Practicality of Trolling

[plato85]

EDIT:

I want this discussion to be about practice, but I've realised how strange this thread is without the theory which I'll paste here from Arguing with Irrationality:

8 hours ago, plato85 said:

I was brought up pretty far left. My family, my school, my city are all quite left. I had dissenting thoughts but I'd seen regularly the way people were treated when they expressed them.

I remember one day I was in a cafe and I saw an article written by someone the left demonises as a far right extremist, I found some cute girl reading the same article over my shoulder. I expressed my embarrassment like I was accidentally reading it. Then I became even more embarrassed. That was the moment I realised I'd been completely brainwashed. I read his column there there was nothing extreme in it at all. The brainwashing unwraveled very quickly after that.

It's ironic, but the left love criticising religions for controlling their people through fear and ostracism. They never acknowledge that they're an ideology too, and they fear going against their herd.

After this experience, I then tried to see things from the oppositions point of view. One week later I googled 'I we being dumbed down?", I found John Taylor Gatto's video, which lead me to Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Ethics. So 3 months after that experience in the cafe, I'd replaced my whole world view with John Taylor Gatto, Plato and Aristotle.

I don't see why it needs to take years to convince people to be rational. I did the unwravling of my brainwashing myself, but all I needed was one moment to realise that I was brain washed.

 

7 hours ago, plato85 said:

I've come up with a theory to influence the irrational, based on conclusions I've derived from my previous post.

We've discussed how difficult it is to reason with someone who's irrational. The problem seems to be that irrational people rely on a strong subconscious mind, and reasoning only appeals to the conscious mind. 'Irrational mind' is just another way of describing the subconscious mind. So the question becomes, how do we influence the subconscious mind?

When I thought someone caught me reading something I wasn't supposed to, my subconscious came out and apologized. This was an over reaction that my conscious mind identified, and my conscious mind needed to unravel in my subconscious mind.

The idea I'm trying to put forward here is, if we can find a way to bring out people's irrational subconscious over-reactions, then their conscious mind will feel humiliated and fight back against their subconscious mind. 

This brings me to trolling.  I suspect the feminist in this video will go home afterwards and have a long hard think about her life. And the audience who support their views may also feel uneasy.

 

 

 

Now to the question of HOW:

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

 

 

I've put forward in a separate thread the theory of trolling the irrational mind. In this thread I want to discuss the practicality.

 

 

This humour is very similar to what the counterculture used to deconstruct the old conservative ideology.

In the 1970s in Australia Graham Kennedy destroyed his career with his famous 'crow call' (Farrrk, Farrrk, Farrrk)

 

My question to the forum in this thread is about the practicality of trolling:

What is trolling and how is it done? How do you know you're not just being a jerk? When is this appropriate? How do you know when you're going too far?

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by plato85
I added context

[Eudaimonic]

I'm not really sure as to the practically, for sure there's a danger in it as you could alienate your opponent or come off as a jerk to your audience (which may push out any rational argument except to those who support you) while at the same time you may just as well humiliate your opponent and win people to your side (however this comes with the risk of becoming a bully, which isn't necessarily bad to those who are evil, but risks corrupting yourself) but the people you win to your side will be those who change their minds based on who's being humiliated at the moment, not people who are convinced by rational argument which in my opinion are the people you really want to influence. 

In my experience it's better to come off as curious and understanding, sort of the Socratic method, which disables the parts of that person who have ego-identified with their argument and thus enables you to reach the "true" or rational part of the self. Stefan is very good at this, in my view, and did it very often in the earlier podcasts but lately I do think he's been using the more sarcastic approach, though I couldn't tell you the reason why except that it's quicker (and more temporary) which may be better for the emergency situation we're in as a community.

Dale Carnegie's classic book How To Win Friends and Influence People is very good, in my opinion, at showing some basic ways to interact with people and debate that can maneuver around the defenses of their respective parts. I've actually take their course through my job and it's been very helpful in convincing generally irrational people to at least take a look at their more strongly held beliefs (as well as oiling more positive interaction with people,) which is all I think we can ask them to do.

Please let me know if this is helpful or answers any of your questions.

 

[Donnadogsoth]

The principle of NEGOTIATION, the idea that words and behaviour can cause involuntary neurological reactions in unprepared individuals, swaying them toward or against a particular desired outcome of speech, thought, or deed, regardless of any logical arguments anyone may put forth.

[DaVinci]

Well, I already responded to this in that other thread, so I guess just go re-read that. I still think the same thing. 

[plato85]

How does this sound for a founding principle of trolling:

1. The reaction should be indirectly related to the offense. In other words, we could say that trolling is more successful when you get a big reaction to something that's not offensive at all.

