TOTW: Don’t Get Trolled!

  • Posted on: 3 July 2017
  • By: thecollective

This week’s topic is near and dear to our hearts. Sometimes entertaining and often frustrating, trolling as a phenomenon is endemic to modern discourse, and this is especially true of political spaces. From people who veer discussions wildly off-topic with seemingly unrelated opinions to those who provoke frustration or even anger with opinions with which we disagree strongly, we are presented daily with complicated social interactions both online and offline. Trolls, by nature of their often provocative views and tendency to dominate discussions, may leave us feeling overwhelmed and ill-prepared to do anything but try and ignore them.

This topic of the week is about taking a more proactive stance on trolling without getting pulled into the cycle of trolling itself. Much as trolling often snowballs, on-topic comments which actively engage with the original topic of discussion or engage with it in a less unpleasant way can pull people out of the troll-spiral.

What are some concrete ways to shape a discussion to be interesting and engaging when we see it going off the rails? How can we make conversations that we don’t feel included in or feel frustrated with more interesting to us? How do we challenge views we disagree with without engaging in the often fruitless and unpleasant task of trying to engage a troll directly?

Here are some suggestions from the collective - we’d love to hear more in the comments!

  1. Point out something you like, don’t like, or are confused about in the original topic of discussion
  2. Mention something you’re reminded of in your past experiences or something you’ve read before that agrees or disagrees with the original piece - offering a link to a related article can help slow the discussion down and get people more involved in a more interesting way
  3. Offer a deeper analysis of an article - is what the piece is saying new or old? What kind of anarchy is it describing?
  4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments presented? What is it a good example of? What is it a bad example of?
  5. What would your favorite historical anarchist say about this?
category: 

Comments

This is some mighty fine liberalism. Getting a buzz from the feel good proactivity going on with this TOTW. The main liberal problem is pretending the real context doesn't exist and treating your users as abstract individuals.

This site, unlike others, is in a state of never ending revolt against the occupation of the reactionaries. Because thecollective is powerless against this force, this leaves the struggle to others that don't have their hands tied like an ineffective authority.

You want a more ideal conversation when there never had been a solution to the problems that cause a great deal of strife here. While we may share some ends, most motivation to destabilize this site is geared towards chasing off the reactionaries and retaliating against any who undermine these goals. Also for the lulz, but mainly for the encouragement of suicide of those who perpetuate reaction.

You're pretty quick to label something as "liberal", ain't you?

Why kind of liberal question is that?

Isn't it technically only trolling if you're saying shit that isn't your real opinion? That means a lot of the regulars around here, named-commentors and anons alike, aren't actually trolling, although we're all obnoxious in our own special ways!

My vastly superior podcast Horizontal Hostility already covered this issue.

When I get back from smashing PSL windows maybe I'll educate you on trolling (which I invented in the 00s in MN).

Everybody knows this.

Yeah, so here we have troll William Gillis, the genuine article! To me, the interesting part is how they eventually disappear in to their troll characters, losing the ability to communicate at all, except through meta sarcasm and irony. Standard stuff I guess, since the Simpsons was satirizing generation X for this way back in the 90s but it's even easier online.

To avoid a crisis of digital identity, I keep it simple. I'm exactly the same asshole in real life, never completely unreasonable though!

We should wander off into a desert and eat shit together.

As far as I know, you only drink piss Bear. Anyway, respectfully decline!

Here you go:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q97hBJ7alKI

Because true, you must eat shit with me.

Alright, you win. You go first though.

In Left Market Transhumanist Future, piss drinks you.

For a fee of course.

I've been called many things, the worst though is " troll ", especially when one has spent time composing an interesting comment and analysis of a topic which cuts to the quick of the socially penetrating theoretical existential anarchist cultural phenomenon,,,,,,sad.

A lot of these gnats aren't even going to be anarchists when they hit 30+ where I am now. It's just a youth identity phase for most here. They're not going to be akin to surviving adult sea turtles.

You're not an anarchist ziggy … you yourself make this point over and over

And then some though anarch and anarchy for me precede anarchist/anarchism. It is before AND after.

Which definitions? Sound like bullshit.

Particularly post-left and post-anarchist.

What exactly?

Post left anarchism and postanarchism google is your friend.

Ziggy really likes Stirner and Junger. He's apparently the embodiment of how shitty and vaguely rightwing anarchist politics can possibly get while still technically qualifying as anarchist influenced. He also has a dime-store messiah complex where he's the genuine article and the rest of us are misguided "leftards". The overall package is just as charming as it sounds and completely irrelevant to the real world outside of his little cave-troll microcosm he's carved out here.

But let's go a different route.

To Zigs: are you this annoying in real life? I feel like, probably you're part of the way there, but it can't be that bad. I come to Toronto sometimes. Let's hang out, autistic @news friends. Maybe I can tell you about my own struggles to stop being a person who would become a pedantic asshole as a result of his own subjective sense of being perfectly right about semantics and deep frustration with others' sloppy use of language. Maybe we can play a board game. Perhaps a discourse over coffee about the following tweet: https://picnic-illegalist.tumblr.com/post/162436387137 Perhaps you show me the best banh mi in the city.

Ball in your court.

Are two different things for many people. I have a forceful style that comes out in my writing which is not the same as my corporeal personality. The asshole in the writing is a good way of being honest.

Junger is more of a tertiary like with some useful concepts and bits of writing. Post leftist analysis does not equal vague rightwing politics. I'm also about as far from messiah complex as you get, believe me. The leftards are basically the intellectually lost IP SJWs. There are actually still good leftist intellects even if I reject the analysis. There is also no such thing as a 'real world'.

I actually GET the raw idea of anarchy in the literal sense unlike you.

"There is also no such thing as a 'real world'."

Which best expresses the core position of three regular trolls of this site, in a nutshell.

the observer is free to construct whatever 'semantic realities' he likes.

he might see seven trolls singing songs on their way to a trollfest.

