Don’t Feed the Trolls?

Why did that poster deserve a cogent reply?

Here’s the context: I’d written about “birth certificate bonds,” and someone had come along to attempt a rebuttal that essentially started with “wake up, sheeple” and ended with “you are all fools.” It’s classic trolling behavior, really. Brian Dunning responded to him first, and I weighed in as well. Shortly thereafter, Fred asked the above question and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. Why did that poster deserve a cogent reply?

It was obvious that the poster here wasn’t asking genuine questions, or hoping for answers, or even engaging in a genuine discussion. But I answered him anyway, and in retrospect, Fred’s question is a good one. Why did I respond? Was it out of sheer bloody-minded belligerence, or did I have some other motive? And, to be honest, the answer is “yes.” I am bloody-mindedly belligerent (online, at least), but I did have another reason. But to understand it, we’ll need to talk about a couple of dishonest debate strategies.

Gish Galloping and JAQing Off

You have probably heard of the “Gish Gallop” before, even if you don’t know it by name. It is, in short, a strategy based on W. C. Fields.

The person who makes use of this strategy is attempting to spew out “a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.” The idea, obviously, is to sow confusion and to make the user appear to be smarter and more knowledgeable than he (or she) might actually be.

A related strategy is “Just Asking Questions” (which I’ve heard described in hilarious fashion as “JAQing off”). It follows a similar pattern to the Gish Gallop, but it doesn’t even present an argument. It just tosses out question after question after question, hoping to sow confusion and cause doubt without ever actually expecting an answer, and it looks something like this: “If Richard Gant isn’t Batman, why hasn’t he ever been seen with Batman? Why does he own a Batman shirt? Where was he the night Batman beat up the Joker? Where was he when the Riddler kidnapped Stephen Fry? Isn’t it awfully convenient that he just happened to state he lived in a different city, the same day that Batman defused the Penguin’s atomic bomb?”

Yes, that was clearly a ridiculous example. But, on the face “just asking questions” is intended to be ridiculous. The whole point is to put your opponent off guard, and (more importantly) plant an idea in the listener. The brain, after all, remembers misleading statements as easily as it remembers accurate ones, and correcting that incorrect information is extremely difficult. So the JAQer wins a double victory.

The sad thing is, both of these strategies are terribly effective, particularly in a spoken debate. The JAqer or Galloper can spew out a vast quantity of “alternative facts” in an extremely short time, making it impossible to counter all of them. The end result is that the defender appears to lose.

So why did you respond?

I’m bloody-minded and belligerent, and somebody was wrong on the Internet.

Alright. Seriously now.

Seriously now, the question that started this whole thing was “Why did that poster deserve a cogent reply?” He’d been JAQing off, after all, and clearly wasn’t interested in receiving an actual answer. But I’d written one anyway. Why did I bother?

Other people read these articles. Most of those people, I assume, are interested in the topic of the article—either because they’ve heard of it before and are looking for information, or because they’ve never heard of it at all and are curious. I bothered because of those people, the ones who really do want answers. So I provided those answers, as a sort of follow-up to the original article.

Perhaps more importantly, though, I bothered with a response because it made me learn something more. Gish Galloping is easy, because it just requires a superficial approximation of knowledge. JAQing off is easier still, because you don’t have to know anything. You just have to spew ignorance. Addressing those tactics is difficult, because you have to learn something and then apply that knowledge. I didn’t know the answers to some of the questions, so it pushed me to do some research. Then I got lost reading articles about (in this case) the Federal Reserve, and learned a lot of cool new things that I either had forgotten or never known. Sometimes, learning is its own reward.

Finally, I bothered because I’m a skeptic. This requires me, when I’m being intellectually honest, to try to learn the facts about something. I happened to know he was wrong, because I had some expertise in the subject. But there might still have been some validity to some of the claims he made. It turned out there wasn’t, but I wouldn’t have known that for sure without doing the research.

Go ahead, feed the trolls. Facts are poisonous to them.

About Richard Gant

Richard Gant is a husband, a father, and a huge nerd with a deep love of science, science fiction, and fantasy. He works for a brokerage firm he won't name here in order to keep his Compliance department happy, and frequently talks to inanimate objects as if they can understand him. He also has a difficult time writing seriously about himself in the third person.
This entry was posted in Education and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Don’t Feed the Trolls?

  1. True, but sometimes what they need is choking rather than feeding. The fewer folks that see them before they are deleted from the forum, the better.

    It does however, as you suggest, require good discrimination to know when and whether.

    The gallopers for example sometimes are worth routing, but the Jaqers are best flushed immediately, because there is NOTHING else they are good for and nothing they hate so much as having their applause cut off at the root.

  2. 1-Ton says:

    It’s a prerequisite to objectivity, and a service to your readers. Just a shame that you can poison one, but then there’s just so many of them. Keep fighting the good fight though, sir.

