I have messaged with you about directly.  I agree with a lot here, about their rationalizing ad-infinitum, their baiting with truth, etc., and am obviously one of the guilty parties when it comes to "feeding trolls" here.

 

However, I think there is something to consider about the dichotomy the phrase "feeding trolls" sets up, and that is one that if you don't feed them they go away.  While this might be the case with some, it is obviously not the case with all.  This is because the word "troll" is an evasion of what we really should be talking about, and that is bullies.  We have a bully problem - and it seems to be growing.  I don't know if ignoring them or using the rating system is going to make them go away or stop.

 

Look at Omegahero09's response to this post.  It wasn't to troll, it was to intimidate.  To try to make you feel less about yourself or humiliate you in some way.  What did he use to do this?  Something his bully friend started to try to use against you in another post by trying to shame your masculinity by insinuating that you had "beta tendencies". [Edit] Omega actually did start the "beta tendencies" line, not anyone else.  Others just followed suit. [/Edit]  I don't think it is a shock to anyone that this sort of behavior is coming out of people who practice PUA.

 

Am I saying that the only way to stop these bullies is to engage them?  I am most certainly not.  I don't know answer.  My automatic response is to want to stand up to bullies - to throw their shit right back in their face, but I am certainly open to this being counterproductive.

[Koroviev]

Very well put!

 

I'm curious as to what your thoughts are about giving people the benefit of the doubt, up to a certain point of course. It seems to me like there is a fine line between misunderstanding/incorrect thinking and trolling (maybe that line is humility?). My fear is that if there is a "rule" (for lack of a better term I know we aren't creating rules here) that says don't feed the trolls many more counter arguments may start to look troll-ish.

[_LiveFree_]

Fantastical post, again, Kevin. 

 

I wonder if we could get this stickied?

[Three]

Great post!

[Kevin Beal]

I did not understand much of the "Combating denial" section. Would it be possible to get an elaboration? Because this was interesting and I want to make sure I understand your whole post.

Oh, yea. Thanks for asking. I was wondering if that was going to make sense.

 

The point I was trying to make was that the way that you and I would not even humor something so ridiculous as us being human looking cats is what happens for people who have the narcissistic trait of living in a bubble reality. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that narcissists get hostile when you challenge the things that they need to be true in order to prop up their own fragile egos. I was attempting to get people to empathize with this situation by use of the cat analogy.

 

Basically, trying to reason with someone like that is akin to telling them that the sky never turns blue. They wouldn't even humor it.

 

Does that help clarify?

 

 

I'm curious as to what your thoughts are about giving people the benefit of the doubt, up to a certain point of course. It seems to me like there is a fine line between misunderstanding/incorrect thinking and trolling (maybe that line is humility?). My fear is that if there is a "rule" (for lack of a better term I know we aren't creating rules here) that says don't feed the trolls many more counter arguments may start to look troll-ish.

Right. Great point. I would hate to prematurely cast someone in the role of "troll", prior to getting what would be a reasonable amount of evidence. Honestly, I'm unsure what should be considered a reasonable amount. I can offer some suggestions, though and would love to hear other people's thoughts.

 

I think the counterfeiter detector approach is pretty much a silver bullet. It's hard to imagine an honest misunderstanding resulting in a person rejecting the standards they hold other people to. But I've concluded that people are trolls before using this approach and I don't think I was mistaken to do so.

 

Again, borrowing from Stef, if someone claims that there are no land mines in a field and when you ask them to walk through it, they expertly walk in just the right way so that no land mines are set off (assuming that there are in fact land mines), then you know that they are aware not only that there are land mines, but where they are. So, if it's clear that someone is avoiding something which directly bears on the truth or falsehood of the propositions being debated, then I think that's good reason to be suspicious.

 

That's not a silver bullet though, because it could be that they missed it, didn't understand the implications, or that you were the one who misunderstood it's implications.

 

I think that another possibility is when there is no null hypothesis. If what they are saying makes them right, and if when they are wrong, that only makes them even more right, then I think that's reason to think they are trolls. At least, it's reason not to debate them since you can't win under that scenario.

