Allow Trolls to increase participation

That’s kind of the question isn’t it? I mean, with regards to ad hominem. I went looking for a discussion of that fallacy. There’s something in it about how if you state something factual, like “that person has an odor about them that most people react to negatively”, then you might be correct. You might be stating that the person needs to bathe or has stepped in something that the rest of us don’t want to step in and don’t want tracked on our carpet. Shorten that to “you stink”, and I can’t tell if it’s an ad hominem or not.

With Trump, we know what he “stepped in”, but repeating his crimes and quotes is tedious, and we do it anyway. Pronouncing all people in the Republican Party guilty for remaining in the Party, is a stretch for me, but I can hear the arguments for it. So, long explanation of why I don’t do much moderating of name-calling of any political candidates.

Now, interesting, on my first page of google hits for what I was looking for, I got a really interesting discussion of “repugnance”. It’s a human reaction, deep in that DNA stuff we have. The article discusses Jonathan Haidt’s work on “disgust”. It was raised up to the level of “wisdom” as a recognition that our “gut” reactions hold some sort of collective, deep time, knowledge. It seems a little lazy to me, something to use in the absence of a rational case.

The criticism section is longer than the definition, so I won’t bring anymore of it into this post. For me, I get it, a “gut check” is a real thing, but so is science. But then, our emotions are part of science.

Wisdom of repugnance - Wikipedia

1 Like

This is more the words I was looking for. Maybe, on a good day, I could have come up with them myself. I’m quoting Bing AI.

The term “repugnant” itself is not an ad hominem fallacy. Instead, it refers to something that is incompatible or inconsistent1. However, an ad hominem attack occurs when someone attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of a person making an argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. For example, if person “A” makes a factual claim, and person “B” asserts that “A” has a personal trait or quality that is repugnant, thereby going off-topic, it would be an ad hominem fallacy1. In such cases, the focus shifts away from the argument, and the discussion becomes about the person rather than the issue at hand. So, while “repugnant” itself is not an ad hominem, it can be used in such fallacious attacks.

Can CFI be driven by political propaganda to push what is thought to be progressive ideas? I use to think the list of 300 people who controlled the data we receive was total BS and was the definition of a conspiracy theory. That was until researching the root of why and how it came about.

After Obama was elected, the list was cleaned from the internet. It never existed. The data systems advanced faster than what the government could keep up with. There was a time when I could take a CIA agent that was operating a accounting firm and easily connect it to other business controlled by or working with the CIA or other government agencies. I could research that agent and google to view the places of business, which changed about every two years. Which has changed over the years from addresses with chain link fences, razor wire, and military guard shacks to blend in with offices in business centers.

Point being. What are the common factors to be able to fully discuses issues like what makes the idea communication site. My point of view is it is mostly about the people.

I can give examples with more details if you need. I don’t believe our media system was built on malice. It came from the military because after WWI a German officer came to America and bought newspapers and radio stations. Built German American society originations and got the laws pasted that stopped America from entering any new wars in Europe. Thus, we could not enter WWII and had to create the Lend-Lease Act of 1941. My research interest in this was the American German Gold Bonds that were never paid. Which paid for the German takeover of part of our media system.

Point being. The NPR controls the sociological thinking to keep American viewpoints from making laws in DC. The NPR is not much of a force in America today. The fact that you’re a daily listener brings up a few questions in itself.

Point being. The agencies including the NPR have become political and the people are aware.

What is amazing is the amount of Media control that has been preformed in the open. If someone like me for example brings up an issue. Then a agent would just jump on board and guide it to be a nutty conspiracy theory. For example, one CIA agent got awards from four different presidents for losing millions of dollars from the companies he sat on the board of director of. Lost the money in South and Central America to stop the expansion of elections of communist party officials. You can’t get any more open than that. But you will never hear it debated. Why is that? The US has been controlling and breaking international treaties for decades. Not one word of that in Ukraine. What have we broke, seven treaties now? Why are we creating and backing a dictator? What the hell is wrong with our media and debate platforms? The same issues over and over again for decades.

Point being - there is truck loads of data waiting to be debated. And thousands of people wanting to debate the issues. There is no better example of the Deep and Dark State than what has been going on with Ukraine and Covid. Over 10M people killed and the goal seems to be on figuring out how to blame it on Trump.

Point being. Is progressive bad or good, or just a political tool.

This doesn’t belong in this thread.

I am trying to bring up the Trolling issue. Trolling is (fill in the blank). To solve issues, I have found it best to understand how it grew to become an issue. I am not bashing or insulting CFI. Just bringing up the point that Trolling is an American grown and happened long before computers and internet. I feel the biggest trolling is being taken place by governments. The 50-centers in China are the biggest operation so far.
I thought I made the issue plain to understand. Trolling seems to follow tasks. Other than jerks just killing time. Here it seems to be mostly political and religious. To stop trolling. Make required responses. For example. I was getting trolled on a political issue. I called the issue and ask the viewpoint if the troller still believed the laptop was Russian election propaganda. Never get answers from trollers. The same with Climate Change. Ask a direct question and a troll will never give a direct answer. Religion has been the one subject that gets direct answers.
If you get trolled by Climate Change, Covid, Inflation, and political issues. That’s most of the market.

