DictumExNihilo

>If the only way you can express your dislike of a black actress is to compare her to an ape, maybe just shut the fuck up.

??? You got me, yes, this is exactly what I do. There's a secret Nazi hiding in every bush and behind every corner ready to pounce and I'm part of the great Internet conspiracy of secret Nazis.

>And it's entirely too easy to ignore the problem of real trolling and harassment if you think it's just people with "differing opinions".

Harassment is totally the same thing. And if a hundred people show up to make fun of the dumb thing you said, it was an organized conspiracy to hurt your feelings and not myopia about potentially millions of people who normally see stuff and don't interact with it until it's too dumb to ignore.

If you've got people sending you death threats or violating TOS of sites, obviously report them. If they say rude things that have absolutely no value at all, ignore them. But if they're actually trying to pick an argument with you in good faith, they may not be a "troll" after all. There's FAR too much where people have slid into thinking that anyone who has a different opinion and expresses it in an unpleasant way is out to "troll" or "harass" them.

I mean, look, you just attacked me, a complete stranger, who has never done any of the things you brought up because I dare suggest that some belief you hold is wrong. How's that for proving a point?

What if most of them aren't "trolls" at all, but rather people who have something to say that is important to them and they choose a method to say it that upsets some people?

The base assumption is that many of them are old-school variety: they seek disruption for its own sake. Suppose for a moment that this base assumption should not be taken as axiomatic. What else might motivate such a person? Some of you are quick to jump to the conclusion that money is the only other motivation. But money isn't what motivates everyone. Lots of people create art, for example, and receive little to no money for what they do.

What if some people are trying to motivate others to think about the things they believe, say, and do? Their medium need not be literature, paintings, music, sculpture, and so forth. A sarcastic tongue can teach too. It can spread ideas and challenge assumptions. Writing a lengthy essay that nobody will read may be a counterproductive use of time.

People roll their eyes if one brings up philosophy in a casual setting. I see a lot of things people call "trolling" as small performances of philosophy. Not all of them are effective, virtuous, or well-informed. But some are. The ones that really get under our skin are the ones who actually understand us the best, they know our weaknesses and exploit them. There is too much focus on who they are and whether or not they're getting paid (because they probably aren't) and not enough on what is being said. In a lot of cases, what isn't said is just as important. If the "troll" wants you to think about your own positions, he may just omit several critical details on purpose and let you fill in the blanks.

Diogenes didn't make people happy when he walked about in broad daylight with a lantern looking for "an honest man", he made some of them laugh, and made others angry. Socrates made enemies by arguing with people and showing them that they didn't really know why they believed as they did. I've had more productive conversations with people in my life when I took an adversarial position to them under the veil of anonymity, even though I agreed with their position. If I can argue a position I don't agree with and hold my own, the other guy comes out of it with new ammunition to defeat it too (or more ambition to find some), and they often teach me a few tricks along the way.

It is entirely too easy to dismiss a person if all you think they want is to make you mad with what they've said.

Because calling people fascists and brownshirts (Nazis) is not inflammatory political rhetoric.

Linking me to some comments that essentially say "your opinions are not valid, stop calling bias on the moderator" is in no way a persuasive argument. That's just getting other people to say the same thing you're saying, and the popularity of a claim does not make it true.

By your own values then, either calling people fascists/brownshirts/nazis is "partisan passion" or it is not. I contend that those are extremely inflammatory words. They are intended to provoke, not debate or inform.

Ask yourself where I attacked anyone for their beliefs. HN is just another site where politics are allowed to be discussed (with a wink and a nudge) as long as they include a technology buzzword, but only if you don't say anything that is wrongthink to those left of center. I've seen you do this precise thing many times over the years and never bothered to create an account here or speak. That creates a chilling effect: only voices who agree with Dang almighty's political views are welcome.

Call your ideological adversaries "fascists" and "brownshirts." Just fine by Dang. So much for "light touches." The mask slips, sir.

> let rich & corporations get loose

This belief only causes the state to grow. It inflates politicians to the point where they are worth buying, so they are bought. They then make laws that hurt their competition and help their corporation. They make laws that make it extremely difficult to ever start a business to compete to begin with. So the corporations get bigger, and have more to buy the politicians with. And the scope of what the politicians control grows, so it costs more to buy them. So access to your government shrinks to the point where only the most wealthy have any real say in it.

And what does that look like? That looks like what we have. Congratulations for being a part of the problem through the unwarranted fear of your fellow man.

Because so many of you only want to see simple cause and effect, not the multitudinous unintended consequences that every law and regulation creates. You are controlled by your fears. If the state fails to do something, grow it. If it succeeds at anything, grow it.

This is all I will say on this subject. I have spilled a lifetime of digital ink over this, as have countless others, but to no avail. When the civil war comes because everyone finally decides that everyone else is the enemy, don't ask me for help. I'll be looking after myself and mine. I want with all my heart for that not to happen, but you're going to start wanting it with all your heads first.

There is a group who have proposed a solution to this problem for decades:

Shrink the state.

Until people stop believing that any effort to do so will result in everyone literally dying in the street, the state will grow. Until people's first impulse towards someone doing something they don't like ceases to be "there ought to be a law", the state will grow. Until people stop demanding that laws must affect the entirety of the country instead of just their state, the state will grow.

What sort of government did we start with? "A republic, if you can keep it." according to Ben Franklin.

We didn't keep it.

Keep it small, keep it close, and recognize that there are limits to the problems a bureaucracy can solve. Be suspicious of all power. Be suspicious of all taxation. A massive government can, and does, wield incredible fortune like a weapon against the population.

Shrink the state until politicians are no longer worth buying and it barely matters who holds the reins. Trust your neighbor a lot more and your government a lot less.

Or do none of this, but don't ask why nobody told you this could happen. Because we did, and you laughed at us and told us we were juvenile, loathsome, heartless people.