 

Also, I have trolled people in the past, and I don't think that trolls are doomed forever to be trolls. I just think that we can't help them. They have to figure it out for themselves, I think.

 

I'm also not sure how to handle dealing with trolls. Maybe there isn't a way to do it without getting a little dirty yourself. It's like that saying "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." But at the same time, it would be nice for them to have something to reflect back on, to stick in their craw until it get's resolved somehow and it clicks for them later. I've realized months after an exchange just how wrong I was because it stuck with me. I don't know, still mulling that one over...

 

 

Great post!

Thanks for sharing! You handsome devil!

[MMX2010]

Look at Omegahero09's response to this post.  It wasn't to troll, it was to intimidate.  To try to make you feel less about yourself or humiliate you in some way.  What did he use to do this?  Something his bully friend started to try to use against you in another post by trying to shame your masculinity by insinuating that you had "beta tendencies".  I don't think it is a shock to anyone that this sort of behavior is coming out of people who practice PUA.

 

First of all, the blue-colored language is the most personally-driven language possible. 

 

A much less personally-driven interpretation would be, "To try and make you feel less about YOUR ARGUMENT or to humiliate YOUR ARGUMENT in some way." 

 

Since you have agency, WastachMan, you are responsible for leading Kevin Beal and the entire message board to take OmegaHero99's post as personally as possible.  And you're responsible for NOT choosing language that focuses on ARGUMENTS rather than on your emotional experiences of someone's posts.

 

--------------------

 

Furthermore, the statement in red is wrong. 

 

The first usage of "beta tendencies" was used by OmegaHero99 himself, in direct response to Kevin Beal. 

 

This is a link to the post: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/page-2#entry402976

 

And this is the entire post itself:

 

 

Agh, no! No, there is no portrayal, that's the answer.

 

The virtuous way of pursuing PUA is to genuinely change yourself into something heroic. Learning to become a chick magnet is a wonderful addition to the list of things you wish to change about yourself as you become a man- at least it is for me and MMX. The idea being that there is no manipulation, you just genuinely are awesome! You start with what's inside first, and work your way outwards, instead of outwards working your way in. It just so happens (hooray) that the monkey brain inside of women's brains is attracted to is badass motherfuckers. It's natural.

 

Instead of pretending to have money, go out there and make some fucking money. Instead of pretending like you are strong and athletic go out there and get shredded. Instead of faking confidence, be confident. Instead of pretending: BE.

 

When I apply Game, I don't manipulate, because I am confident, I am assertive, and I loooove making girl's hamster wheels spin.

 

Kevin if there is anyone quitting themselves from the dating market, I wish it were statist, marxist, feminist, bigoted, racist, child-beating, self-knowledge hiding, shallow, goddamn motherfuckin' religious, blue-pill swallowin' jackasses- it certainly would not be you Kevin Beal.

 

I'll say it- FDR needs to go out there and make babies.

 

Lots of them.

 

And by quitting yourself from the market of babes out there, by not fulfilling your full potential as a man, by not learning how to crown yourself the king of your own damn life, by turning away from the truths out there about women and their biologies, by rigorously defending your frankly beta tendencies, by refusing to learn how to take, and forgetting that you know how to wait, you will not get the woman of your dreams.

 

Yes, NAWALTs and Unicorns are rare. That's why they're called NAWALTs and Unicorns. Guess what though. There is Game for showing chicks virtue. It's called Crafting. You know what you should do? Raise some daughters to be NAWALTs and Unicorns.

 

Game is about getting what you want. Just like everything else in life. It's a tool. Take what you want. Leave nothing to the lesser men. That includes statitsts, btw.

 

 

----------------

 

I discovered this by typing "beta tendencies" into the search panel, then using search/find to determine when it was first used.  This took me less than sixty seconds.  I expect your apology for lying about what happened. 

[MMX2010]

Pinned.

 

I would like to ask you directly, since you're a moderator on this board.

 

There is a large group of people who think I'm a troll.  These people quickly refuse to engage me, and then downvote me (or don't). 