'semantic realities' are not 'reality'

people get together and agree on what reality is. first they have to agree on what words mean, more or less, so they can 'speak the same language'. if they 'speak the same language' then they are ready to construct an agreed upon 'semantic reality'. e.g. ... this side of the river is inside the country X and on the other side of the river one is in the country Y, and that's the truth and its written in stone; i.e. see that survey monument over there?

if we take away language and 'semantic realities', we are left with 'our experience'. our experience is the only reality and since it is unique, it is not shareable since one cannot get inside someone else's experience.

you say you saw three trolls, and that's 'for real'? how many unicorns?

You in your dualistic universe, so bland, only 2 options, this or that, troll/anti-troll, sooo boring, everything else doesn't exist, this is YOUR idea of reality.

PS Also anon 22.00, I have feelings, I have family, (though opposed to the institutionalized family), I bleed, and yes, I have been known to cry for others, even weak corrupted Christians. It is your kind, the leftist revolutionary who purges indiscriminately, you are the ideological monsters.

This is an anarchist site. If you can't tell the difference between anarchists and statists, perhaps there is a problem wrong with you? Using the fear of the leftist revolutionary is a common trope to cover up a larger truth: Reactionaries are more commonly those who purge. The left wing of capital is no different in this and are just as reactionary. This understanding, this nuance is important because to Le Way, all anarchists are "leftist revolutionaries" in his logical leaps and bounds. His positioning for "anartists" mirrors support for groups like the futurists, which ultimately fell in with fascism. Le Way's critique of the left is often more reactionary than Sir Einzige's, emphasizing his own particular subjectivity, while still disparaging those he views as weaker than him.

He attempts to paint himself weak in this comment, but this is a far cry from his usual responses, which has far less reflection and I doubt the sincerity of this comment. Usually he is mocking those of physical, rather than mental, disability. His emphasis is on personal development and frowns on those who are unable to meet his minimum requirements to achieve a union of "egoists". Outside of these slight differences, there is very little different between Le Way and Sir Einzige. Both could be the same person using sockpuppets. I've often considered this possibility, but we've passed enough time to know both are as reactionary as the other at best.

There were many people from that era that went fascist and numerous avant-garde that took bad political terms. The syndicalists also partly went fascists as well. Some of the situationists returned to vanguard marxism if they did not simply stagnate within their positions.

The problem with avant-garde groups who go down these roads is the lack of an EXPLICIT apolitical ethos that is at least well read in political history. A fusion anti-political rejection politics(like anarchism) into a post 'anti' explicit apolitical analysis. Novatore for instance had this awareness unlike many of the futurists he associated with.

And that you think we are the same shows your level of comprehension as pointed out already by Le Way.

Taking ones own life is a weak and selfish escape from the misery of fate, which must always be allowed to run its course, to fight against it, not succumb to it or surrender. I'm not surprised that this liberal humanism has entered and sentimentalized the anarchist milieu, another facet of the post-Marxist morality. There are 3 distinct and unique individuated people who frequent this site, you know who they are, you should be showering them with compliments for their contributions to lateral thinking and the creation of imaginative social blueprints and inter-relational potentialities.

That only trolls can say that there are no real things, real people, real LIVING BEINGS. I pray that one day the trolls of this website will meet their justice, but for now I'm going to watch the SAW movies

It's obviously true that post-left doesn't equal alt-right but unfortunately, it leaves the back door open. The so-called horseshoe theory has been critiqued for good reason but still seems to hold up in practice, if not in theoretical debate.

i.e. At what point, does being vehemently Anti-AntiFa make you functionally indistinguishable from the other reactionaries, regardless of your theoretical motivations? I personally emphasize activity over theory; I'm watching what people do, not getting sucked in to their little world of ideas where they can tell themselves asinine hippy nonsense about the real world not existing.

If you don't have the sensiblities of an alt-rightist then you really can't be said to be one. There is no back door open based on theory alone. If you're not a reactionary you're not a reactionary, part of the reason why I reject cantifa is BECAUSE it mirrors reactionary behavior in certain ways as well as the INHERENT problems of the big tent and who can be associated with that term. There's also the fact that antifa is big in non bohemian times as opposed to bohemian ones. It's defined and proportionate to the popularity of fascism. Part of how I defeat fascism as an idea is to undermine it and not have my orientation defined by it something that the leftarded radicals cannot do.

Also, define the real world, I all reading eyes.

This is why you use words like "leftard", to show how dumb reactionaries sound by using their language. So you are like, showing by example, how stupid reactionaries are. I think I get the point. Only you aren't acting.

Through the years, over and over, you've adapted theorists and theories from the right, taking special joy in abusing its jargon. The good faith I could give you is that you merely used their language as a joke to provoke your detractors. But years later, the playbook has remained the same. It is not a sly or clever use of language that drives you to use the language, but instead it is a cynical play by a stupid reactionary who honestly can't tell the difference between reaction and post-left thinking.

He is in favor of pedophilia, that is, he goes further than the post-left about the technical problem of age not having a hard barrier to determine adult and child sexuality and abuses it to argue in favor of the child molester and the relationships they could have in his version of anarchy.

He regularly insults and attacks the old, the young and the disabled. "Lefttard" being but one instance of a slant insult to the disabled. This particular insult repeats over and over and is the language of justifying invasive eugenics. By comparing the left to mentally disabled people, he hopes to disparage not just the leftist, but also the disabled people, as the comparison shines negative light on both. If mentally disabled people are similar enough to leftists to lump a comparison and leftists are mentally wrong in some way by using the comparison, it stands to common reason he is also saying the mentally disabled are so deficient, they help describe how dumb other people are. This is what he means and he'll backpedal just to cover his usage, then return to using it in this manner. This is a repeated problem over the years that has been pointed out more times that I can remember.