In the first video I posted "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but there will always be something to offend a feminist". The reason that tolling was so successful and funny is because what he said is not offensive at all, but it got a big reaction.

[plato85]

12 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

The principle of NEGOTIATION, the idea that words and behaviour can cause involuntary neurological reactions in unprepared individuals, swaying them toward or against a particular desired outcome of speech, thought, or deed, regardless of any logical arguments anyone may put forth.

Thanks Donna! It sounds like this is exactly what I'm asking about. Where can I find more about this?

[Snafui]

Trolling is what your dad does to teach you how to deal with the real world--how many people that cannot deal with trolling have poor relationships with their fathers?

[plato85]

14 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

I'm not really sure as to the practically, for sure there's a danger in it as you could alienate your opponent or come off as a jerk to your audience (which may push out any rational argument except to those who support you) while at the same time you may just as well humiliate your opponent and win people to your side (however this comes with the risk of becoming a bully, which isn't necessarily bad to those who are evil, but risks corrupting yourself) but the people you win to your side will be those who change their minds based on who's being humiliated at the moment, not people who are convinced by rational argument which in my opinion are the people you really want to influence. 

You are right. I wonder if I figure out how to do it right I can avoid these dangers?

I've got an example. I was sitting around with in a friendly group of 8 after a tennis match. I sat politely listening to a woman describing her International Women's Day breakfast, and then she got onto the subject of women's football (which is the latest phenomenon in Melbourne). She asked everyone what they thought of womens football, I said "Women have magic bellies. Maybe they'll be injured while they're playing and lose that magic". She was dumb founded and went right off her head. Everyone else stayed silent, and meekly took her side to defuse her and changed the topic. On the way home my friend asked why I said it. I asked him what she found offensive about it? There isn't anything offensive about it unless she chose to be offended. He laughed and he said "when you put it like that it's funny, but at the time it wasn't, and no one got it."

When I got home I told my wife and she said "I've got a magic belly? Awww that sounds cute".

 

15 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

In my experience it's better to come off as curious and understanding, sort of the Socratic method, which disables the parts of that person who have ego-identified with their argument and thus enables you to reach the "true" or rational part of the self. Stefan is very good at this, in my view, and did it very often in the earlier podcasts but lately I do think he's been using the more sarcastic approach, though I couldn't tell you the reason why except that it's quicker (and more temporary) which may be better for the emergency situation we're in as a community.

Dale Carnegie's classic book How To Win Friends and Influence People is very good, in my opinion, at showing some basic ways to interact with people and debate that can maneuver around the defenses of their respective parts. I've actually take their course through my job and it's been very helpful in convincing generally irrational people to at least take a look at their more strongly held beliefs (as well as oiling more positive interaction with people,) which is all I think we can ask them to do.

Please let me know if this is helpful or answers any of your questions.

I've read that parts link. Very interesting stuff! Are you saying the best way to influence someone irrational to look at their beliefs, is to appeal to the managers and avoid the firefighters and exiles. To avoid the firefighter you use the Socratic method and avoid trying to reason.

 

 

[Donnadogsoth]

3 hours ago, plato85 said:

Thanks Donna! It sounds like this is exactly what I'm asking about. Where can I find more about this?

I know the principle but am not versed in the techniques.  I am more interested in truth than in persuasion.  Others on this board will know.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Regarding appropriateness:

One thing that is really hard for people who heavily rely on using reason, discussion, and negotiation, is using any of these things on someone who is incapable of them. I've known this for a long time but it really, really hit me at the Milo event in UW when I did my damnedest to get any Antifa idiot to talk to me ("But tell me why I'm a fascist!"), and I was simply rewarded with blows and paint on my head. You literally cannot reason with some people.

Unfortunately, there are people who can fake reason. These are known as sophists. Whether they are really good at undermining your argument, or just not shutting the fuck up so no other information can get through, they will often appear to be reasonable to others watching. Trolling then is an effective method for frustrating them and sabotaging their efforts, allowing you to get more wholesome information out. The goal is to shut them up, waste their energy, or get them on something unimportant, in the same way they set out to waste your energy by pretending to be reasonable.

Regarding being a jerk:

The initiator who pretends reason is the jerk. When you troll, you will appear as a jerk to people who can't reason, and a savior to people who can. Focus on impressing the important of the two groups. I noticed this when Stef had a call-in show a few months back with a guy, I think named Fritz. Fritz was an annoying sophist and Stef literally spent 40 patient minutes with him. I could tell within 30 seconds Fritz was a jerk, and after 40 minutes when Stef finally lost his patience, he received a HUGE amount of feedback that HE was the jerk. Stef actually had to do another call-in show to explain exactly what happened and why Fritz was the jerk and not him. I noticed it right off the bat, and was actually frustrated with how patient Stef was. If you identify sophistry, don't worry about being a jerk.