 

However, there is also a large group of people who don't think I'm a troll.  These people constantly engage me on the message boards, through Skype, and face-to-face as part of the Best FDR NYC Meet-Up Group. 

 

Now, I'm not going to force the people who don't want to engage with me to engage with me - because I'm a voluntaryist and so are you.  But I AM going to say that direct face-to-face communication, whether through Skype or in real-life, is an infinitely superior method of getting to know someone. 

 

-----------------

 

I consider the blue argument to be true beyond dispute, and I ask you, as a moderator to agree with this argument and dictate that this "trolling thing" is in my case, only, a misunderstanding caused partially by people's unwillingness or inability to engage in face-to-face (or Skype) communication with me. 

[Kevin Beal]

I think this is a great analysis Kevin, and I am pretty sure the first two reasons to engage I have messaged with you about directly.  I agree with a lot here, about their rationalizing ad-infinitum, their baiting with truth, etc., and am obviously one of the guilty parties when it comes to "feeding trolls" here.

 

However, I think there is something to consider about the dichotomy the phrase "feeding trolls" sets up, and that is one that if you don't feed them they go away.  While this might be the case with some, it is obviously not the case with all.  This is because the word "troll" is an evasion of what we really should be talking about, and that is bullies.  We have a bully problem - and it seems to be growing.

I just want to be clear that my responses to the reasons offered are more me talking about myself than anyone else. This was not meant to be about you or anybody else. I've used those excuses, and in my case, I believe that they weren't honest.

 

I don't know what the right solution is either. I wouldn't be surprised if there were good reasons to engage bullies; I'm just trying to share something that has occurred for me, and at the risk of projecting: almost certainly other people.

 

I think that coming to understand what reasons to engage are good and productive, and which reasons aren't is a wonderful thing to talk about and get clear. Mine is not the final word, but rather what I hope is the beginning of a productive dialog.

 

I think it would be great to have you (or anyone else) make a case for engagement. What harm could it do? You are clearly invested in the truth whatever it may be and that's exactly the kind of interaction I want to see more of on the forums.

 

I just want to reiterate that my post is not meant to be about anyone in particular, or if it is, then that person is me. I may be more guilty of these things than anyone else. I wouldn't be terribly surprised.

[_LiveFree_]

This article is related...

 

"How To Spot A Sociopath"

http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath

[NumberSix]

Debates on internet are less about you and your opponent, there is an audience here.  I can’t remember exact figures from when I studied internet marketing, but the ratio of lurkers to posters on a forum is in the ballpark of 30 lurkers for each poster.  So, the reason to debate isn’t necessarily convincing your opponent, but to convince the other readers.  Think of every political debate, they aren’t trying to convince the opponent; instead they want to win the audience.  If you withdraw it could be perceived as you're conceding the debate.

Kevin Beal
Implicit in your post is the assumption that your opinions are correct, that you are the champion of truth, and that anyone who disagrees is beneath you (intellectually, morally).  Is this what you are trying to say?

[MMX2010]

This article is related...

 

"How To Spot A Sociopath"

http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath

 

 

Really? 

 

You're using psychological language in at attempt to spot a sociopath.  And sociopath is a specialized word used by trained medical professionals to diagnose individuals with a serious and dangerous mental illness. 

 

The average person has neither the ability (due to lack of training), nor the ethical right (due to the heavy negative consequences of misdiagnosis), to diagnose a sociopath.  And no trained medical professional would attempt to diagnose a sociopath over the internet! 

 

That you think this article is related to spotting trolls on a message board is extremely naive, and your non-concern over mis-diagnosis makes you dangerous.  (And don't even try to say, "Well, I'm not making a diagnosis - but I am saying that certain people are behaving like sociopaths..." because trained medical professionals would find such a thing unethical.) 

[WasatchMan]

I discovered this by typing "beta tendencies" into the search panel, then using search/find to determine when it was first used.  This took me less than sixty seconds.  I expect your apology for lying about what happened. 