His rejection of revolution also rejects anyone with any grievance with the present order. He says he's in favor of insurrection, but what kind? The Nietzschean rejection of "ressentiment" is abused to justify an attack on all groups with any real world grievances with the present. Apparently the only anarchy people are allowed to have is the anarchy of the dominator and no sympathy with the dominated and abused.

I'm being fast, but my point grows apparent: Sir Einzige is a reactionary. Sir Einzige is in favor of only the dominator becoming more libertarian and takes no consideration to the dominated, who are deficient in some way. At best, Sir Einzige's philosophy is to the left of national anarchism and anarcho-capitalism and to the right of all other forms of anarchy. At worst, Sir Einzige is a crypto-fascist and a gatekeeper to more fascist ideologies than his own. In this respect, he mirrors national anarchism in attempting to coopt anarchist theory and infrastructure as a way to bring new people into the fold of reactionary forms of anarchy.

Well it's attempted substance even if it's batshit ridiculous.

I use the tard tag to tag those who really are that stupid and I've actually spelled out who they are among the leftists(I've actually said that not all leftists disturb the tard tag). Most of my perennial intellectual sources actually do come from the left. I've said as much that for anarchy all you need is Stirner and Fourier as opposed to the founding anarchist big 3. You don't seem to understand the difference between perennial influences and marginal ones(like Junger for me which you then stupidly extrapolate and assume that they are more). I've actually been reading post left theory for over a decade so I think I know the ins and outs of it.

Do I have to explain myself on pedophilia again? As I have said time and time again, I am not against it, that's not the same thing as being explicitly for it. I know that nuance is lost on you but there is a difference. I am simply honest about what a return to a carnal driven culture might entail, pedophilia might be on the historical menu for certain cultures within certain contexts. Humans will always encourage children to do what is considered good in its self. There's a reason why pedophilia became a big deal to prohibit against and forbid and it is connected to a history of moral puritanism driven normativity.

No I do not attack the disabled, you obviously don't understand language and context when it comes to the term tard which is simply a redundant internet era insult. You can use the idea of disability as such to tag a non effective form of thinking, THAT'S WHAT ALL INSULTS ARE TO SOME DEGREE, you do know that right? All insults go back to some type of non usefulness to society. Tagging someone a tard does not mean you are directly relating back to mentally challenged human beings. There's no need for me to back peddle, it's obvious to someone who is not using silly leftist IP language and taking terms literally.

I reject revolution for the same reason Stirner rejected revolution. The historical record speaks for itself and there is little to no trail of anarchy. Insurrectional activity is where anarchy will be found and it is temporal and specific not historical. I'm also not insulting those with grievance or backing the dominating belief and behavior. You would know that if you had even a proper reading of me. I'm simply saying that turning to a leftist Abrahamic born slave minded rejection simply continues the domination. Anarchy is for everybody, it's you who thinks it is connected to some silly not happening historical revolutionary event.

No I'm not a reactionary, and I'm obviously not as deconstructed above part of a dominator logic. I Analyze and problematize both the coercive and the submissive equally and(like Stirner) default on the submissive as the drivers of domination for the obvious reason as that is how hierarchy crept into humanity to begin with. My philosophy is anarch/anarchy which takes post left thought to another level. That you can't understand that is your problem not mine. As I said, like Black and Bey before me, you could fuse the ideas of Stirner and Fourier and you would have a part of what I am getting at. There is nothing nationalist of fascist about it. You simply have a retarded understanding of these terms.

Keep trying though, at least you...tried to be substantive.

^ Here you go, thecollective. Here is your new entrance into the mind of Sir Einzige. His latest update, which continues the pattern of obfuscation, needs to have a note here. Send this to your authors to un-package and publish as serious responses. I and others here have engaged him enough and he has not confirmed any change in regards to any flaws in his thinking. This cycle will continue regardless of us engaging him or not. We have all witnessed the slips into Julius Evola and other aspects of Sir Einzige's mind where he seeks common ground with national anarchism. I can accept his motivation is to make a version of national anarchism that is more in line with anarcho-capitalism, this "anarch" philosophy is a good blend of the two theories. The right wing use of "anarch" and Sir Einzige's use of the term is not coincidental and even when others have pointed out its usage beyond him, he has continued to use it and write from the subjectivity of a reactionary.

His attempts to mask his reactionary nature is a fear behavior. He wants to keep this platform, which was initially very strongly challenged, but over the years all logical arguments have died out of exhaustion with Sir Einzige's circular logic, moving goal posts and continued attempts to paint and re-paint his position as one in line with post left anarchy. It is not. But we won't know that unless someone engages him in actual articles. I say this not to gain him any publicity, but because in order to destroy him, he must be publicly exposed as a charlatan. In order for a new change of guard in the comments here, Sir Einzige must be exposed beyond the comments here for the reactionary he is, his lies and hypocrisies exposed for what they are because he will respond and his writings will be held in the same permanence as any debate. His dismissal, all the more permanent.

I say this, as a help to you, thecollective. I don't think any article I could write would offer anything more than a desire for no dialog and the encouragement of Sir Einzige's quick demise by his own hand.

Unlike you they probably actually understand my positions. You have clearly not shown how I am connected to national anarchism or right wing ideology in ANYWAY(I've never actually read Evola or even that much Junger believe it or not-though I like his term and some of the writing I have read). You are completely hung up on the word anarch and who originally coined and fail to pay attention to how I Le Way and a few other post leftists are using it.

I mask nothing, you simply have a full failure of understanding of my talking points. By all means though bring on the articles and engagement.

Troll on, troll, troll on.

on a more meta note, it's interesting to me that people on this site don't seem to follow the basic rule of not feeding trolls. clearly harassing the handful of obnoxious named posters on this site doesn't drive them away - this thread is evidence of the fact that they will engage you endlessly because they get some satisfaction out of holding forth about themselves, and voila, we have a comment thread that's by and large just made up of the trolls and their critics talking about them. It's hard to tell which is more annoying, but it would be nice to read something else on here.

