When Trolling is Necessary

According to Wikipedia –

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,^[3]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[4] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[5] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: “That was an excellent troll you posted.”

Trolling is an inevitable consequence of blogging and commenting on blogs, YouTube videos, and so forth, on the internet. Let’s face it, there are morons out there whose sole purpose in life is to piss people off on the internet. It’s pathetic and a waste of everyone’s time. But there are times when trolling, in my opinion, is necessary. I would like to outline a typical blog and series of comments. This is based upon my experiences at Freethoughtblogs, and sites/pages dedicated to Atheism Plus, including those on Reddit. Good examples would be blogs written by the like of PZ Myers, Great Christina, Ophelia Benson, and Zinnia Jones. This also happens most frequently on blogs about Atheism Plus, feminist issues, or blogs detracting those who oppose or question the aforementioned.

Blogger writes blog supporting feminist issue X.

(Comments)

• Person A: You are awesome. I totally agree. I worship the ground you walk on. (or something similar, likely implied, but not clearly stated)
• Person B: Me too. Misogyny. Schrodinger’s Rapist. Sexism. MRA. Male privilege. Oppression. Buzzwords…
• Person C: Me too. All men are worthless shitbags.
• Person D: I disagree with point X, for the following reasons (provides reasons in a humble, cogent manner).
• Person A (to person D): Fuck you. You are a worthless piece of shit and a misogynist pig. I bet you’re an MRA.
• Person D: Why do you treat me like that? I’m simply making a point. You don’t need to attack me.
• Person A: You’re one of those fucking tone trolls. Are you afraid of my words? You’re a fucking pussy.
• Person D: Fine, I’m not going to stoop to your level. If you don’t want to have a civil discussion, I’m outta here.
• Person A: Stick the flounce, mother fucker.
• Persons B and C: Yeah, that fucker had it coming. Who does he/she think he/she is?

(OK, the “worship the ground you walk on” was a bit exaggerated.)
Having read a handful of blogs at Freethought, Atheism Plus, and Reddit, this is pretty much how it goes.  I’ve seen it, and I’ve been a direct party to it.
Person D was accused of being a tone troll, which, according to the Pharyngula wiki, is –

A tone troll is a serious-minded person who wants only to raise the level of discussion in the dire cesspits of the New Atheist web. Or, possibly, they’re a pompous blowhard who, lacking such frivolous accoutrements as an actual argument, attempts to distract attention from said deficit by complaining that their opposition uses dirty words and ought, really, to have some strict nanny figure—possibly Mary Poppins—to wash out their mouths with soap.

Of course this definition is, itself, pompous and dismissive of a serious inquiry. But the point is that a tone troll is commenting on the tone of the others, in addition to or rather than addressing the blog or comment he/she is responding to. Tone trolling is rarely done, in my opinion, without additional commentary on the actual post. You could make the argument that the commenter’s sole purpose for commenting is to put others in check for their choice of words or behavior; however, the more likely scenario is that the tone trolling is secondary to an actual argument, which is the case in the example above. Personally, I think trolling of this kind is just fine.

Notice the pattern, which repeats on many blogs. Person D makes a comment in disagreement with the OP. The argument is articulate, and well thought out. Other commenters then personally attack Person D, often without making counter-arguments, and accuse Person D of tone trolling, and likely derailing the comments.

The reality is that the offenders here are the attackers, not the tone troll. Specifically, by personally attacking the Person D (especially without a counter-argument), the attackers have derailed the comments themselves. Person D’s comments were on-topic, but in disagreement. Respectful disagreement is nothing to get pissed off about. There’s a reason that the hashtag #ftbullies is used so often. This epidemic brings a number of questions to my mind –

First, why do people like Person A act like this? I theorize that it may be one or more of the following:

• General lack of maturity. This one speaks for itself. You act like a child.
• You feel empowered by the ability to say shit you wouldn’t otherwise say to a real person in the real world. Hiding behind a computer is your alcohol. In reality, it’s weak. Think about this: If you honestly wanted to have a debate with someone over a controversial topic in the real world (i.e., face-to-face, perhaps in front of an audience), would you act like this? The moment your debate opponent disagreed with you, would you just tell them to fuck off, and declare victory? No one would take you or your opinions seriously, and you would be laughed off stage. Think about what you’re doing and saying, and why you are saying it. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen a professional speaker or debater speak like you write. There’s a reason for that. Take some notes. I’ve been speaking professionally in various capacities for the past 12 years, and I’m pretty sure I’d be fired if I acted like you.
• You have an inability to control your emotions.
• You don’t have a good retort, so you resort to insults to hide your incompetence or ignorance.
• You’re just a bully. (similar to first bullet)

Second, how do you engage people like this? Do you try to reason with them? Do you ignore them? Do you “stick the flounce?” Sometimes, when I am confronted with this, I am compelled to continue arguing my case, but in a respectful way. Fail. Other times, I just walk away. But isn’t that letting them win? Their boorish behavior is essentially silencing you.  You’ve got an equal right to say what you want to say, and they are taking that away from you. It’s frustrating.

