May 14 2008
Trolls
Someone sent me a message on Yahoo! Answers to start an argument the other day. I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I looked at the site they sent me, did some of my own research and sent back a reasonable reply, asking for the sources for some of their “facts” and questioning a few of their assertions logically.
Don’t ever give trolls the benefit of the doubt.
My reasoned responses have included links and facts, in addition to asking questions that are never answered. Rather, the person I’m engaging in this discussion with keeps trying to assert that there is a huge government cover-up which I am a part of. Her responses are one sentence – include no facts, no links, no answers to my critical thinking questions.
To everyone out there who wants to argue with me – I love a good debate. I’ve finally gotten pretty good at asking some critical thinking questions, I’ll play devil’s advocate, and I’m always open to looking at sources (which I will, of course, evaluate). But before you argue with me, really consider that I’m not a typical idiot.
1. If you link to something, I will read it. I will also ask questions like: who hosts/funds the website, what sort of advertisements are there on it, is what they’re saying logical?
2. If you think there is a huge government conspiracy, I’ll hear you out, so long as it makes sense. If you think the government is doing something – tell me which government. Tell me which sector of the government. Tell me what they stand to gain by the conspiracy. Tell me how they get other people to lie compliant in their conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy, this information will be out on the internet. People will have been threatened, there will be a clear gain to the individuals within the government for the conspiracy.
3. If I ask you questions – answer them or tell me you don’t have answers. If you expect me to back up my claims with citations, I expect the same from you. If you criticize each of my citations as “part of the conspiracy” even when they are not remotely funded or related to the conspirators, I will stop talking to you. You are incapable of critical thinking and are not worth my time.
You will think you’ve won, but there are no winners in a stilted “debate” like that. Only two idiots – one who can’t reason and one who appeals to reason to someone incapable of reasoning.
The ironic part is the troll thinks they are the reasonable one. That they are the only one who has seen the truth, when they’re incapable of asking or answering a few critical thinking questions. I come back again and again to this fact – it’s not having the answers that matters, it’s being able to ask the questions. If you’re smart, you have questions. If you’re stupid, you have answers.
If you’re smart, you have questions. If you’re stupid, you have answers.
How many of us vote for the one who can ask questions?
(Not enough to encourage anyone who can ask questions to run for office, that’s how many.)
I would love to have someone tell me: I have some ideas. I have some values. I’m going to surround myself with intelligent people, and make the best damn decision I can for the people.
In other words, someone who understands simple solutions and clear-cut paths do not happen in a world this complex.
I think you’ve hit on the real substance of the “culture war” being fought in this country. I wish there were some sort of extra-sarcastic quote character I could have used there.
The lines have ostensibly been drawn around “conservatives” and “liberals”, but this means nothing.
Wikipedia gives this encyclopedic definition of liberalism:
“Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.”
And this of conservatism:
“Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; ‘to protect from loss or harm.’”
Both of these defined groups obviously differ greatly from the groups in the United States who misappropriate their names.
“I’m a liberal” now means: “I may think the world is complex, but damned if I ever do anything different as a result. I also support the welfare state, the unlimited expansion of scientific inquiry and the total abrogation of citizens’ rights.”
“I’m a conservative” now means: “I think the world is simple, and if it isn’t yet I’ll make it that way. I also support moral standards playing a role in government, careful restrictions on progress, and the total abrogation of citizens’ rights.”
I mourn the fact that recognizing the complexity of the world is now considered a partisan issue in the U.S., but more importantly I refuse to believe that as many people as vote a straight-party ticket every year actually align themselves with either of these philosophies. We get no credit from our leaders yet we continue to give them ours.
Worst of all, I suppose, is that we’re slowly rubbing off on the rest of the world.