Yeah dude, maxims, like work, because...uhhh...they do! You don't understand reality. Don't feed my comment, stupid. Show the world that you are a simple person that believes what the authorities tell you about internet conversation, as if this actually has worked anywhere on dedicated trolling. Go to 4chan and start ignoring trolls. See how it works. I bet you 4chan will keep existing despite your best efforts. Smoke another one.

I will tell you what does work: Tricking pedophiles into suicide. I got two under my belt before coming here and then I discovered Sir Einzige's fascination with defending pedophilia. I had him close a couple of times and either worker or thecollective intervened to stop the suicide from happening. It is not pretty to destroy someone. It isn't supposed to be.

This is a pretty important question, though I don't know about framing it around trolls. To me, the question is if it's possible for an anonymous, open platform for anarchist discussion on the internet to be useful or if it will always be swallowed by its worst elements.

Rather than focus on what's a troll and how to react to them, I'd rather focus on the proposals the TOTW sets out about how to contribute to a useful discussion. I'd suggest that the problem with the comments on a-news isn't primarily a moderation issue or the presence of a handful of annoying people -- we can all contribute to using this platform in a way that's interesting to us. Submit texts that you want to discuss, take a few minutes to write out introductions or critiques, respond to the critical, content oriented aspects of comments (rather than to tone or who you think wrote it) or ignore the comment.

I don't want us all to retreat to facebook or whatever. I don't like that there are no comments on IGD. I think we can do better than what's been happening on here lately if we decide we value this platform and put in a bit of energy to make it look like what we want to see, in spite of the trolls

what are people's funniest experiences of being trolled/ when did you get sucked in? how did you figure out that it was a waste of time? and what was your response to that?

thats my clue. nto that funny though. def applies as much to the criticizers as to the main 3 on here.

Oh, you think we are fucking clowns here to amuse you? Is that what you think is going on? Clearly your narrative is one that needs potato chips. Watch more Family Feud.

You, again, want to ignore the reality of the situation. With the dedicated trolls, Sir Einzige, Le Way and emile, there can be no conversation without their incessant posting. In fact, you are probably another person that wants to pretend these people are not a problem and then you will, like many others, grow tired of their constant posts and responses to anything that might be conversation worthy. You want to see people ignore them? It happens, but not for long. You have fuck ups like azano and shadowsmoke who regularly engage these fools, along with a good number of old regulars that offer no strong critical feedback to any of the trolls. At this point, their trolling has reached the point where I would expect serious authors to tear down their little ideological bubble or present a stronger case for a more coherent post left anarchist theory than how these fools reify their own efforts in a more reactionary direction. I remember Mister Grumpy used to come on here, but Sir Einzige and company would misinterpret him so many times while also "agreeing" with him, they chased him off. His clarity was a breath of fresh air, but he failed to see them as the reactionaries they are. Their pressing of areas where Mister Grumpy was ambiguous largely turned most of what he wrote against essentialist categorization towards reactionary ends to back up abuses against weaker people. You have all failed. Your arguments have failed. There is only conflict.

what have you learned? what is interesting to you about posting complaints about other people's posts? what do you do differently because of the experience that you're unhappy with?
in a study group last night we read a nicely written (if academic) article called you're so paranoid you probably think this essay's about you, about paranoid vs reparative reading, and it speaks to the topic of trolling, and the general tendency of readers these days. you might be interested in it.
https://sydney.edu.au/arts/slam/downloads/documents/novel_studies/3_Sedg...

Interesting, but it is a tl;dr. In the 30 pages, can you cite any that are of particular interest, worth responding to? It must be nice to pretend you are a breaker of illusions rather than creating other illusions. Grand narratives are not inherently problematic and lesser ones, often can be very much so. No consciousness can be free from what it does, which is narrate. I'll wait for at most 5 pages worth reading and/or particular quotes of choice that would get to your point better.

Some other random poster, thecollective used this essay to rationalize their hands-off policy.

tl;dr Maybe you're right about everything to do with post-left reactionaries but what then? Is waging a comment crusade worth the effort? What's the end goal? Knowing something doesn't necessitate activity and maybe there's better things to do with your time.

I would tend to agree with this in most cases but letting post-left NAMBLA set up shop in their little anarchist space is over the line IMHO. Presumably nobody gives two fucks anymore, that's the only way to interpret this level of "tolerance" hahahaha

Answering Questions:

1. Maybe you're right about everything to do with post-left reactionaries but what then?

Yes, we have been explicit. If you want to know if we can compromise on a better direction, we've been for it, but all compromises have failed.

2. Is waging a comment crusade worth the effort?

Yes. For the years of dedication and enjoyment I had here before they started posting to be ruined by them, my joy is now found in disrupting them when other things aren't more pressing in my life.

3. What is the end goal?

To be able to write comments without their replies.

Statement from you: Knowing something doesn't necessitate activity and maybe there's better things to do with your time.

I assume this could've been framed as a question, but I'll take it as a statement. This is a common trope for any discussion on the internet. You could've found something better to do as well rather than respond to me. There really will always be something better to do. Playing RPGs at the house? You could be playing outside? Playing outside? You could be hiking. Hiking? You could be climbing mountain. Climbing mountains? You could be discovering the cure for AIDS...and so fucking on.

So no, I am doing with my time as I desire and you are doing with your time as you desire. Why are you wasting time with me when there are starving children in Africa and a war in Syria? What are you even considering my small problems when climate change is increasing at a far faster rate than predicted, its effects being felt only years prior to only small signs of this more accelerated problem ever increasing.

I hope you can understand my situation a little more, given that we are all distracted and one of the reasons I post here is to engage with others on ideas surrounding these greater problems. It doesn't mean it will solve anything, but as the world burns, I want to discuss things I value and these little pricks can fuck themselves because they only care about their little shit worlds and playing pretend anarchy in imaginary land.