 

You are right, I was going from memory, my mistake.  It was Omega who started this stupid shaming tactic.  You have accused me of things that you were wrong without apologizing so I don't feel the need to apologize to you (like when you accused me of being emotionally empty because I was saying that the downvoting thread was satire, only to come to find out it was).  You know, treat people how they treat you and all.  Also, I didn't even claim it was you.... so yeah...

 

Also since you were taking Omegas lead with this intimidation tactic, I don't see why you think you deserve an apology.  Here is what you said:

 

 

From my perspective, he's [Omega] mostly correct.  You [Kevin Beal] do have Beta Tendencies, but only one - the biggest one.  You think women's sexual desires and hypergamy should respond to reason, logic, moral appeals....philosophy.  (But they don't.)

I just want to be clear that my responses to the reasons offered are more me talking about myself than anyone else. This was not meant to be about you or anybody else. I've used those excuses, and in my case, I believe that they weren't honest.

 

I don't know what the right solution is either. I wouldn't be surprised if there were good reasons to engage bullies; I'm just trying to share something that has occurred for me, and at the risk of projecting: almost certainly other people.

 

I think that coming to understand what reasons to engage are good and productive, and which reasons aren't is a wonderful thing to talk about and get clear. Mine is not the final word, but rather what I hope is the beginning of a productive dialog.

 

I think it would be great to have you (or anyone else) make a case for engagement. What harm could it do? You are clearly invested in the truth whatever it may be and that's exactly the kind of interaction I want to see more of on the forums.

 

I just want to reiterate that my post is not meant to be about anyone in particular, or if it is, then that person is me. I may be more guilty of these things than anyone else. I wouldn't be terribly surprised.

 

I didn't think you were talking about me. All I really meant was that I do obviously relate. I agree that this is a important dialogue to have and applaud you for kicking it off.

 

I have actually already been giving it some thought about good reasons to engage with bullies. Once I can formulate some good arguments about it I will definitely post it here.

[MMX2010]

You are right, I was going from memory, my mistake.  It was Omega who started this stupid shaming tactic.  You have accused me of things that you were wrong without apologizing so I don't feel the need to apologize to you (like when you accused me of being emotionally empty because I was saying that the downvoting thread was satire, only to come to find out it was).

 

Come off it, WastachMan. 

 

(1) You just proved that your memory is flawed, and you're not providing an exact quotation wherein I accused you of "being emotionally empty because I was saying that the downvoting thread was satire.) 

 

(2) You can't objectively prove that I'm wrong to say you're emotionally empty - but I just objectively proved that you were wrong to accuse me of being a bully.

 

(3) Calling someone emotionally empty is not that big of a deal; it's merely pointing out that I don't like an aesthetic aspect of your personality.  But calling someone a bully is a very big deal; it's pointing out an essential moral flaw in that person's character and asking everyone to ostracize him.

 

So, please, apologize - or else be seen as someone who makes wrong moral accusations, is objectively proven wrong, and refuses to apologize. 

 

 

 

 

Also since you were taking Omegas lead with this intimidation tactic, I don't see why you think you deserve an apology. 

 

Because saying that someone has "beta tendencies" is just pointing out a personal dislike for an aesthetic aspect of someone's character.  It is not nearly the same as accusing Kevin Beal of being a bully (which is immoral), being a habitual liar (which is immoral), or being a habitual thief (which is immoral and illegal). 

 

WastachMan, based on your arguments here, you have exceptionally limited ability to separate moral accusations from aesthetic annoyance.  You constantly lump the two of them together, which causes you to wrongfully assume that others are bullies. 

[Kevin Beal]

Along the same lines as the counterfeit detector, if someone criticizes you, and in the very same act are guilty of exactly what they are accusing you of, then that is text book psychological projection.

 

I don't think you can logically claim to care about people doing X, when in the very same breath are doing X yourself.

 

When you point this out there are 3 responses that I've seen:

1. Feign ignorance and double down that no such hypocrisy occurred
2. Concede but argue that it doesn't matter that they acted hypocritically
3. Concede like an adult with even the slightest bit of maturity

Of course, you always hope for the last one.