Third, can it be fixed? I’m all for loose moderation, in that I’m not inclined to decline comments unless it’s totally egregious, which I have not encountered yet. The few disagreeing commenters on my page have been respectful in doing so.  On the other hand, I’m not a big fan of swinging the ban hammer. Atheism Plus is legendary for doing this – but it goes beyond trolling or abusive language, but to general disagreement. A lot of people take offense to questions and disagreement too personally, especially when the disagreement is respectful.  Also, is there a way to simply change the culture, so that these kind of attitudes go away. But I know that’s a pipe dream.

So am I crazy or what? I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. As I’ve stated, I’m somewhat new to the atheism “community” (I know some of you don’t like that word), but I’m very discouraged by what I’ve seen. In my opinion, there’s no place for these kinds of attitudes. Nothing positive gets accomplished by harassing. And that goes for people who harass women or Atheism Plus supporters, too – everybody. So if you’re sending hate mail, just stop. Don’t be a moron. I’ll never send an email to PZ Myers, no matter how much I disagree with his opinions. It’s a waste of my time and his, too. I have better things to do.

It’s funny how so many atheists are quick to point out the logical fallacies of their theist opponents, but fail to identify their own.

Open Mic Night 2: The Future of Atheism Plus

This is my second installment of Open Mic Night.  Today’s discussion is about the future of atheism plus.  What are your thoughts about its future?

I don’t have much of a feel for the overall popularity in the atheist community, although my suspicion is that most do not support it, but maybe I am reading the wrong blogs.  I have seen very little in support outside FtB.

So where is it headed?  Will it be a fly-by-night idea?  Will it become the “third wave” of atheism, as Jen McCreight put it?  Will it be a self-sustaining subgroup within atheism?

Also, if you think it will last, what will be necessary to achieve long-term success?  If you think it will fail, what will be its downfall?

Atheism Plus, Jen McCreight, and the Future of the Atheism “Movement”

Disclaimer:  This blog may be a little disorganized.  I’ve been brainstorming about this blog for days, and have a lot to say, so this may come off a little all-over-the-place.  Also, it’s approaching midnight and I have to work in the morning.  I hope this isn’t riddled with errors.
Now that I’ve had more of an opportunity to learn about Atheism Plus (A+), I think I can speak more about it, although my conclusions remain generally the same.  I’ve read countless blogs and tweets (including some by FTBers), and have seen a few videos addressing A+.  Most of what I’ve seen is against A+, and primarily for the same reasons.  Generally, I’d say the concept is average at best, and the rollout has been the worst rollout of a “new” idea (I used that term very loosely) EVER.  Here’s why:

• It’s divisive.  This has probably been the most common  argument by non-plussers. We are talking about a community (yes, we are a community) that is already rather fragmented.  Running away with your friends to start a new clique does not help.  Greta Christina has argued that A+ is a reaction to an already divisive community, which I partially agree with.  The division had already taken place.  Starting with Elevatorgate, and moving forward into allegations of harassment, threats, etc., the divide has already taken place.  Sides were taken.  Twitter wars ensued.  Thunderf00t was booted out of FTB.  Matt Dillahunty baited his followers on Facebook into disagreeing with his opinion about Elevatorgate, with the stated intent of blocking them from his Facebook if they do.  Richard Dawkins even opined.  So yes, in those respects, the schism was already underway.  However, when a group of well-known atheists pickup their laptops and run away to their own little world, essentially say “to hell with you,” they open the divide tenfold.  What I don’t understand is this: If the atheist community is full of harassment, sexism, and so forth, why not work to fix it, instead of starting your own group?  Also, if there were legitimate threats of violence, rape, etc. (aside from basic trolling) why not call the police?  If people really are doing those things, they deserve to go to jail.
• It’s full of vitriol.  This was probably the biggest snafu in the rollout of A+.  Having read blogs from PZ Myers, Richard Carrier, and others regarding A+, so much foul language was exuded, the “with us or against us” attitude, and other sweeping and unfounded generalizations, it’s hard to support it.  I got nothing but anger out of these people.  Who would want to be a part of that?  Some cooler heads have prevailed (from some people) since then.  Matt Dillahunty made a nice video about it, which is available on YouTube.  Had this been their initial rollout, instead of the poor attitudes of those who came out, guns blazing, it might be a different story.  I still wouldn’t support A+ for other reasons, but I’m sure more atheists would have considered it, had it not been for all the negativity.  I do find it interesting that PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson have somewhat distanced themselves from the melee.
• There is no inherent link between atheism and the “plusses.”  Certain A+ers claim that atheism “logically” leads to other beliefs, such as social justice (whatever that means – justice is subjective), gay rights, feminism, and other concepts.  This is patently false.  Atheism does not logically lend itself to anything but a lack of belief in an gods.  That’s it. Granted, many atheists are liberal and share similar values, but it’s not an obvious or natural connection.  I read one A+er state that it is impossible to be an atheist and be pro-life.  Some have even suggested that atheists must share these other beliefs.  How ridiculous.
• It’s not atheism.  This is likely my biggest pet peeve out of this debacle, and I already mentioned this in my initial blog post.  When you start adding new issues to the mix, you will gradually alienate others.  Atheists are what, 1% of Americans?  Now, add feminism to that, and the percentage drops even further.  Now add gay rights and other issues.  Watch the numbers dwindle.  And when you have the “we’re better than you because we care about social issues” mantra…well, it’s just a bad idea.  It’s the same reason I don’t like labels like conservative, liberal, democrat, and republican.  I have a plethora of opinions on a plethora of issues.  I do not fall into a single category, nor do I care to.  Labels are meaningless, as they lead to (often inaccurate) stereotypes.  I think this year’s election coverage makes that more than clear.  The democrats claim that all republicans are woman-hating, god-fearing, homophobes, which is completely false.  Republicans claim that democrats are all godless, socialist, homosexuals.  Also completely false.  I hate labels, and stereotypes even more so.  Lastly, atheism seems to be the last issue on their list.  Don’t use the term if it doesn’t apply.  Feminism first, then social justice, and atheism at the tail end.
• It’s full of misused, and likely inappropriate, buzzwords.  Aside from all of the negative language used by Carrier, Myers, and other A+ supporters (calling people boobs, assholes, dicks, scumbags, etc.), the words ” privilege” and “misogyny” has been used over and over, misused and abused.  Misogyny means “hatred of women.”  Misogyny does not mean trolling, insulting woman, or questioning women’s opinions.  How one can derive hatred of an entire gender based on a few words, generally directed at a single woman.  Where’s the link.  Don’t use words, unless you know what they mean.  The word “misogyny” has a LOT of meaning and weight behind it.  Use wisely and judiciously, if at all.  What these people are describing is, at worst, crude behavior.
• Stolen logo.  This isn’t as big of a deal to me, but the A+ logo perfectly matched the logo used on t-shirts sold on the Richard Dawkins website.  I don’t know if this was intentional, but I’ve read that certain A+ers guest write for the Dawkins site, so they very well could have seen it. But any conclusion I draw would be purely speculation.
• It’s a business?  I’ve also read that Surly Amy, and A+er known to make jewelry, is now making A+ jewelry (although she is allegedly donating some proceeds to charity).  Just think about the impression she may give some as an opportunistic businessperson, working to create a new group, then using that group to sell merchandise.  As we all know, perception is reality to many.
• It likely feeds the trolls.  One of the stated purposes of A+ is to create a safe haven for women afraid of misogyny (buzzword!).  Let’s just assume for a minute that the atheist blogs are choc full of misogynistic assholes (buzzwords!).  Now, you’ve created a new group known to all, including the misogynists (buzzword!).  Those misogynists (buzzword!) can now get on your new website, and harass these “safe” atheists.  What have you accomplished?  You just opened the flood gates.
• The name.  It just sounds arrogant, regardless of your intended purpose.

In their defense, I can say that I understand why they started A+.  If their allegations of harassment and threats are true (I don’t know if they are), I can understand wanting to do your best to avoid those issues.  However, throwing up a big middle finger (Richard Carrier) while walking away isn’t the best idea.  I think there were much better ways to address your problems, and your implementation was just as awful as I’ve ever seen.