How to know when you're going to far:

When you're trolling people who are being reasonable to begin with? When you can't stop trolling?

 

Hope that helps.

 

[ofd]

All you need to do to troll other people is to confront them with facts that contradict their worldview. That alone causes negative emotions. Furthermore, it doesn't change your opponents positions but makes them stronger. It's explained here http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe in detail. 

 

[Eudaimonic]

5 hours ago, plato85 said:

You are right. I wonder if I figure out how to do it right I can avoid these dangers?

I've got an example. I was sitting around with in a friendly group of 8 after a tennis match. I sat politely listening to a woman describing her International Women's Day breakfast, and then she got onto the subject of women's football (which is the latest phenomenon in Melbourne). She asked everyone what they thought of womens football, I said "Women have magic bellies. Maybe they'll be injured while they're playing and lose that magic". She was dumb founded and went right off her head. Everyone else stayed silent, and meekly took her side to defuse her and changed the topic. On the way home my friend asked why I said it. I asked him what she found offensive about it? There isn't anything offensive about it unless she chose to be offended. He laughed and he said "when you put it like that it's funny, but at the time it wasn't, and no one got it."

When I got home I told my wife and she said "I've got a magic belly? Awww that sounds cute".

That sounds like a pretty positive (and funny) way to bring up an objection, but is that trolling really? I mean, it's certainly exaggerated, but not really sarcastic, more infantalizing than anything to me (not to say that's bad) but still relatively true. It doesn't attempt to humiliate her in any way. Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't trolling involve an undercover attack on your opponent through humiliation which the opponent can't rebut or attack without coming off as "too sensitive" because essentially the troll can run back to "it's just a joke" and in fact wants a response so as to continue it's trolling? As well, it did in a way seem to alienate your opponent and, at least if that happened to me and I was offended, I'd just write the comment off as weird and probably get confirmation from all the other women around me rather than looking at your arguments.

5 hours ago, plato85 said:

I've read that parts link. Very interesting stuff! Are you saying the best way to influence someone irrational to look at their beliefs, is to appeal to the managers and avoid the firefighters and exiles. To avoid the firefighter you use the Socratic method and avoid trying to reason.

Oh yeah, Internal Family Systems is an amazing insight into human psychology, I recommend it for anyone going through healing, it's been the most effective for my own healing at any rate.

I would say that the best way to influence someone (and you can sort of see the way this is done in Stefan's earlier podcasts; again he's very skilled at it or just skim through Dale Carnegie's book) is to talk and act in a way towards that person which doesn't activate any of their reactive parts (which have developed due to childhood trauma and don't realize that your situation has changed; that you can afford to be more rational which is the job of the True Self) and allows you access to the rational True Self which guides action and holds the fundamental values of the system. Some methods include using 'and' instead of 'but' when debating or smiling, excitement, 'it seems to me' 'in my view,' showing appreciation for their thoughts,  coming off as simply ignorant and wanting to learn rather than trying to force your opinions on them, all things which say to that person's parts "it's okay to listen to this person." This is all stuff you can be genuine in doing as well so it needs not to be manipulative.

[plato85]

11 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

The goal is to shut them up, waste their energy, or get them on something unimportant, in the same way they set out to waste your energy by pretending to be reasonable.

 

9 hours ago, ofd said:

All you need to do to troll other people is to confront them with facts that contradict their worldview. That alone causes negative emotions. Furthermore, it doesn't change your opponents positions but makes them stronger. It's explained here http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe in detail. 

 

9 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

That sounds like a pretty positive (and funny) way to bring up an objection, but is that trolling really? I mean, it's certainly exaggerated, but not really sarcastic, more infantalizing than anything to me (not to say that's bad) but still relatively true. It doesn't attempt to humiliate her in any way. Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't trolling involve an undercover attack on your opponent through humiliation which the opponent can't rebut or attack without coming off as "too sensitive" because essentially the troll can run back to "it's just a joke" and in fact wants a response so as to continue it's trolling? As well, it did in a way seem to alienate your opponent and, at least if that happened to me and I was offended, I'd just write the comment off as weird and probably get confirmation from all the other women around me rather than looking at your arguments.

 

This is some good discussion! 

Ofd! That's so obvious it's hard to believe I've overlooked it. When I was comparing swearing in the 60s to show how ridiculous peoples response was, I completely forgot that outrage is against truth these days.

 

There is some disagreement about what 'trolling' is, and how to define it. But What I'm trying to do is influence people by bringing out their irrationality.

Taking on board what everyone's said so far I'll write out the general principles:

Purpose:

To influence people by bringing out a an irrational response to point out how irrational someones beliefs are.

