Sunday, January 8, 2017

I am the man that trolls ban

On Facebook, a Clintonite troll showed up on one of my posts to argue about whether Russia is unequivocally behind the leaks, and specifically about whether this article should be dismissed out of hand because it was published by RT: ‘Clinton quite effective at discrediting herself, doesn’t need Putin’s help’ - ex CIA analyst — RT Op-Edge.

The ex-CIA analyst is Larry Johnson. The quick google suggests his credentials are legit and he wasn't misquoted.

But to the Clintonite troll, RT is suspect because it's owned by Russia. I pointed out that all major news sites are owned by states or rich people; you should always look for bias. But the troll doubled down as trolls do, insisting anything from a Russian site should be ignored.

That's classic ad hominem. The people who love the tactic are trying to hide a simple fact: when the message is true, the messenger is irrelevant.

The troll soon gave up. And though I had never commented on any of his posts, he banned me.

I'm writing about this because of my fascination with the way people protect their belief systems. The troll came into my space on a mission to correct me for badthink. He expected to expand his echo chamber. When he failed, he could not simply retreat to his own part of Facebook. To prevent the possibility of being refuted on ground he currently holds, he had to ban me. Defending his echo chamber demanded no lesss.

Humans. We are such silly, insecure creatures.

I'll add that I completely agree we all have a right to ban trolls. If he had kept on as he did, I might've banned him, not because he was disagreeing with my ideas, but because his disagreement was boring. In debate, that's the greatest sin.