Also, in their defense, if these allegations are true, the people doing these things are garbage, utter garbage.  They deserve a good ass-kicking and permanent excommunication from anything resembling positive atheism.  For those perpetrating these crimes (yes, crimes), you are worthless pieces of feces, and are pathetic peons hiding behind words on a computer.  pathetic.

I recently read Jen McCreight’s blog, in which she stated that she is taking a break from blogging, due to alleged harassment.  Let me clarify again that I do not know if these allegations are true.  Perhaps she is the queen of victimhood.  Maybe it’s all a ruse to promote a feminist agenda under the guise of false misogyny (buzzword!).  But maybe it’s all true.  And even though I do not agree with Jen on many of her opinions (or at least her methods), I do not believe anyone should be silenced (aside from the trolls an criminals who don’t deserve to be heard), especially due to crap like what she has alleged.  Jen deserves her right to say what she has to say.  However, she should not expect to go unquestioned.  No one deserves that privilege, including me.

The last thing I’d like to address is my impressions of the “movement.”  To give you some background, I’m a “new” atheist – not in the sense that I’m a recent deconvert – I’m not.  I’ve been an atheist for over 20 years.  What I mean is that I am new to the activist side…or something like that.  I don’t know that this constitutes activism, but I’m definitely reading, learning, and so forth.  This has been going on for about six months or so.  Atheism is now at my forefront; it was not for a very long time.  Six months ago I knew nothing of FTB, Elevatorgate, Matt Dillahunty, PZ Myers, Greta Christina, Thunderf00t, Hitchens, Harris, Silverman – none of these people.  I’d also never heard of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, or William Lane Craig.  Now I know a lot.  And for a while, I was really excited about learning more about the science, the counter-apologetics, the logical fallacies, and YouTube debates.  It was exciting and new.  I read The God Delusion, and have a short reading list, including Hitchens and Jerry Coyne.  I even attended my first conference.  I’ve blogged about the issues, “debated” in YouTube comments and news story comment boards.

But once I started reading FTB and other blogs, and seeing all the petty bickering on Twitter and Facebook, I have a very different opinion.  I am very unimpressed with the general demeanor of the so-called atheist “leaders.”  I use that term loosely because we are such a loosely knit group.  It is at times, incredibly childish, and I find many of these leaders just as pathetic as the apologists and creatards.  I won’t name names, but there are some terrible atheists out there putting their stamp on my beliefs.  I’m a “fair play” kinda guy, and many don’t play fair.

With that said, there are some atheists that really impress me.  I’m a big fan of Seth Andrews (The Thinking Atheist), Hemant Mehta, Jerry Coyne, Ask An Atheist, Teresa MacBain and Daniel Dennett.  I’m still on the fence about Matt Dillahunty.  He’s very intelligent, but his short fuse and demeanor don’t always do it for me.

My biggest concern is who is going to lead atheism into the future.  From what I’ve seen, the choices are few and far between.  With all the boorish behavior, there are a lot of respected atheists unworthy of respect.  I hope that changes, for the sake of the “movement.”

Now…can we just let Atheism + go and just worry about atheism again?  I’m ready to.

Matt Dillahunty, “Elevatorgate,” and Facebook

So yesterday, I’m fishing around Facebook, minding my own business, and I come across a new post by Matt Dillahunty.  It was bizarre. . .

Let me preface this by saying that I’m a fan of Matt’s.  For those of you who don’t know of him, he’s the host of The Atheist Experience (AE), an atheist cable access show out of Texas.  In fact, when I first became an outspoken advocate of atheism, Matt and the AE was probably my first and best resource for good information for debate (and a few laughs at the expense of uninformed Christians).  Matt is very good at his craft.  He’s knows a lot, and is pretty good at debate.  Matt also recently married a feminist, and has proclaimed himself one, as well.  I just want you to know that, as it sets up his position, as will become obvious later in the post.

But when I read this post, I was completely dumbfounded.  But let me premise the situation with what I know.  Last year, a woman name Rebecca Watson, who is both a feminist and atheist, posted a YouTube video, in which she stated that she was propositioned on an elevator, at 4AM, at a conference in Ireland.  Her comments were brief, but simple.  She entered the elevator, so did a man.  He asked her to join him in his room for coffee and to talk, and she declined.  That’s it.  I’m sure I’m forgetting some minor details, but that’s pretty much what happened.  In her video, she outlined the series of events, and stated that this was not an appropriate way to talk to a woman.  Period.