Principles:

1. The more obviously true a statement is, the less offense should be taken to it.
2. The success of a troll is a measure of the response indirectly proportional to the offense given.
3. Someone is more likely to be offended by truth if the truth challenges their identity (e.g. Communist, feminist etc..)

Method?

 

How to get away with it?

 

 

How can we improve this?

[Eudaimonic]

12 hours ago, plato85 said:

 

 

 

This is some good discussion! 

Ofd! That's so obvious it's hard to believe I've overlooked it. When I was comparing swearing in the 60s to show how ridiculous peoples response was, I completely forgot that outrage is against truth these days.

 

There is some disagreement about what 'trolling' is, and how to define it. But What I'm trying to do is influence people by bringing out their irrationality.

Taking on board what everyone's said so far I'll write out the general principles:

Purpose:

To influence people by bringing out a an irrational response to point out how irrational someones beliefs are.

Principles:

1. The more obviously true a statement is, the less offense should be taken to it.
2. The success of a troll is a measure of the response indirectly proportional to the offense given.
3. Someone is more likely to be offended by truth if the truth challenges their identity (e.g. Communist, feminist etc..)

Method?

 

How to get away with it?

 

 

How can we improve this?

I would say humiliation and exaggerating is central to the whole art; by pointing out their irrationality you humiliate them by basically pointing out that they're dumb/ignorant/indoctrinated and no type of sympathy usually follows this.

This is where my problem is, I'm not sure how you can troll without humiliation and if you start to humiliate people, in my view, you run the risk of becoming a bully, which can be self-corrupting. I also don't see how this convinces your opponent of anything (at least I've never seen someone change their views, only harden, when they get trolled, but perhaps that's just my experience.)

The only benefit I can see is that by humiliating your opponent you gain the favor of those who are either leaning in one direction or the other, or those who are neutral. I think this is okay for the sort of emergency situation we're in, but in the long run the people you won over will simply change allegiances when you get trolled (or will at least begin to doubt their loyalty.)

It also doesn't seem to me that the position that's being trolled needs to be irrational, anarchists experience this all the time.

 

[plato85]

Oh this is very thought provoking.

Good point. Humiliation is the central emotion.

Given that my aim is to change an opponent's views, exaggerating and pointing out that people are dumb/ignorant/indoctrinated may be central, but I'll withhold my judgement on that for now.

I would say that humiliation is something that you can't help but want to learn from. In Internal Family Systems psychology, you would say that the exile is suppressed and not something we're generally aware of. When someone is humiliated their exiles are wounded and they come to the surface, but their fireman jumps in to protect them. In a conflict the fireman is not going to give ground in front of you, but afterwards I imagine that person is going to try to figure out what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Bringing that exile to the surface gives them an opportunity to learn.

This brings up some new questions.

There are separate emotions we need to distinguish from humiliation. Emotions like embarrassment, shame, and guilt are related and feel similar, but are distinctly different from humiliation so it's easy to confuse them.

If we want to change an opponent's views by trolling we need to cause an inner conflict. The conflict may be between separate values that they hold, or it might be between their outlook and reality.

Related words like embarrassment, shame, and guilt imply more that someone is being held to someone else's standard. If someone is shamed they are held to a socially acceptable standard, not one that is necessarily their own. For instance someone may have no inner conflict about being gay, but still feel ashamed about being exposed as gay. They might feel ashamed because people are judging them, and if they’ve internalised the accepted standards they will feel guilty.

Are shaming and humiliating are two opposites, even though they seem the same?

This is my theory - Shaming is holding someone to a public standard, and humiliating is holding someone to their own standard.

You can shame someone into accepting social standards, but if that person internalises the shame as their own standard, they become repressed and they repress their thoughts and emotion.

Humiliating someone is holding their standards up to reality (not social standards). Humiliation may be liberating to a repressed person.

Also, shaming is about making people feel shame for not living up to your standard, trolling is about making people humiliate themselves by overreacting to expose their irrationality.

[plato85]

humility

Pronunciation: /hjʊˈmɪlɪti/

noun [mass noun]  The quality of having a modest or low view of one’s importance:he needs the humility to accept that their way may be better

 

Geez isn't our language rich. Someone beat me to this idea.

[_LiveFree_]

I would strongly caution you to not go mucking around with other peoples' IFS parts. That is some seriously dangerous behavior. Not just dangerous to that person but to you, too. You have no idea what's in there. Also, if someone becomes aware that you are doing this without their consent, you'll lose all credibility with them and any chance to change their mind in the future. Besides being unethical without consent in my opinion, you can really mess a person up beyond rehabilitation. 

