From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 17:56:52 MDT
Harvey writes
> I know I am a sucker for flame-bait. I get pulled into stupid arguments
> that I should ignore. However, I have been caught quite a few times in
> the last few months by people who seem to deliberately be trolling the
> list.
It sounds to me as though you are describing your reactions to
Brian's provocative "Nuke Mecca if Manhattan goes" remark. I
immediately saw that it was a highly emotional reaction, but
took it quite seriously, as did you. (Unlike many, however,
I do not think our emotions dispensable.) It was good and
correct for at least one person to inquire further as to
whether---upon reflection---Brian wanted to endorse literally
what he said. It turned out that he didn't.
This certainly was not deliberate trolling.
> They post some inflammatory rhetoric which triggers a long
> debate. After much arguing and heat, they back down and
> agree that their opponents are right. Then they claim that
> they never really believed their original post.
I have not observed any behavior on this list like this at all.
Certainly not in the last few months, and not during all of
last summer, either. I find all the posts to be quite sincere.
> They explain that their posting was a "thought experiment". Or they
> wanted to see what the reaction would be. Or they didn't really know
> one way or the other and just wanted to see how it would hash out. Or
> they felt it would be a learning experience to the group to have us go
> through and "prove it to ourselves."
I'll take your word for it that this has occurred, if you'll
repeat the claim. How many times, would you say, in the last
year has someone in effect said "they just wanted to see what
the reaction would be", or that "they felt it would be a
learning experience"? I really am interested in a numerical
estimate from you. (Thanks.)
> Is this a useful debating technique? What do people here
> think? I tend to find it dishonest.
I totally agree.
> The post seems to deliberately misrepresent the facts or
> misrepresent someone's position. I also find it rude.
> It tricks people into responding and expending a lot of
> energy in research and debate when they certainly would
> not have done so had they known the truth.
Yes; I hope that you're not thinking of one of my few entirely
sarcastic posts in which newcomers indeed could be confused. (In
the incident I have in mind, however, *you* were not misled! :-)
> Oddly, these people seem to keep pushing the same agendas over
> and over that they claim to have disowned.
Are you certain that you understood their "agenda" in the first
place? For example, someone may make a remark that proves to you
that they're racist, and then later claim that they are *not*
racist. You may well infer that they've backtracked, when I,
on the other hand, merely suppose that people are falling afoul
of terminology, and perhaps not understanding each other very
well in the first place.
> So how should we respond to such tactics? I am seriously getting
> to the point of being afraid to respond to posts.
I think that you should reply briefly. That way, you can continue
to stand for what's right, yet not overly invest. Besides, a long
reply to a one-liner like Brian's is almost sure to be off target
(apologies---I didn't really read your reply to Brian).
> I find myself wondering if they are real or if they are traps.
No :-) they're not traps. Just people spouting off either with
their own strange beliefs or just over-reacting.
> I think such tactics are an abuse of the list. What do others think?
> Am I just a crybaby because I have been fooled too many times?
Well, one advantage of your style is the extreme thoroughness of
your responses; we always see moderately long well-crafted and
well-reasoned paragraphs. But observe how so many others relish
retorting to one-liners with one-liners. So one disadvantage of
your style that it doesn't fit that kind of discourse. So... yes,
perhaps as the great Count Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski wrote,
"delay your semantic response".
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:07 MST