 

The first one is interesting to me. Do they get like a chess player looking multiple moves ahead that taking the second option will be shooting themselves in the foot and so they avoid it like the plague? Are they literally so unintelligent that they cannot actually see the principle being applied in their own rule or apply it to only one situation and not others? That doesn't seem possible to me, but perhaps that's a lack of imagination on my part.

 

The second option presents a fatal logic problem, a bug in the software. If it doesn't matter that they did X, while giving you shit for doing X, then that can only mean that X isn't the issue. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from that.

 

---

 

Personally, I think one healthy response to this kind of mindfuckery is boredom. Someone implies all kinds of false things about you? Someone trips and falls over their own arguments against you? Boring!

 

Taking that shit seriously will sap the life out of you, contributing to a sense that life is futile and frustrating, when it is only that way because that's how you choose to spend your time!

 

What if no combat is necessary at all? What if letting the trolls say what they will is exactly the best option for showing that they are in fact trolls. What's that statement I heard about feminists? "The best way to fight feminists is to let them dig their own graves by opening their mouths", or something to that effect.

[shirgall]

Kevin, this is a great treatise. Thank you for posting this!

[MMX2010]

Along the same lines as the counterfeit detector, if someone criticizes you, and in the very same act are guilty of exactly what they are accusing you of, then that is text book psychological projection. 

 

I don't think you can logically claim to care about people doing X, when in the very same breath are doing X yourself.

 

Doesn't this argument smash together every form of "logical inconsistency" into only one singular emotional response? 

 

Suppose I accuse you of over-eating all the time, and you catch me eating three slices of pie for dessert.  Am I projecting?  Absolutely.  Is it a big deal?  Not really, dude, because it's three pieces of pie. 

 

Suppose now I accuse you of bullying others, and you catch me bullying someone else.  Am I projecting?  Absolutely.  Is it a big deal?  Absolutely, because bullying is a big deal - it's a moral infraction. 

 

So you CANNOT lump together all forms of "logical inconsistent" into only one singular emotional response.  I get that it's the most convenient thing to do if you adore logic, but if you want to understand people and have wonderful relationships with them, you have to separate aesthetic annoyances from moral infractions.  Stefan, himself, agrees with this in Universally Preferable Behavior. 

 

 

 

Personally, I think one healthy response to this kind of mindfuckery is boredom. Someone implies all kinds of false things about you? Someone trips and falls over their own arguments against you? Boring!

 

Taking that shit seriously will sap the life out of you, contributing to a sense that life is futile and frustrating, when it is only that way because that's how you choose to spend your time!

 

 

There are two flaws with this argument. 

 

The first I already mentioned: you're clumping together every type of logical inconsistency into only one emotional reaction: detached boredom. 

 

The second is this.  You're obviously implying that you're oh-so-dedicated to finding out the truth about false assumptions people make about others. 

 

Now, on the one hand, you can charge into debates where you feel like someone has falsely accused you of being a certain way.  And you can both slug it out in public, until the issue is either settled or not.  Yes, publically debating a perceived aesthetic flaw in your character is annoying.  Yes, it becomes doubly-annoying if you perceive the assumption as false, cannot legitimately convince the other person that they're wrong, and have to deal with the fact that they aesthetically dislike you. 

 

But seriously, Kevin.  How is writing a much-loved treatise on trolling an adequate substitute for charging into the debate about perceived aesthetic flaws in your character?  How many words does it take in this thread to get to the truth about what's bothering you in other threads?  That battle you left, because you were bored, is still abandoned.  And you can still go back to it, if you'd like. 

[utopian]

Awesome post Kevin. I have definitely always seen the value in not engaging with trolls. Indeed, when you ignore a troll, you have the troll trolling himself, as he has written in expectation for you to read, and has just wasted his life, sometimes multiple times.

 

I am not always a fan of "herd mentality" or influence by social exclusion, because political correctness can contribute to things people find uncomfortable being ostracized, even if a statement is the ugly philosophical truth. When it comes to things like the rep system here, however, I could see them working more often than not. Indeed, there are times I foresaw the system working before it ever did, and thankfully many of us are spared having to scroll over the drivel of these individuals. 