Read the old part of this thread, the beginning. SummyJim is evading the reason for starting the discussion. I make a long form answer to the fact that NO ONE IS EVER REQUIRED TO ANSWER ANYTHING. Moderation is not involved in determining a good answer, only that it is somewhat on topic and not a violation of the rules.

And you are the pot calling the kettle black.

I called Trump repugnant and that is not ad hominem. That’s truth.

1 Like

Trolling is in the rules.

3 e. “Trolling” is not allowed. This includes posting derogatory or inflammatory messages with the intent to bait an overheated response, as well as behavior that in the Moderators’ judgement is gratuitously argumentative, combative, or inflammatory with the apparent intent to prolong debate for its own sake rather than promote, defend, or critique a particular idea or point of view.

I was a little quick with that. Then I tried to make a discussion. That did not go well.

1 Like

There is a fine line… :innocent:

I understand. And it wouldn’t be realistic for me to expect everything to be moderated. Without doing a study, I think that it’s pretty common on most political forums, whether they are on the Internet or in real life. :wink:

Nothing wrong with that. If you find a policy is repugnant. I was referring assigning labels (name-calling) to one group of people, or individuals who identify with a particular group. Some Republicans have served in the military, are doctors or nurses, or relatives (loved ones). Some are victims of misinformation after being exposed for years to the narratives put out by main stream media, corporations that employ unethical practices, government officials, etc. Some may change their mind! And some don’t even support Trump! I’ve seen some Republicans speak against Trump on CNN and NewsNation, for example. Oh… here’s a list List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

I think when labeling is used, it prevents dialog and even the possibility of finding common ground. It’s already difficult enough to find compromises, or to really understand why a person has a belief they do, but when the conversation can’t even start because absolute disrespect and prejudice is shown, that completely eliminates any change of even starting a converstation, and thus, division, anger, and hatred are maintained in perpetuity.

An interesting paper I found:

A couple other interesting items:

A recent news article:
Bipartisan group of senators targets deepfake revenge porn with new legislation

1 Like


Yeah… it’s constructive to talk about the policies people stand for. When that happens, and all the labeling dissolves away, is only when you can truly the discover the exact divisions and hopefully find common ground to work with. Imagine a forum with all liberals, or one with all conservatives… if they spent most of the time discussing specific policies, or aspects to policies they didn’t like, anyone could read them and get a more accurate view of positions. Sometimes the ideological gap between parties is not as wide as commonly believed.

Of course expressing anger about a policy is not always a bad thing. Anger is a natural human emotion. But when it leads to gridlock and perpetual anger, then it doesn’t help anyone. Sometimes compassion is more useful. Think of Mr. Trump. One might imagine what kind of abuse he was exposed to in his life that caused him to have some of the beliefs he has that we disagree with, or to behave in ways that could be harmful to other people. If we think of that, then we might focus on societal changes that could better serve children, improving what children are taught in schools, improvements to the mental health care system, how better to teach children and adults how to respect members of the opposite sex, the same sex, anyone who you might encounter, and why that’s important.

Then we might also think about what in our society causes people to believe what he says. Why aren’t critical thinking skills taught in grade school? (Maybe it was to some, but I don’t remember being taught them, and I didn’t go to college where they’re more likely to be taught) Does the establishment prefer to have citizens that are more likely to believe what they are told? And would it lead to a more healthy democracy and society if they were taught ?

I should note to any people reading this who might be Trump supporters that I don’t believe he’s pure evil, and I particularly remember in the early days of his presidency where he signed some executive orders to help veterans, and his speech when Steve Scalise was shot I thought was good… even CNN reported that he sounded “Presidential”.

Then you better read up on Trump’s biography.

Trump the ‘Bully’: How Childhood & Military School Shaped the Future President

From a very young age, Donald Trump was taught there were only two kinds of people in this world: winners — or “killers” — and losers.

more … Trump the 'Bully': How Childhood & Military School Shaped the Future President | FRONTLINE

1 Like

Does that explain his large donations to the democrats early on??

Issues and Complaints are supposed to be a place where one member has an issue and the moderators respond to it. I let this thread go because it was a good discussion. But now it’s infected with Trump and anti-Trump. If someone starts a new thread about trolling, and wants to discuss trolling and NOT POLITICS. Then I will allow it.

Anyone bringing politics into the Issues and Complaints thread will be considered in violation of the rules.

“Site Feedback” is probably a better section anyway.