Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LAS14

(13,783 posts)
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 03:05 PM Mar 2017

Did everyone already know this?

I think at some level I suspected this. But with this confirmation I wonder more and more what the most effective response is. Thrashing about with logic doesn't seem quite appropriate.... Thoughts?

This concerns the behavior of internet trolls and their emergence into the center of our politcial life.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies,” he wrote in the 1944 essay “Anti-Semite and Jew.” They “are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.” Anti-Semites “delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.”



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/magazine/how-the-trolls-stole-washington.html?_r=0
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did everyone already know this? (Original Post) LAS14 Mar 2017 OP
Who he? It is appropriate to put a person's name when you quote them. TexasProgresive Mar 2017 #1
Jean-Paul Sartre: muriel_volestrangler Mar 2017 #3
Thank you TexasProgresive Mar 2017 #4
This is true of all trolls, not just anti-semitic ones. Nitram Mar 2017 #2
exactly, trolls do this regardless of what kind Kimchijeon Mar 2017 #7
All clever hatemongerers use words as weapons, Hortensis Mar 2017 #5
Like Anne Coulter said that she did what she did applegrove Mar 2017 #6
So why do we give them our attention? LAS14 Mar 2017 #8

TexasProgresive

(12,157 posts)
1. Who he? It is appropriate to put a person's name when you quote them.
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 03:17 PM
Mar 2017

And no I am not going to click on the link to find out.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,316 posts)
3. Jean-Paul Sartre:
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 03:22 PM
Mar 2017
On anti-Semitism: “Never believe that anti‐Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.”

Wait, that last one wasn’t Yiannopoulos; it was Jean-Paul Sartre, who (as countless Twitter users have noticed) had the anime Nazis’ number back in 1946. You can’t treat the ideas of Milo Yiannopoulos as though they are worthy of debate, because Milo Yiannopoulos doesn’t treat them as being worthy of debate. For example, this is why Yiannopoulos was talking about transgender issues on Maher’s show to begin with: not because he had ideas about it but because of an incident at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee that Maher described as the time he “singled out a transgender student for ridicule.” This description, while technically accurate, elides what a colossal asshole Yiannopoulos was being. See for yourself. (It’s part of this two-and-a-half-hour speech, if you’re feeling especially masochistic.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/02/18/watch_hbo_and_slate_give_milo_yiannopoulos_free_publicity.html

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
5. All clever hatemongerers use words as weapons,
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 03:30 PM
Mar 2017

striking and then standing back to observe the confusion and damage before striking again. And, absolutely, they are skilled in their pushing earnest, truth-oriented targets off balance with absurdities, such as ascribing to them things never said, so that those who don't know how to respond to this tactic (most people) find themselves trying to defend themselves against the ridiculous instead of discussing valid issues. Very amusing. Very common. We've all lived it.

There are clever ways to handle them and win, but for most of us earnest amateurs just refusing to be disconcerted by distracting lies, no matter how insistently re-pushed (and they will be), and following only our original thoughts in a one-sided conversation is best. (If others are around, just walking away and ceding the floor to the other is an option, but in most cases the other "wins.&quot

I once tried the tactic of gazing at a coworker's forehead just above his eyes, never at, while I responded to what was an aggressive attack pretending to be polite interest in my views, and it did help me stay cool and collected. Recognizing malicious and manipulative people for what they are beforehand is most helpful of all, though.

applegrove

(118,654 posts)
6. Like Anne Coulter said that she did what she did
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 06:54 PM
Mar 2017

to make her friends laugh. It is sadism. Only a small percentage of the population are. But they cause a ton of damage and enjoy it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did everyone already know...