Hey, I profoundly dislike them for all the same reasons. I'm a more recent arrival than you so I don't remember a time before but even still, it's pretty obvious to watch them choking out the more interesting conversations with their repetitive, woo-woo bullshit.

I was sarcastically doing a tl;dr of the essay about "paranoid" reading etc. I didn't find it very convincing as grounds for tolerating some of the most vile "post-left positions". It's a bit lazy to group emile and ziggy together, for example, because rationalizing pedophilia and being an insufferable wall-posting pedant are obviously two very different things.

But they make common cause because they both have persecution complexes, because a lot of people find them unpleasant, because they work hard to be unpleasant, which stokes the sense of persecution. So here we are and I wasn't trying to tell you what to do with your time. More like rolling my eyes at thecollective, although I sympathize with them being in an impossible position here too.

Being "post-left" seems to lead to functional paralysis in a lot of ways, hmm?

it's about paranoia being the normal, default methodology, and how that might have happened, and what it means in terms of people's practices and constraints, and what another option might be. it has a lot of psych terminology in it, which i personally find alienating, but i still think it raises good points, especially about not rejecting paranoid readings, just being able to do other things as well. but you'd probably need to actually invest in the time to get much out of it for yourself -- just reading other people's summaries doesn't really do much to stretch the brain, i think.

I think that the way the people you mentioned interact with this site is a problem - what I'm questioning is the way people have chosen to deal with that problem because I think the people who choose to fight with them or harass them only make the situation worse. "Conflict" here just looks boring as hell and I'm not interested in the plight of internet struggalos who think they're doing anyone a service by endlessly bickering with them. The best way forward that I can think is to increase the activity on this site so that you have a larger mass of comments that aren't just revolving around the handful of named accounts posting here. More diversity in people discussing things (and not just getting into it with the trolls) could even change the way some them act

This has failed and sounds more like "strugglos" than what others have suggested. Struggle away comrade, get more people in here.

Another hole in this don't-feed-the-trolls theory is the part about how at least some of these people aren't technically trolling. They're just unpleasant, compulsive people with really shitty politics and tons of spare time. A troll is misrepresenting themselves to fuck with you, which is why "not feeding" works because they get bored. This problem is more fundamental to post-left theory: when you completely abandon any sort of moral or ethical framework, you eventually find yourself in terrible company.

What you say is true. About the terrible company, it wasn't just after ditching the framework, it was always that way, now theres more honesty about it.

Post-left problematic number one: there's no good company!

Point taken but I've occasionally found good company. Perhaps you're collapsing under the weight of your own cynicism?

not "trolling" as some significant thing, but the idea tht people get distracted from the conversations that are interesting and useful, into complaining abt stupid shit.
have the conversation you want to hve, right? why not?

Because at some point, there's a threshold that gets crossed where people have legitimate grievances and aren't just "complaining abt stupid shit." Where is that line? Good question! For me, it's when somebody starts rationalizing pedophilia ;)

but then the interestng part of the conversation would be the issue, the topic, not about the specific poster, right? why personalize it (esp online, when none of us knwo each other, yea?) make the conversation about the actual topic and take it away from the individuals. least that's what would mkae sense to me.

Sure, most of the time but that's the thing about transgressive behaviours. We can argue about where the line is but sooner or later, somebody comes along who forces everybody to have to "deal with them". This problem is extra fascinating in anarchist spaces as we wrestle with inevitable conflict, trying not to lapse in to the authoritarianism we despise.

There are only corporeal preferences that occasionally cluster towards certain maintained interests, but there is no line just as there is no right or wrong. There's no literal 'we' either.

Literally, there is. A "we" couldn't exist without a literal interpretation.

though it becomes a sort of creative lie then. You could say there is literally a young earth if you want to live purely in the semantical literal world and ward off any corporeal physical transformation. I guess I should have said there is no actual corporeal 'we'.

Are you saying there is literally no corporeal we? I don't know why are are saying "we" anything. Why are you afraid of "we" becoming a truth? A black "we" exists to many. We narrate our lives together, creating entire worlds of we's. I don't know why you insist on something that is pretty untrue. I think you are trolling. Can you rephrase your point so I can understand it, since the language you use doesn't seem to make any complete sense?

I will say I think I might get your point, that our "we" connections are things created in relation to others in our minds, conclusions we make in communication with others. Or perhaps a more abstract "we", one of sociological categorization? One where we don't feel our identity statuses are real but rather imposed creations? I think your argument is lacking though. I see collectivities all over. From institutions to classes, these things are felt by many people in many different ways. Discounting these arguments merely for expressing a we makes no sense.

Think of it like that when it's used in ideologically loaded ways. The outer dunbarian things aided by reification. It's not to say that we(hehe) should not still use them but be honest about the fact that it's something of a convenient lie to move the meta level discussion along.

This position holds no water. Any attempt to communicate this point eventually runs into the need to use a we. This is merely a mind game to see how long you can go without thinking or referring to something in a we way or make an appeal to a group, as a "we should do this" or "we would be better off without that", so, your logic holds no grounding beyond playing games. We are all the same thing too. It is pretty cool how there is no actual separation of matter, if you want to look at things like that. Once you get can over this novelty about "we" stuff, we can talk about more important issues..or not.

Just the ideologically loaded way that it is used. The Victorian ideological use of the term is an obvious example.

This is a very convenient position for the least popular people in the room to adopt. I've been the pariah and I've helped run off people who I felt richly deserved the hostility of the group so I get that there's a slippery slope but even still … some transgressions are unacceptable and any serious anarchist project or space either has ways of dealing with this, or they're essentially defaulting to a wishy washy liberal reliance on the police. Those are the only 2 options because of course I'm dismissing this mystical bullshit about how everything is "relative" or "relational".

If anybody tried to argue this to me in real life (or without the mediation of a screen, if you prefer), they'd need a gun or a lot of friends to deter my practical test of their theory.

The position I mean is Ziggy's OP.

There's kinda no escaping this especially on Dunbarian human scale levels. What is a transgression to you might be fine to someone else.

I just want to post and read interesting comments without Sir Einzige, emile and Le Way responding to them at every corner. This is not what I want to have a conversation about, but often, due to their comments, the entire thing becomes about them and their issues and the interesting conversation I want, I can't have, even though, and this is important, even though I know the people I can talk to and have interesting conversations both read and occasionally respond on this site. So I ***know*** an interesting conversation can be had. It is just these assholes preventing it.

You wrote --- " the entire thing becomes about them and their issues "
also wrote --- "I just want to post and read"
" This is not what I want to have"
" I want, I can't have,"
" I know the people I can talk to"
" So I ***know*** an interesting conversation "
That's I I I I I I I translates as, me me me me me me me

Yeah motherfucker. Some call that shit an opinion. You might of learned something there. Cut back on the paint chips.

Nope, it ain't opinion, its narcissism. Cut back on the macho suppositories.

Is this supposed to be trolling or are you trying to show how dumb you are? I agree with the latter. Perhaps if the narcissism thing could stick? Try harder. I'm sure you'll troll with the big boys someday. Also, I know your mom didn't cut the crust off your PB&J. You need me to do it? Summer school is hard enough as it is, trying to catch up so you don't end up like your dad cleaning grease traps from fast food restaurants.

unless you want to engage with the ideas expressed in their comments.

just fucking listen to yourself!

if everyone suspended making comments 'about them', and engaged with them or not on the basis of interest or not, in the views they express in their comments, then there would not be a problem. the problem arises from people anxious to simply express their outrage at the audacity and outrageousness (to their narrow beholder eyes) of views that they do not even engage with. they are there busily posting and filling the forum with off topic ad hominems in the form of mockery along with incessant whining.

if the site administrators cared to, they could add up such off topic contributions as compared to the seriously intended comments of the trio, and it would be clear that the 'disturbing clutter' in the thread derives from this 'old ladies' gossip circle' ("oh my dear, can you imagine?" ... "isn't it an awful shame?" ... "can't anything be done?") etc. etc.

for some reason, 'the old ladies gossip circle contributions' which together add up to 'walls of text' which do not even engage on the forum topics, are somehow not seen by 'the old ladies' who flood the forum with them, as the bigger part of the 'disturbance' which they evidently are.

when the different man, e.g. the black man, steps on a bus full of whites or attempt to use a 'toilet for whites', it is the white majority that rises up red-faced in anger and a steppin and a fetchin, and that is the disturbance which the majority turns around, saying; 'those black people are always causing a disturbance'.

just listen to yourselves, going on and on about sir einzige, le way and emile and filling the forum with crap walls of text that we all have to scroll over.

why not just shut the fuck up with this fucking gossip-talk thing. engage if you are interested in the views or don't engage if you are not interested.

there's way too much of this "oh my dear, can you imagine?" ... "isn't it an awful shame?" ... "can't anything be done?" bullshit whining.

Not all cultures have the concept of 'category', but Western dualist culture does. It is the underpinning of racism (dago, nigger).

Different people come from uniquely different relational associations, they have unique relational experiences and these give them unique perspectives.

Western culture still (since Western religions introduced it and Western science picked up on it) harbors the concept of a human as an 'independent being'. Once it is deemed 'independent', it follows that an understanding of 'what it is' can be fully established by investigating ITS properties, but this can't be done without having some 'reference' or analogue, to give 'traction' to the meaning of the properties. In other words, properties must be developed as 'common properties' so that we can look across multiple members of the 'category' and say, 'yes, that one is just like these other ones'.

A category must be presupposed to exist so that we can extract commonalities that will define the members of the category. In other words, we must identify members of the category before we have defined it, in order to define it. [this is an error in logic called petitio principii or circular reasoning].

Cultures that have no concept of 'independently-existing things-in-themselves'; i.e. who have relational worldviews and relational languages, derive the meaning of what an animal, plant or human person is, from the web-of-relations they are included in. For them, the concept of a 'category', wherein one can give meaning to an individual on the basis of its 'common properties' does not exist because the ABSTRACT concept of an independently-existing entity does not exist in the physical reality of our actual experience. And since we live in a relational physical world, their view makes sense.

The category definition is an abstraction that 'blocks' inquiry into the relational uniqueness of individuals. Once one says; 'dago' or 'nigger' or 'troll', one goes to the lookup table of common properties to get the individual's meaning, and with the inquiry into meaning resolved by this trivialized search for meaning, real meaningful inquiry is pre-empted.

Category-based meaning, while it makes no sense at all to nondualists [indigenous anarchists] whose understanding is that we are all strands in a common web-of-life, is nevertheless commonly used in dualist culture as follows;

1. By egotists, to give meaning to THEMSELVES in a categorical sense and who are so 'damn proud of their category', they will defend the reputation of their brand, violently, if necessary.

2. Egotists worried about their ego, being too insecure to engage openly with 'different others' whose actions or views seem strange to them, 'denigrate' those others by the use of pejorative categorization and thus insulate their ego against robust challenge by taking refuge in the comfort and security of their own homogeneous group.

Such 'categorists' cannot stand to be included in the anarchy of diversity and thus strive for the homogenization of actions and ideas, forming (political) groupings where they and their fellow members can feel safe and secure under the banner of their 'category' or 'brand', as they form an echo chamber that continually reinforces and affirms their own views and beliefs.

Its ironically paradoxical that having lived and breathed rebellious anarchy most of my life, and contributing my opinion and advice on the most appropriate methodology and interrelational values to have and to exercise, with elements and snippets of experience acquired wisdom, I am railed against and abused against, one who humbly bides in poverty and expecting a baby infant into the fold,,,,,,,,,shame on you, the inverted trolls who self-righteously condemn from their pedastal of rebuke!!!

You lot always start singing such sad tunes when you're not just getting to Tee off on everyone else. I'm misting up here… so many feelings!