Well, after this, the situation went completely insane.  Richard Dawkins, Thunderf00t, PZ Myers, and Matt Dillahunty all got involved somehow.  Everybody took their sides.  Dawkins and Thuerf00t said that event was blown out of proportion, and PZ and Matt sided with Rebecca.  Why this ever turned into anything is beyond any logic.  Also keep in mind that this event took place over a year ago.

Fast forward to yesterday.  I’m checking out Matt’s page when I see this crazy post, basically baiting people into to disagreeing with him, so he can block them.  Unfortunately, Matt deleted the post about a  half hour later, so I can only paraphrase what he said, and the ensuing madness.  Here’s my attempt at a paraphrase –

If you believe that “elevatorgate” was blown out of proportion, comment “yes.”  If you disagree, do not post anything.  Mass blocking to ensue.”

So even if Matt did not explicitly state it, his implication was that those who disagree with him will be blocked.  Of course, lots of people commented “yes,” including me.  Some of us added some commentary as to why we think it was overblown.  Others called Matt out for his behavior.  I also asked Matt if he planned on blocking all of us, and if so, why.  He did not respond to my question.  Apparently, many people were blocked, which Matt later admitted in a subsequent post.  To my knowledge, I was not.

What the hell, Matt?  It seems to me that someone really pissed Matt off, and he felt like blowing up everyone who disagreed with him.  That is not OK, especially from a so-called leader in the atheist community, especially considering that the original issue has nothing to do with atheism.  He denied this, but I don’t see it being any other way.  At one point, Matt tried to defend his actions by excusing himself through a hyper-technicality in his original post.  He’s good at that, and it is sometimes useful, but in this case, he was trying to cover his own mistake.  He also called some people “idiots” for not understanding that he would block anyone who disagreed.  He also used some other derogatory comments, but unfortunately I cannot recall exactly what they were, because post was deleted.

He later posted a follow-up, not to apologize for his erratic, rude, judgmental, condescending words, but to inform people that they have been unblocked (a “correction” but no apology).  Then he went on a tirade, calling more people idiots.  Nice job of treating your “fans” with respect.  Needless to say, Matt alienated a huge part of his fan base.

Although several people called Matt out on his actions in the second post, I chose a more peaceful route, as follows –

I am very troubled by this series of events. We’re (presumably) all atheists. That’s it. There is nothing else we share in common. We’re not all feminists, liberals, or democrats. We all don’t have the same views on abortion, gun control, or for whom to vote for President. We are a diverse group. Now, we have a situation involving an atheist, who also happens to be a feminist; a situation that has nothing to do with atheism. Over time, through YouTube, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter, an all-out war has enraged over this incident. Some atheists take one side, some another. Now, it’s Richard Dawkins vs. Rebecca Watson vs. THunderf00t vs. Matt Dillahunty vs. PZ Myers. Next thing you know, an already fragmented community is torn in half over an issue that has nothing to do with atheism. Why is this? How does this help achieve the goals of positive atheism (or feminism) and the advancement of equality; rational, evidence-based thought; and the true separation of church and state? Personally, I’ve been an atheist for over 20 years, and thanks to people like Matt Dillahunty and the AE show, AronRa, and Seth Andrews, I’m really looking to take an active role in this community. But what kind of community has this been reduced to? The theists (especially Christians) are already winning the battle, in numbers, dollars, and exposure. How is all of this petty bickering, name-calling, ass-kissing, and user-blocking helping? And I’m not putting this on any one person. It’s a lot of people, and I’m appalled. How are we to accomplish anything good, whether it be in atheism or feminism, if things boil down to this?

In 24 hours, I got 23 likes! 🙂  Below is an actual screen shot of my post.  Sorry if it’s difficult to read.

 

 

Sorry Matt, but this kind of petty stuff (threats, insults, and an unwillingness to accept dissenting opinions or have a productive dialogue) does not help your credibility, nor does it positively advance our shared agenda or bring people together.  It only divides.  This goes for everyone in this mess.  I just happened to see this post.  If this is what the atheist community is resulting to, my place is not with yours.  I will make my own mark, without supporting yours.

 

And for the record, this post has nothing to do with whether Rebecca Watson’s reaction was appropriate or the ensuing reactions were overblown.  It’s about the fallout of the incident and a Facebook post.  Don’t take it out of context.

 

———————————————–

Update: 8/8/12

 

I have obtained a screen shot of the original post by Matt.  See below.

 

Matt’s Original Rant