"Trolling" is laying bait for a person's firefighter. It is to draw them out (as opposed to you going in). This means they, even if unwittingly, are choosing to interact with you.  If it is just a one-on-one interaction, all you've succeeded in doing is hardening their firefighter's resolve and sense of purpose. You've accomplished the opposite of what you seek. Successful trolling requires an audience. And the degree of a successful troll is directly related to how big an audience. The bigger the better. Trolling is baiting a firefighter to expose a person's irrationality related to the topic you are trolling on. However, the firefighter is acting rationally as a defense against a past abuse or humiliation that it senses is about to reoccur. The humiliation a person will feel in that moment will not be from the current circumstance of being trolled, but from the memory of the past abuse. This means that this person is in fight or flight, only seeing two options. The more severe the past abuse was, the more likely (far more likely) they will have an intense response to your trolling. Their reaction will not be consistent to the current circumstance. This is what "exposes" them to others. Others may see this and realize the ridiculousness of the trolled person's position on whatever the topic was. However, the person who got trolled is highly unlikely to ever change their position after being trolled. 

Trolling is an attack on a person's false self. Not a direct attack, more like a landmine. A landmine painted hot pink sitting above ground with a massive sign that says "LAND MINE HERE". Because of the person's past abuse and subsequent development of a false self through various Managers and Firefighters, they cannot see the sign for what it is. When the mine goes off, this false self is abruptly and shockingly destroyed or, at the very least seriously damaged. At that point, the person will quickly begin developing a new false self narrative. The likelihood of someone "waking up" due to a landmine explosion is so minuscule, I can't even recall seeing it ever happen. What may occur is that their new false self narrative could be developed to mimic those people personalities/positions who's favor was lost in order to regain their favor. In this case the firefighter remains, and a new layer is added to the psyche. 

To sum up, when you troll someone, you are not doing it for them. You doing it for others. The act of trolling someone shows intense and deep disdain for that person. 

As an example, when /pol/ trolls the MSM, are they doing it because they like the MSM and want to see it changed? Or because they are actively working towards its destruction by altering how the public sees it?

[Eudaimonic]

18 hours ago, plato85 said:

Oh this is very thought provoking.

Good point. Humiliation is the central emotion.

Given that my aim is to change an opponent's views, exaggerating and pointing out that people are dumb/ignorant/indoctrinated may be central, but I'll withhold my judgement on that for now.

I would say that humiliation is something that you can't help but want to learn from. In Internal Family Systems psychology, you would say that the exile is suppressed and not something we're generally aware of. When someone is humiliated their exiles are wounded and they come to the surface, but their fireman jumps in to protect them. In a conflict the fireman is not going to give ground in front of you, but afterwards I imagine that person is going to try to figure out what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Bringing that exile to the surface gives them an opportunity to learn.

This brings up some new questions.

There are separate emotions we need to distinguish from humiliation. Emotions like embarrassment, shame, and guilt are related and feel similar, but are distinctly different from humiliation so it's easy to confuse them.

If we want to change an opponent's views by trolling we need to cause an inner conflict. The conflict may be between separate values that they hold, or it might be between their outlook and reality.

Related words like embarrassment, shame, and guilt imply more that someone is being held to someone else's standard. If someone is shamed they are held to a socially acceptable standard, not one that is necessarily their own. For instance someone may have no inner conflict about being gay, but still feel ashamed about being exposed as gay. They might feel ashamed because people are judging them, and if they’ve internalised the accepted standards they will feel guilty.

Are shaming and humiliating are two opposites, even though they seem the same?

This is my theory - Shaming is holding someone to a public standard, and humiliating is holding someone to their own standard.

You can shame someone into accepting social standards, but if that person internalises the shame as their own standard, they become repressed and they repress their thoughts and emotion.

Humiliating someone is holding their standards up to reality (not social standards). Humiliation may be liberating to a repressed person.

Also, shaming is about making people feel shame for not living up to your standard, trolling is about making people humiliate themselves by overreacting to expose their irrationality.

I hate to be a thorn in the side of this discussion on trolling efficacy, but I really have to disagree here.

Firstly, IFS doesn't really work that way. If you haven't accessed your True Self (which usually only happens through therapy or self work,) healed your exiles, and have moved your parts into more productive roles, you are almost always in the grip of a protector (managers/firefighters.) When you humiliate someone, you're right a firefighter will protect them, but later in when the firefighter is not longer active the person isn't in True Self, but in the role of a manager. In this scenario you might have a rationalizer or a prideful part. Unless the person who has humiliated you is someone a part needs you to love or care about (parents) a person will almost never admit that their wrong or question their views and will more likely than not seek to vilify the person by calling them a jerk or a term more apt here, a Troll.

The system seeks to maintain itself as for decades it adapted to a situation of immense harm (abusive childhood/adolescence) which it developed that system in in order to survive, to give up it's "opinions" you're trolling is often like putting the person (from the perspective of the parts i.e false self) in mortal danger and in fact the body registers it this way. You are a threat and the system seeks to eliminate you from the environment like a psychological virus, no matter how reasonable your position it. It will in fact seek to reinforce itself.

