Free Shipping on Bulk Ammo -- TargetSportsUSA.Com!

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Attracting a Slightly Better Class of Troll

We've gone from the bog-standard "You guys are stupid/dumb/evil/make me sick" responses to a slightly more nuanced, if blithering, kind of troll.

Just for fun, let's keep track of how many entries on the Internet Arguing Checklist are used:
  1. Skim until Offended
  2. Disqualify that Opinion
  3. Attack, Attack, Attack
  4. Disregard Inconvenient facts
  5. Make Shit Up
  6. Resort to Moral Equivalency
  7. Concern Trolling
  8. When all else fails, Racism!


This is clearly "Skim Until Offended" (1/8) and "Racism!" (2/8).


"You sound angry" is part of Disqualify That Opinion. (3/8)


I'm not sure if being faux-upset at my use of "drive-by" is Concern Trolling or Moral Equivalency (drive-by shootings are bad, see, and I used the phrase "drive-by" in conversation and not about a literal drive-by, so that makes me a Bad Person because I'm somehow making light of murder), but it's something.  (4/8)


This is one I've seen a bunch of times in online arguments: "I don't have to do research, but you have to do it for me" i.e. "Prove my satisfaction that you aren't what I say you are", and we all know how well proving a negative goes.

Also, I don't owe this jerk anything.

But since we've given him the link and he refuses to use it, I'm going to file this under "Disregard Inconvenient Facts." (5/8)


If we weren't before, we're definitely deep into Make Shit Up territory. (6/8)


Another repetition of "You sure are angry", along with another tactic I've seen online: "Oh, I'm not talking to you, person who is making good points; I'm only talking to this person right here."  Which is a valid technique if someone is trying to distract and pull you off-topic; not so much when the person is addressing the question you asked.


Let me just say how inordinately pleased I am with that phrase. You'll notice that I didn't insult him -- I said he charged in LIKE a syphilitic rhino, not that he WAS one. Plus, the imagery is delightful.


More "Disqualify That Opinion," this time by suggesting that anything said by Operation Blazing Sword is suspect.


This is "Attack, Attack, Attack." Basically, "I'm convinced you're forming a taxpayer funded queer militia to overthrow the government, and because you haven't specifically refuted my idiotic claims" -- and why would I, when they're patently ridiculous? Besides, as said earlier, I owe him no explanations -- "I'm going to phrase my statement in such a way that you look bad by implied association and/or refusing to denounce people." (7/8)


And he doesn't learn (or has poor reading comprehension). I gave him three chances, and he persisted which means he received a ban for his trouble. I really only let him stick around this long because his idiocy amused me, but the moment he strayed into defamation the fun was over

So that's 7 out of 8 on the checklist, and that's only because I'm not sure if an argument was Concern Trolling, Moral Equivalency, or maybe even both.

Also, being able to say "All further communication must through our lawyer" sure makes my nipples all tingly.



1 comment:

The Fine Print


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial- No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Creative Commons License


Erin Palette is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.