 

 

 

There is still a problem, however. Though the rep system may have blocked trolls from having their posts viewed, some of these individuals are still allowed to post, and new and/or curious members might engage one of these trolls unknowingly, allowing whatever behavior the troll was ostracized for to spread. While some users might achieve a relatively small amount of negative reputation, it should be obvious that some users will never come back from their poor reputation, as it is well deserved. What do you think about allowing the system to permanently ban certain accounts and/or IP addresses once they have reached a certain level of negative rep?

[Archimedes]

Great article. Don't feed the trolls is such a simple rule, but sometimes hard to follow. You give the troll the benifit of the doubt, and want to discover the truth, and yet for him or her it's just about attention. The best thing is just indifference towards them. They are similiar to narcissists in that way. 

[LovePrevails]

Great article Kevin, thought I'd add this

 

[A4E]

Does that help clarify?

I reread the section many times, and I think I understand it now.

[Carl Green]

I just think that we can't help them. They have to figure it out for themselves, I think.

 

I agree, you're not going to be able to connect on the necessary level through the empathy constricting medium of a message board.

[PatrickC]

Personally, I think one healthy response to this kind of mindfuckery is boredom. Someone implies all kinds of false things about you? Someone trips and falls over their own arguments against you? Boring!

 

That's an interesting conclusion, which hadn't occured to me. Certainly, I get no enjoyment from circular arguments. Certainly when I've made a clear and rational argument I have no (dis)interest in correcting a continued irrational response.

 

If I have to repeat myself more than twice, then I will ask myself why I'm doing that. Which might mean I'll finally drop my response out of disinterest or boredom if you will.

[Archimedes]

If I have to repeat myself more than twice, then I will ask myself why I'm doing that. Which might mean I'll finally drop my response out of disinterest or boredom if you will.

 

This is a good strategy, allthough sometimes hard to follow, because has someone who cares about truth, you want others to understand it. This is exactly what trolls exploit in order to get attention. 

[shirgall]

I think I engage in order to sharpen the saw, so to speak, and to discover new truths. When the conversation isn't going there any more, I exit the thread. What Kevin is reminding me is to be a little more mindful of the effect a troll has on me, and by extension others. I needed a reminder.

 

What I do have difficulty with is feeling empathy with trolls, and that's probably a big blind spot I should fix.

[Koroviev]

I think another argument for not responding is the realization that the people observing the argument are intelligent as well. If you've made clear and rational arguments supported by evidence they know that. When you get to the point where you're repeating the same points over and over again the audience realizes this even if the "troll" does not.

 

In a nutshell you don't have to have the last word in an argument for your argument to be correct, or for others to realize your arguments are correct.

[Three]

I also would like to share some thoughts I was having about this topic. 



I think that refraining from engaging with trolls comes less from a place of haughty superior than it is actually an act of true kindness. 


As it was mentioned previously, there are consequences to engaging with trolls and not just in how it frustrates the target. In addition, trolling has negative consequences for the troll. The more a person trolls the more he trains himself to be cruel, manipulative, unreasonable, disruptive, and ect. Refusing to engage with someone you think is doing such things denies the other person the opportunity to strengthen those negative habits within themselves.


So, even if we accept that the reasons for engaging with trolls mentioned above are good reasons for the target, to me, it's still like handing over alcohol to an alcoholic, even if you are 'setting the record straight'. It strengthens the troll's bad habits. Plus, there are ways one can  alert others to a troll without engaging with the troll. 


Again, to disengage it's actually very kind, just as refusing to hand over a drink to an alcoholic is. 






Another question that I think is worth taking into consideration when trying to figure out whether someone is a troll is "how do I feel in this interaction?" You're feelings are just another kind of information. 


 There are no unchosen positive obligations. You don't owe anyone a conversation. You do not owe anyone an explanation for why you wish to not have a conversation with them. Sure there's the option of pointing out to the troll their inconsistencies, but again, you don't owe anyone the amount mental sweat and time it takes to point that stuff out, especially if already feel negative interacting with them. 


