HILLARY CLINTON DURING THE BENGHAZI HEARINGS!
(Hey Hillary, your tactic worked.. NO ONE CHALLENGED YOU AFTER SAYING THIS)
Psychologists say that many of them are psychopaths, sadists and narcissists getting their jollies. It's easy to underestimate how many of these types of sickos are out there: There are millions of sociopaths in the U.S. alone.
But intelligence agencies are also intentionally disrupting political discussion on the web, and ad hominen attacks, name-calling and divide-and-conquer tactics are all well-known, frequently-used disruption techniques.
Now you know why ... flame wars polarize thinking, and stop the ability to focus on the actual topic and facts under discussion.
Indeed, this tactic is so effective that the same wiseguy may play both sides of the fight.
Postscript: Fortunately, it's not that difficult to isolate the trolls and stop their disruption ... if we just point out what they're doing.
I thought this article was a very good one to post here at Free Republic.
Greenwald: How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive and Destroy Reputations
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3126612/posts
The internet does make people say things they wouldn’t say in person. Not everyone and I believe liberals get nasty more than conservatives. I’ve stopped talking to lots of former friends and relatives because they said things to me on the internet they would never have said to my face.
HILLARY CLINTON DURING THE BENGHAZI HEARINGS!
(Hey Hillary, your tactic worked.. NO ONE CHALLENGED YOU AFTER SAYING THIS)
All this comes with the territory or the job. Ignore the idiots or answer them in such a way as to destroy any credibility they seek. Not hard to do once you understand who they are and what they are attempting to do.
Bull$hit!
Well, this certainly lines up with what I’ve been experiencing on LENR threads.
Look no further than democraticundeground.com for all the proof one needs!
Perhaps, but I think there is a natural human communication issue at play on the internet. Brevity breeds misunderstanding and insult, with little mechanism to defuse it. Normal rhetorical styles such as hyperbole and satire are not always obvious to the reader. And opinion are not minced, as they are at a social gathering or work.
Yes, there is a special kind of trollish person, but I think you have to get thicker skin and develop a different style on the internet. When I first started on FR I needlessly got into flame wars, and that was with like minded folks.
I have seen this a lot here on FR. It is predictable that every time someone posts an article about a new medical advance, the anti-science kooks come out of the woodwork. Being a scientist, I do not leave pseudoscience unchallenged. When challenged, anti-science nutjobs nearly immediately jump into name-calling. They will not (cannot) support any of their positions, but seem to think that personal attacks are valid arguments.
Keeping in mind that personal attacks and name-calling are tactics meant to shut off debate, it is best (IMO) to remain calm, avoid name-calling, and stick with the facts while challenging the troll to provide evidence for their claims.
There’s a few trolls here in FR we could do without.
However, the old rule applies: don’t respond to them (don’t “feed” them), and they’ll go away.
While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, After the Ball, is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which two Harvard-trained (homosexual) psychologists [47] Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen (pen name Erastes Pill, who was also schooled in social marketing) advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."
"Jamming" homo-hatred (disagreement with homosexual behaviors) was to be done by linking it to Nazi horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."[48][49] - http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda#Strategies_and_psychological_tactics
Name calling, swearing and nastiness incite anger. Even the women are doing more swearing now. Once the cat is out of the bag it causes more to follow suit. It’s also against the rules here.
Simplistic thoughts perhaps, but it’s caused me to do a lot less posting. [Many others have said that too]
Because on the internet nobody can give them the punch in the face they so richly deserve. I don’t think they’re sociopaths, if they were they’d do it person, they’re just regular folks who see the internet as a consequence free zone so they don’t bother to edit themselves.
this would explain some of the ridiculous threads that “pop up” over and over when serious matters at hand. IE when healthcare debate was going full steam, all of a sudden we have creationist and birther threads. When we talk about presidential candidates, huckabee’s name appears as viable.
Trolls always have to have the last word.
Is this more justification for mainstream publications shutting down their comments? Sure sounds like that’s the conclusion, and the arguments are straight out of Popular Science’s announcement of their shutdown of comments.
An interesting article about why trolls start flame wars is posted. In no time at all, the idiots emerge from the woodwork to start throwing insults at one another. Quite insightful and quite entertaining, in a sick sort of way.
No wonder Jim has trouble reaching his donation goals every quarter.