What can I say! In good faith, and I think I can speak for emile and Sir E, we offer our opinions and flavor them with references from relevant subjects we have expertise in, and our nuanced and intelligent discourse is firstly not even comprehended due to the general ignorance of the smasshy-smashy activist brigade, and secondly we are then bombarded with cries of "troll", "Fascist" "asswipe" "douche" , which we ignore mostly or humorously reply to, so as to "not feed the troll",,,,,,,,It becomes evident that behaviorally, we 3, beyond offering our diverse and radical views on politics, do not fill the troll MO profile at all. But I only bring up this victimization because we have been singled out, and we don't actually ever play the victim card because it ranks as a weak snivelling Christian method for forgiveness. I'm more a > I DONT EXPECT FORGIVENESS< BRING ON THE HATE< I REVEL IN IT. I WILL REDUCE YOU TO THE MAGGOT FEASTING ON DOG FECES I SWEPT INTO THE GUTTER THIS AFTERNOON . sort of guy ;)

This is what you say to those you pick on, like disabled older people in wheelchairs. Like me. I've twisted you sideways and shoved you up the donkey's ass your dad used to fuck so many times its caused you to repeat commas.

There's multiple posts in the thread where you were already snivelling, by my count!

There are technical solutions to trolling. For example:

http://syndie.i2p2.de/

(A semi-abandoned semi-complete communications system developed by a comrade of mine, intended to be network-independent... in Syndie a content archive can be 99% full of monkey vomit and horse porn, and you can still hold quality discussions with your comrades. The key is that you have whitelisted their cryptographic keys, or you have blackklisted the trolls - and trolls don't know if they are reaching anyone. After you decide to ignore them, they are trolling invisibly to you. The decsion to whitelist and blacklist is generally not that of an archive operator (and archives are redundant) but an end user. So you have to do censorship individually.)

But it does require that people start taking infosec seriously and start using tools which let you be securely pseudonymous.

And people... (long sigh)... they go on Facebook instead.

Facebook is more safe. I doubt I can trust you. If you think they goto FB to avoid trolls, you are ill informed and I doubt you are on FB. If you'd join you'd find most of your privacy paranoia was largely unjustified and you might actually learn how to criticize the safest social media on the planet, be you in China, Russia, the EU or good ole USA, Facebook helps us stay connected. So take off the foil hat, get out of the basement and join society for once.

You got a fair amount of talent brosis! A ittle dry on imagination, yet well put together, so much I would jave added a TM sign in the end and a long disclaimer in really tiny letters.

Coz you know it was so damn important to use Facebook because it makes you reach out to the masses...

Just look how well several years of this shit has paid off. Yawn.

Anarchistnews may have been even more benficial to anarchists... even with all the trolling and shitpostings. Let's have our own comm and media channels and FUCK THE MASSES. Anarchy was for the most part never thought, even less practiced, as a mass social relations.

Develop infrastructure, communities and resources, and stick to your guns. On the longer run it WILL pay off. This is how all the other cultures have become something to behold and respect. Just look at the Rainbow Family and the Amish... or Yoga! ;-P

"the question is if it's possible for an anonymous, open platform for anarchist discussion on the internet to be useful or if it will always be swallowed by its worst elements."

I've thought about this and at this point, I must say that it will inevitably fall into the worst elements without regular intervention. The goals of anarchist news to be non-sectarian and open are being challenged by a group of people who aren't actually trolls, but are annoying regardless of their identity. The Flag forums fell into the same problem. I believe William Gillis might of had a hand in the devolution of these forums, but if I'm mistaken, it was largely framed into an individualist, free market, forum, that became unfriendly to other forums of anarchism.

Ultimately, emile, Sir Einzige and Le Way practice exclusion because they have gained control of the talking space. They define the conversations that happen here because they are always here to intervene. It is not their fault that their views are repulsive and their writing is so bad that it kills the ability for fruitful, extended conversation.

For a quality discussion path, a new trail must be beaten. One with a different mission and it doesn't need to destroy this site to exist. One that is exclusionary and specific to a cluster of publications, so it will still be broad. Imagine the new KKA forum, a forum where the journals are headlined. Where the writer has a profile that can be interacted with easily. Where forums are bottomlined by particular authors that create the journals.

AJODA's forums are boring because it is but one journal and is feedback centric. This journal forum would be created with the knowledge that its primary way of interacting socially with others is through the forum. Including the various established journals, include areas that help get new journals off the ground. To be more expansive, why not also make it multi-media friendly? Lots of podcasts and audiobooks are being put out, videos about anarchist shit, so why not open this journal site up to that?

Basically make a forum that is friendly to the people that make periodical based media, perhaps even establishing entirely new media that includes the forums in its print, video or audio publications. Find the freedom not by empowering the commenter, but by encouraging those who make comments to become part of the greater community of creators, to have their own journal to comment.

This forum also needs to have a personality. It is a MEDIA NETWORK. If MTV has a personality, then this should also have a personality. Wasn't there something called the Blast or whatever that was supposed to be this big thing? Why doesn't it do this? Become a big media network. Convince content creators to use it as their primary, rather than secondary, medium and to interact with their readers or audience through the site. The front page can be filled with pictures of journals, blurbs from writings, a newswire that fills up with regular podcast and journal releases. Let this site keep the news, but move the rest of the good stuff to something where the creators are more in control.

In order to make a forum larger, the many journals would like each other and include each other in their forum, so imagine 3-5 journals sharing the same forum with overlapping readers, they share their moderation, but don't control the moderation of the entire site, just their forum. Should anyone be removed from their forum, they can open a new forum if they are a content creator or use a general chat with a daily posting limit. The goal is to get as many of the journals that want to interact with each other to link up with the same forum until it is a burden to follow, then split into smaller forums to handle the weight of specific conversations. Something like that.

A lot of my views came from that forums era. I used to post on anti-politics. Ironically it had a lot of post/ultra leftists like myself le Way and emile(his views not his posting). Fendersen(is he still alive?) was a favorite of mine on the anti-politics board DuPont was there to. Ironically enough if there was one thing it did NOT do it was censor or intervene. There were all kinds of yahoos that got in a post every now and then(Floyce White the homophobic Maoist for instance). Overall it had a lot of post-leftists such as myself.

Cesspool is always a matter of opinion. Much of the people who intensely dislike the likes of me tend to be the leftists IPs who still hang around. They weren't as much of them on the anti-politics board. I'd actually like to see a place like that come back.

It died because it did not intervene, also.

No forum should last forever and the peak of that whole epoch was probably around the time that Fendersen and Dupont were posting. I think people began to move on afterwards.

No. People didn't move on. It suffered extreme technical difficulties due to a bad update, then it shut down, then it re-opened for a limited time and then it died from lack of interest.

It's been awhile as that was nearly a decade ago now, but by all accounts it had good quality posters and discussion(like Federsen and Dupont there was Cornelius the crazy Bataillean eyedia towards the end along with a much more formative moi) up to that point. Me Le and emile are actually very much in league with those viewpoints. Be nice to have hangout like that again with no offended IP morons.

Actually, my comments are about how nobody really wants to talk with you and how are we going to find a way to not talk to you. You wanting to include yourself is nice and all, but really, I'm wanting to have a conversation where you don't reply to everything I write, but I can engage others that are far more interesting.

Actually, it did intervene rather frequently. You might just remember Aragorn hosting the anti-politics forum, but both Sashak and Red Hughes regularly removed users.

I forgot to add, that Sashak was the moderator of anti-politics until he stopped and disappeared. Aragorn only came into control of moderation because he was the infrastructure guy and nobody else wanted to do it. So it fell apart because of the lack of intervention and filtering of bad users.

However, anti-politics was the better forum as far as I'm concerned.

Actually this was when Bill Brown came around and Sashak's leaving basically made it so Kevin Keating and Bill Brown would dominate the forum to air their dirty laundry. The part you enjoyed, was heavily moderated and even when Aragorn came about, the very existence of the forum was due to filtering of users and the fact that Aragorn had personally met most of the other users that helped keep it together. It wasn't because of some magic formula or some abstract freedom.

Along with Gifford Hartman and all that soil. Didn't pay them any attention. I simply looked at the good ideas and quality posters. Keating, Brown and Hartman are not going to stop you from posting or reading the good stuff. There was worse then them(Floyce White along with a short lived Ron Paul fan who eventually figured out what anti-politics actually meant) and the place ticked on.

All that matters at the end of the day are good posters and ideas. The rest are just traffic which any site needs(that isn't a closed forum) to continue to some degree.

You do realize that you are a problem here and people don't comment here because you comment here, right? What was your handle, anyway? I don't remember a Sir Einzige posting all the time on anti-politics.

Also, while we are on it, your opinion doesn't define how forums are successful or fail. You might of "ignored" the dirty laundry, but it did dominate the site and paralyze it until that was all it was about. New posts would come, but the comments wouldn't come with them. If you don't remember, Keating was eventually removed. Brown was eventually removed. Tolerance only went so far before interventions were seen as necessary. You like to paint an ideal picture. I get it. Loose moderation is nice and I enjoy it. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about one where the freedom aspect isn't about some random commenter rattling off at any piece of media anyway they want, but rather about creating an atmosphere where content creators feel free to communicate about what they created with others that enjoy or perhaps are critical of their work, but it would be framed in a way where they are in control and not just some rando dickheads or people that just won't shut up about their dumb pet theory.

You'd have a forum in this idea. You and anyone that likes you. You and those you gather with can decide to have no moderation. But this wouldn't control how the other forums are done and if people got sick of you posting your random thoughts on their forums, they can exclude you without harming the open communication within the network itself.

I'm sure if more of us posted here with a name we'd also get thrown under the bus. (I wouldn't doubt if certain avatars were created just to have someone to point to (because most folks post anon) as an example, a bad seed 'problem'--a certain muscle of the arms comes to mind).

I expected as much by a generation (and I don't have the data to ascertain whether or not this phenomenon has become accepted as 'normal' behavior on an inter-generational basis) weened on facebook's taylored censorship (where the user doesn't even get to decide how much their experience of the unreal world that is the internet gets continually flattened for them), that is basically proposing the same things in this TOTW as MAGA.

What's being asked for in the complains reads out like: "There are Mexicans (/Named Posters) among us Good People, and they are bad. So bad that we're gonna need a wall to keep them out. Because they're bad. I'm not saying they're all rapists, but some are."

And I hate to refer to that guy, but the more we spend time viewing figureheads like fountainheads the more we warp ourselves in mirroring ways. The obsession with cheetoh dust is typical of introducing high carb foods into one's diet: mood swings from the insulin spike and crash. The Collective hinted at it, when posting about paranoid readings.

"There's nothing wrong with my ideology. It's the new situations that arise (reality) that my ideology must be protected from knowing about, having to engage in, be invalidated by, challeged by. Just make what doesn't fit the box go away."

'Hypernormalization' is right. The radicals are retreating from the complexities of the world. Offering no solutions, but an engagement with a simpler, fake world (screen life).

Maybe we're trying to warn you, and you read it as "you're offending my ideology! how dare you! I'm telling!"

Very well put.

I'm not a Maoist and never claimed to be one. And "homophobe" is a meaningless liberal curse word. (As if you're making the absurd suggestion that the past 500 years of proletarian struggle was avowedly "homophile.")

After all these years, the best response you have to my Antiproperty series is still just misrepresentation, word twisting, and arguing about my personality?

You lost the argument. You lost hard. Get over it and move on with your life.

I know, right?! Now I'm curious where this post was supposed to go.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
V
j
4
5
T
g
Z
Enter the code without spaces.