"Learning" and changing ones beliefs can only come in when the system doesn't feel threatened or when the system perceives the information to be vital to it's survival ("learn this or else.") This is why the Stefan/Dale Carnegie methods work well (as the information is presented in a way which isn't threatening or distracts the False Self) as well as when the information is presented in a funny way (a combination of both; the reason you can convince an audience through humiliating another person) and many effective teaching strategies are centered around this.

Thats an interesting definition of humiliation and perhaps valid, but holding a person to their own standards, in my experience, doesn't change them either. They just end up qualifying their actions or beliefs.

Causing valid internal value-conflict I agree can caused learning if in fact the person can rationality analyze separate values and understands their value heirarchies, but a system lives and dies on maintaining value-conflict.

Again, the only "convincing" that I see coming out of trolling is the kind that comes out of convincing your audience that your opponent is an idiot and hoping they adopt your ideas by proxy, which seems to only be more likely if you have a dichotomy type society (conservative vs liberal.) Emperically you can see how trolling had an affect in the United States where this exists predominantly, but not so much in Europe where there is more diversity of view.

[plato85]

Oh no, that makes sense.

In other words, there's no point arguing with anyone until they're self actualized.

No wonder the world is such a mess.

It sounds like I've got some reading to do. I'll read those books/courses you recommended.

[Eudaimonic]

7 minutes ago, plato85 said:

Oh no, that makes sense.

In other words, there's no point arguing with anyone until they're self actualized.

No wonder the world is such a mess.

I think it would be more interesting to look at the practically of trolling  through a short term lense (in which case I think we can leave the work, and possibility of becoming a bully, to Reddit and 4chan) because I think it can be effective if you want to sway a population to a politically dichotemous side.

Combine this with a community with a long term view (therapy, self work, peaceful parenting) and I think you've got a recipe for success.

[plato85]

There's a dichotomy in all democratic societies. Even when there's a diversity of views there are polarising issues. Trolling works especially well when there are demonised opinions which are generally unacceptable in polite society, even if they're true. Demonised opinions are what we are concerned with, and the troll must show that demonised opinions are on the table to be discussed, and that it's not wrong/evil/immoral to have the demonised opinion, and that the outrage against that opinion is over the top and irrational.

In my 'magic bellies' example, she went on a rant about how women can chose whether they have babies etc... by the end of her rant, I was in a shameful position. She'd shamed me, I sat there and took it. Everyone looked at each other and then at me. The possible responses came to me immediately: "I didn't say you can't choose not to have a baby", or "What did I actually say that was offensive?". But I'd already wounded her, one more comeback and she'd be on the floor quivering and I'd then definitely be seen as a bully. In the moment it was a dilemma: Stand up for yourself and be seen as a bully or cop it on the chin. I took the latter option, I sat and grinned. The audience didn't appear to quite have any idea of what was going on or know how to respond either. I was belittled, they took my glass of wine away mockingly (we were all completely sober after a game of tennis), and someone said "you could have worded that better". 

It's was an incredibly tense situation for everyone on the table, and I couldn't expect a positive feedback. I think I went far enough. I think my troll was effective but it's hard to tell. The general feeling from everyone was confusion. My general feeling was adrenaline. Her general feeling was horror.

 

[plato85]

The demonisation of certain opinions is done by associating other opinions, and assuming that if you have one opinion you automatically have another opinion. The illogic goes like this:

• All Nazis are opposed to open borders, therefore if you're opposed to open borders you're a Nazi. If you are opposed to open borders, you're therefore also in favour of genocide.

These are the kind of illogical ideas a SJW have swilling around their heads, but these ideas haven't taken the shape of words and they haven't examined them. If you can bring these words out of them, they sound insane, probably even to the person saying them.

You mentioned trolling is about exaggeration. It might be as much about understatement. I said something inoffensive, Magic bellies (women give birth to children), but she jumped ahead a few illogical steps and started arguing about something else. It's insane to think any Westerner is against a woman's right to choose whether to get married and have a family, but I exposed that irrational belief in her, and it sounded insane and hysterical when she said it.

Maybe we can say that a troll is an exaggerated understatement, which leads its victim to express irrational views that they assume the troller has.

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

The reason that these demonised opinions have become such sacred cows that can't be questioned is that people accept that shame. Shaming on the troll is a central and inescapable part of trolling. So we must discuss this.