  3. mudguts says:

    Its a pity these have to be posted given that Brian has spent plenty of times discussing poor arguments as they appear from the wobbity woo.

    have to attend my etherics.. damn I Ching things

  4. Alex krizel says:

    Sad part is “negative and poorly thought out” are pretty subjective. Sure there are blatant examples like “well if you don’t agree with me, yo mama”. But many times people elevate themselves to a holy stature and cannot accept the fact that they could be wrong. Ergo, anyone disagreeing, even by providing fact and science, is automatically “negative and poorly thought out”. I have had many “conversations” where I simply propose an alternative to the view made by the poster and I get hammered “don’t feed the trolls”. So, I think this really is an issue, and should be talked about in a thinking community to where we can agree on how to properly deal with this. If not for the teaching opportunity, then for the shear joy of exposing stupidity. IMHO.

  5. Mutant Buzzard says:

    Liberals like you clowns at skeptoid won’t answer even the simplest questions about alleged AGW
    what is the worst that will happen?
    and what do you want to do to fix the alleged problems?
    I say feed the liberal trolls
    why are you so afraid to ask and answer questions and concerns? it’s cause you are a liar

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Actually, I think not many people volunteering for Skeptoid would identify as liberals. So that’s your first mistake.

      The second is that simple questions are sometimes nonsensical. Here’s a simple question: “Have you stopped being the worst ever?” It’s asking for a yes or no answer, but it doesn’t make any sense, or it can’t be answered. Likewise “What is the worst that will happen?” That question is simple but imprecise. Worst what? What is the worst outcome from unchecked AGW? That’s unclear, since it’s asking people to predict the outcomes of a complex system as it changes. It’s like asking what’s the worst that will happen from driving a bus at top speed across the country for decades with no maintenance. A lot of horrible things could happen.

      What we can say conclusively is that weather will become erratic, average temperatures will rise, sea levels will go up, there will be droughts and floods, massive species die-offs, radical changes to various ecosystems, people (especially people who are not wealthy) will have a much harder time living, extreme weather events will become more common, and gigantic amounts of wealth will be wiped out. What’s the worst part of all of that?

      There are a lot of things that can and probably should be done to fix it. We need to reduce, even make negative, carbon emissions. There are a bunch of ways to do that and which ones you implement might be different for different countries or different carbon producers.

      Are those simple enough answers?

      • Alex Krizel says:

        Aside from your first point (about the % of liberals at skeptoid since I have no data to support or reject that) pretty much everything you say is off.

        As to the second point, well, there is no shortage of climate alarmist propaganda out there that is more than willing to give you “worst” case scenario. Now, does that mean it truly is “worst”? Of course not. But WCS beats science any day, hands down. And also “what’s the worst…” isn’t actually asking for the “worst”, it’s more a figure of speech. You are correct though that we are nowhere near being able to predict something as complex as the climate, so that pretty much should end the conversation right there, but the alarmist propaganda machine won’t let that happen.

        For your next point, do you have citations other than online liberal rags like ecowatch? Weather is driven (largely) by the difference in temps, humidity, etc. around the equator and the poles. If those temps even out, we should see LESS weather, and it should be less severe. Also, floods and droughts? Nice. Like almost any medication I take: “make cause diarrhea, constipation…”. And BTW: without trying, you basically answered “what’s the worst…”.

        Lastly, feel free to explain how. We don’t have the technology to run our lives without today’s fossil based fuels. Sorry, just isn’t possible. Classic example, a 747 can take several hundred people around the globe in less than a day using fossil based fuel. Meanwhile, a solar plane just went around the world. It took over a year and it carried ONE person.

        Truth is, the whole AGW think is political propaganda and has little basis in science, or even logic. When you make claims that “97% of scientists believe…” but all you can ever muster is Bill Nye the Mechanical Engineer Guy, is it a wonder people doubt you? Anyway, hope this helps.

      • Mutant Buzzard says:

        what do they id as then?
        ” A lot of horrible things could happen” like what? for every alleged problem, AGW will allegedly cause I can list 2 benefits
        “What we can say conclusively is that weather will become erratic” liar, erratic compared to what? the time in history when average temperatures never changed, sea levels were static, there were no droughts, floods, massive species die-offs, or radical changes to various ecosystems?
        “We need to reduce, even make negative, carbon emissions” lead by example then hypocrite, quit stinking up the planet with all of you nasty liberal co2.
        “Are those simple enough answers?” no those were vague condensations

        • Alex Krizel says:

          One of the main questions to ask the alarmists (and you sort of eluded to it) is: “how do you know that THIS is the ideal temperature and the we aren’t, for example, 10 degrees BELOW the ideal temperature?”. They have no answer. They have fallen for the very religious-type logical fallacies they claim to “be better than”. It’s the “this world was made for ME” fallacy. No, it wasn’t. And in fact, the world doesn’t really care about you one single bit. If you apply suck a small sample size as the climate alarmists do (100 years out of 4.5 BILLION), you would get laughed out of just about any real scientific community. But not climate alarmism. Yes, I agree that warming (the kind that has happened in cycles for the past 4.5 billion years, 99.999999% of which was without us) has some positive things. One of the main ones is a longer growing season (which should help feed the runaway population). But I would much prefer it cooling. I hate the heat.

      • Mudguts says:

        Thanx Noah, Id be a lot more concise and say “if you dont like it, do the science and publish”

        • Mutant Buzzard says:

          like du pont did with agent orange mud?
          the problem is that liberals like skeptoid do all of the publishing with out any science

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *