![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
daveonThere's a fantastically wrong quote in the comments of this part of Rand Simberg's blog.
I hadn't realised my powers.
Which is why leftist trolls are such an important phenomenon.
A naive rightist will wonder aloud “why they bother,” but will decline to consider that a leftist troll must have a reason for infesting a conservative forum and irritating its participants. After all, he’s unlikely to make converts. Yet the time and effort such trolls put into their intrusions is considerable, and there are a considerable number of them. Why?
The answer is quite simple, once you’ve allowed yourself to ask the question: they seek to drive as many of us as possible out of the conversation, by sheer power of irritation. The more of us there are who take visible part in conversations on the Right, the more energized we’ll be, both individually and in aggregate; the fewer, the less. If a troll can “thin the herd” with his disruptions, he can dissipate some of the energy that propels us, thereby reducing our ultimate effectiveness at spreading the messages of Constitutionally limited government and American national sovereignty.
So: how does a troll deduce that his slanders and tauntings are having the desired effect? Again quite simply: by the number of conservatives who elect to fence with him. The more responses and ripostes he garners, the more confident he’ll be that he’s helping to wear us out. And indeed, by deflecting us from strengthening one another’s convictions and passion for victory, that’s exactly what he’ll be doing.
Some leftist trolls are dispatched by organizers to infest specific sites. Some are even paid for their labors. A few have admitted it in public. Reflect on that for a moment.
THIS is so perfectly wrong, so delightfully missing the point that I wanted to repeat it. Seriously, I've chuckling for hours, especially as I was specifically called out. Amusing really, especially as I've not even posted to his blog in weeks.A naive rightist will wonder aloud “why they bother,” but will decline to consider that a leftist troll must have a reason for infesting a conservative forum and irritating its participants. After all, he’s unlikely to make converts. Yet the time and effort such trolls put into their intrusions is considerable, and there are a considerable number of them. Why?
The answer is quite simple, once you’ve allowed yourself to ask the question: they seek to drive as many of us as possible out of the conversation, by sheer power of irritation. The more of us there are who take visible part in conversations on the Right, the more energized we’ll be, both individually and in aggregate; the fewer, the less. If a troll can “thin the herd” with his disruptions, he can dissipate some of the energy that propels us, thereby reducing our ultimate effectiveness at spreading the messages of Constitutionally limited government and American national sovereignty.
So: how does a troll deduce that his slanders and tauntings are having the desired effect? Again quite simply: by the number of conservatives who elect to fence with him. The more responses and ripostes he garners, the more confident he’ll be that he’s helping to wear us out. And indeed, by deflecting us from strengthening one another’s convictions and passion for victory, that’s exactly what he’ll be doing.
Some leftist trolls are dispatched by organizers to infest specific sites. Some are even paid for their labors. A few have admitted it in public. Reflect on that for a moment.
I hadn't realised my powers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 06:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 03:53 pm (UTC)Although I will admit to running the entire spectrum from mild amusement to full blown indignant ire, depending on what wingnuttery is being peddled as facts.
For example, Rand Simberg has a link to an article by Toby Young in the Spectator to show that British men are being brung low by feminists. His evidence includes suggesting that the groom at an upper class wedding he recently went to was rather effete.
Gosh? Really? A British Upper Class man not looking a tad chinless? I can't imagine when people noticed that. I mean Woodehouse wrote fiction didn't he???
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 07:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 02:33 pm (UTC)"our ultimate effectiveness at spreading the messages of Constitutionally limited government and American national sovereignty"
Do they seriously believe that a bunch of people who already agree with other talking amongst themselves about the things they agree on are actually spreading anything?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 03:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 11:57 am (UTC)Does that mean commenting "I agree!" on each other's posts? I can see how you wouldn't want to be deflected from that.