I've read a book called "So you've been Publicly Shamed" (light and very entertaining book. I'd recommend it). In the book the journalist travels around meeting people who've been publicly shamed in the media, news, internet, and communities. The people who accepted the shame dealt far worse than the people who refused to feel shamed. The people who accepted the shame let people destroy their lives and they couldn't defend themselves. The people who refused to feel shame came off well, some of them came off looking like legends, and the people trying to shame them look pathetic and cruel.

In my magic belly example, the shame came in two different levels. Firstly, the direct accusation that I'm horrible for having a certain view which I can deal with and respond to. The second level of shame came in the form of an exposed wound. That second level is hard to respond to. Sitting there smiling in silence was about the most measured response I could come up with.

[Eudaimonic]

10 hours ago, plato85 said:

I've read a book called "So you've been Publicly Shamed" (light and very entertaining book. I'd recommend it). In the book the journalist travels around meeting people who've been publicly shamed in the media, news, internet, and communities. The people who accepted the shame dealt far worse than the people who refused to feel shamed. The people who accepted the shame let people destroy their lives and they couldn't defend themselves. The people who refused to feel shame came off well, some of them came off looking like legends, and the people trying to shame them look pathetic and cruel.

In my magic belly example, the shame came in two different levels. Firstly, the direct accusation that I'm horrible for having a certain view which I can deal with and respond to. The second level of shame came in the form of an exposed wound. That second level is hard to respond to. Sitting there smiling in silence was about the most measured response I could come up with.

These are interesting theories, don't get me wrong, and a lot of it sounds valid so maybe this is missing the picture, but my question would be: Why are you hanging out with people where this is what you have to do to influence their minds? It doesn't really sound like a fun experience, buy a tense potentially painful one, and I'd be more concerned about my relationships here.

On 5/3/2017 at 7:59 AM, plato85 said:

I've got an example. I was sitting around with in a friendly group of 8 after a tennis match. 

They don't seem friendly to me, if that matters at all to you.

[plato85]

On 06/05/2017 at 11:45 PM, Eudaimonic said:

These are interesting theories, don't get me wrong, and a lot of it sounds valid so maybe this is missing the picture, but my question would be: Why are you hanging out with people where this is what you have to do to influence their minds? It doesn't really sound like a fun experience, buy a tense potentially painful one, and I'd be more concerned about my relationships here.

They don't seem friendly to me, if that matters at all to you.

The bigger picture we're talking about is culture. I live in Melbourne, I can't avoid my culture. It's not that they're not friendly, our manners and customs impels us to take the side of the person with hurt feelings. Our manners and customs are similar to England's, although our culture is quite different. We don't value religion, but our customs are still quite protestant. We are not supposed to talk about religion, politics, or money at the dinner table. We are not supposed to offend anyone.

Meekness may work well in a Christian, class based society where the church has moral authority and everyone looks up to the next class, and each class is responsible to help the next class. Australia started as a penal colony, and we were treated poorly by the upper classes, we we refused to look up to the next classes and became atheistic quickly.

If your society is meek and there's no class hierarchy, and there is no moral authority in the church, moral authority is hijacked by the people who are the most easily offended. Because it is not proper to upset people or offend people it's hard to challenge them. Rather than moral authority from the top of society you end up with moral authority from the bottom. We were discussing self actualization before, you can see the obvious problem with this kind of society.

We our society as having a 'Tall poppy syndrome' - the imagery is that the poppies that grow too tall are cut down to everyone else's level. In Australia we talk about a silent majority. It appears in public that everyone is on board with progressive values or at least no one opposes them, but we keep voting in conservative governments. We avoid confrontation, and we avoid debate, so we pander to the irrational.

If it can be shown that it's OK to offend someone and undermine that meek culture, maybe we could completely change our society for the better.

[plato85]

On 06/05/2017 at 11:45 PM, Eudaimonic said:

These are interesting theories, don't get me wrong, and a lot of it sounds valid so maybe this is missing the picture, but my question would be: Why are you hanging out with people where this is what you have to do to influence their minds? It doesn't really sound like a fun experience, buy a tense potentially painful one, and I'd be more concerned about my relationships here.

They don't seem friendly to me, if that matters at all to you.

The bigger picture we're talking about is culture. I live in Melbourne, I can't avoid my culture. It's not that they're not friendly, our manners and customs impels us to take the side of the person with hurt feelings. Our manners and customs are similar to England's, although our culture is quite different. We don't value religion, but our customs are still quite protestant. We are not supposed to talk about religion, politics, or money at the dinner table. We are not supposed to offend anyone.

Meekness may work well in a Christian, class based society where the church has moral authority and everyone looks up to the next class, and each class is responsible to help the next class. Australia started as a penal colony, and we were treated poorly by the upper classes, we we refused to look up to the next classes and became atheistic quickly.