Troll or not, life if short and if you aren't enjoying the interaction, if you repeatedly feel frustrated, anxious, disrespected, or bored interacting with someone, then that's a completely valid reason to disengage in my opinion. 

[MMX2010]

Personally, I think one healthy response to this kind of mindfuckery is boredom. Someone implies all kinds of false things about you? Someone trips and falls over their own arguments against you? Boring!

 

Here's a post from Kevin Beal in the Friends With Benefits thread: "If I present myself as a police officer, wear the uniform and a badge, does that make me a cop? No. The fact that you say that feigning disinterest is part of the PUA deal, necessarily implies the lie. If it weren't a lie, it wouldn't be feigning."

 

I replied: Your argument above which equates "presenting yourself as a police officer, when you're really not" and "feigning emotional disinterest and aloofness to get a woman to like you" made me think of FDR 71.  And I later said, And the most important difference is that "feigning emotional disinterest and aloofness" is at best an aesthetic violation, NOT A MORAL ONE. 

 

And he replied: Your distinction has nothing to do with any of my arguments, and changes nothing about the logical consequences. It's just pedantic quibbling. Even if what you were saying were true, it would only ever be a red herring. Again, just change the analogy to something which isn't illegal or ostensibly immoral. It changes nothing whatever.  It's just boring.

 

And he also said to OmegaHero99: We've already established that PUA is not game and that PUA is pretending. My entire objection to PUA is that it's pretending. My only problem with game is when it is pretending. If you don't understand that, then I don't know what the hell you've been reading, but it's certainly not anything I've written.

 

------------------------------

 

Four things are important here: (1) Kevin Beal thinks establishing the distinction between lying (a moral violation) and "feigning emotional disinterest to get a girl to like you" (an aesthetic decision that she may, or may not, find aesthetically appealing) is BORING.  (2) The great Stefan Molyneux, who wrote the most important book on ethics known to man, Universally Preferable Behavior, does NOT think that establishing the difference between Moral Violations and Aesthetic Infractions is BORING.  We know this because UPB spends chapter after chapter establishing the differences between the two categories. (3) Kevin Beal is focusing on "the logical consequences" to determine that the distinction between Moral Violations and Aesthetic Infractions is BORING, a tactic that Stefan DOES NOT USE in UPB.  (4) Kevin Beal left that discussion, pondered it for months on end, and is now counseling the entire board to lump together all instances of "projection" and "logical inconsistency" into one singular emotional reaction: boredom. 

 

Kevin, it is NOT logically consistent to assume that moral violations are the same thing as revolting aesthetic actions.  You can be as logically inconsistent as you want, but counseling the entire board to be like you is a completely different (and vain) matter. 

 

Also, this board is about the pursuit of self-knowledge, and you can acquire achieve self-knowledge by pondering the emotional experiences of those with different aesthetics.  From my position, many women find it aesthetically pleasing when a guy feigns emotional disinterest, especially within the first two months of dating.  But when you have the identical emotional reaction to her behavior as you would to someone who is lying and/or behaving immorally, you will aesthetically repel her!  And since her emotional reaction has nothing to do with Morality, she will find your Moral Dismissal of her to be arrogant, condescending, and presumptive. 

 

Finally, both you and WastachMan should be ashamed of yourself for not caring about the difference between Moral Violations and Aesthetic Infractions.  This board is primarily a philosophy board and you've both read UPB - but both of you fail to make (or even care about!) the most important distinction in the book! 

[_LiveFree_]

I agree! It is also a recommended response for disengaging narcissists/sociopaths, as linked by someone else here. And truly, when you discover a pattern of behavior, isn't the continued repetition of that behavior very obviously boring? Yawn! (I've yet to foster this response to the narcissists in my life, but I am working on it diligently!)

Aaaah, but then when you begin to show disinterest they try and bait you to get you to re-engage! "If you don't respond, well that means you concede!" Or something like that. It's like that big fire ball in The Fifth Element. They can only grow if they successfully make you hate them. (I think Stef said something like that recently)