If your society is meek and there's no class hierarchy, and there is no moral authority in the church, moral authority is hijacked by the people who are the most easily offended. Because it is not proper to upset people or offend people it's hard to challenge them. Rather than moral authority from the top of society you end up with moral authority from the bottom. We were discussing self actualization before, you can see the obvious problem with this kind of society.

We our society as having a 'Tall poppy syndrome' - the imagery is that the poppies that grow too tall are cut down to everyone else's level. In Australia we talk about a silent majority. It appears in public that everyone is on board with progressive values or at least no one opposes them, but we keep voting in conservative governments. We avoid confrontation, and we avoid debate, so we pander to the irrational.

If it can be shown that it's OK to offend someone and undermine that meek culture, maybe we could completely change our society for the better.

Edited May 8, 2017 by plato85
Posted again, trying to get around this moderator thingy.

[plato85]

The bigger picture we're talking about is culture. I live in Melbourne, I can't avoid my culture. It's not that they're not friendly, our manners and customs impels us to take the side of the person with hurt feelings. Our manners and customs are similar to England's, although our culture is quite different. We don't value religion, but our customs are still quite protestant. We are not supposed to talk about religion, politics, or money at the dinner table. We are not supposed to offend anyone.

Meekness may work well in a Christian, class based society where the church has moral authority and everyone looks up to the next class, and each class is responsible to help the next class. Australia started as a penal colony, and we were treated poorly by the upper classes, we we refused to look up to the next classes and became atheistic quickly.

If your society is meek and there's no class hierarchy, and there is no moral authority in the church, moral authority is hijacked by the people who are the most easily offended. Because it is not proper to upset people or offend people it's hard to challenge them. Rather than moral authority from the top of society you end up with moral authority from the bottom. We were discussing self actualization before, you can see the obvious problem with this kind of society.

We our society as having a 'Tall poppy syndrome' - the imagery is that the poppies that grow too tall are cut down to everyone else's level. In Australia we talk about a silent majority. It appears in public that everyone is on board with progressive values or at least no one opposes them, but we keep voting in conservative governments. We avoid confrontation, and we avoid debate, so we pander to the irrational.

If it can be shown that it's OK to offend someone and undermine that meek culture, maybe we could completely change our society for the better.

[plato85]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-08/albanese-shorten-labor-australians-first-ad-criticised/8506358

 

This is how meek the culture I live in is! For context Shorten is leader of the left wing opposition, all those ministers who were triggered were white too. Albanese is the most obvious alternate opposition leader.

Shorten has done half the job of a troll by saying something reasonable in a way that triggered everyone. His response was all wrong. How could he have responded in a way that made all these people feel pathetic?

[plato85]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/07/if-you-want-to-know-about-muslim-womens-rights-ask-muslim-women?CMP=share_btn_fb

 

this adds a whole new dimension to trolling. Political correctness is trolling. I'm in over my head. Trolling is amateur compared with political correctness.

[plato85]

Given that I'm talking about trolling being a response to political correctness, and political correctness is also trolling, we're getting into game theory. This is starting to sound schizophrenic. Usually the best way to respond to game theory is to not get dragged into the game, and find a way to stay human.

What we really need is good ways of responding to political correctness.

[mkj]

'Trolling' is merely casting out bait to catch the unwary isn't it?  'Bait', in most cases, is nothing more than a slur that can be either blatantly obvious or of a more subtle nature.  As long as it isn't too heavy handed it can be a good way to get a reaction and to start a discussion off. 

Another term I see bandied about as a label for trouble makers (especially on forums) is that of being a 'WUM' (wind up merchant).  Again these exhibit similar tactics in that they load their replies with personal insults be it only slightly at times - just enough for readers to take it personally should they wish.  Again it can be used to good effect.

I will say that anyone who takes part in any discussion where they lose their cool or becomes agitated in some way will lose the battle - argument - whatever against such people.  It is what they thrive on.  It is the whole reason for the goading.  They are argument junkies who get high off other peoples rattled reactions.  Very difficult not to become upset when faced with either.  It generally takes one to spot one.

Dealing with the irrational?  Discourse should get through eventually as long as they can calm down sufficiently.  Once they take solace in rage there is no way through though.  They have to be disarmed in some way first and brought back to reality.

Of course to change the mind of someone you have to have the most potent points at your disposal in the first place else it will be you left looking foolish .

[Donnadogsoth]

On 5/8/2017 at 10:54 PM, plato85 said:

Given that I'm talking about trolling being a response to political correctness, and political correctness is also trolling, we're getting into game theory. This is starting to sound schizophrenic. Usually the best way to respond to game theory is to not get dragged into the game, and find a way to stay human.

What we really need is good ways of responding to political correctness.

Talk past whoever is trying to wordshame you.  Tell them firmly that you don't engage in metaconversations, and continue talking for the sake of the audience.