Managing Trolls

Theodor Kittlesen – Public Domain

Following up on my two previous posts about internet trolls, For the Love of Trolls and Trolls Observed, we’ll now have one on managing trolls. In the first post I facetiously talked about how useful they are, and asked them to join us. No bites. In the second I pointed at some studies of the psychology of trolls, concluding that they’re harmful and need to be managed. Still no bites. They’re obviously afraid of us.-) In this post I’ll point at some suggested ways of managing trolls.

First we need to identify them. For personal use we can refer to the Urban Dictionary definition: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. In those cases, once identified they can be ignored or banned or dealt with in one of the ways listed below. The problem gets worse in the non-personal cases.

In big arenas like Facebook and Twitter, the problem can become overwhelming, particularly since not everyone can identify a troll, much less know how to handle it. There are people who are vulnerable to trolling and bullying, and they need help. Those big companies, and others, are trying to use computers and algorithms to flag potential trolls and assist the human moderators in dealing with them. Sometimes it is enough to let them know that you’re on to them to tone down their behavior. Another approach is to have an algorithm parse a message before it is sent, and ask the sender to reconsider if it looks bad. A useful tactic is to involve other users in identifying and censuring trolls to overcome the tendency to be apathetic about things that don’t seem to involve them. See this BBC article, and this Webroot one.

Here’s a list of things you can try once you’ve identified a troll.

Remember that the troll is the one with the problem, not you. Don’t let him make his problem your problem.

Refuse to take it personally. It’s about them, not you.

Don’t argue with them. That’s their home field advantage.

Don’t respond in kind. It will only make you look as bad as them.

Don’t engage the troll directly. Calmly point out his behavior to others.

If you get sucked in before you realize it, try to make light of it.

If they won’t stop, ignore them. Talk around them. Let their best efforts disappear without a ripple.

If it gets bad, report them to someone who can do something about it. In some cases, banishment is the best option.

So that’s managing trolls. Identify and nullify. We must be doing a great job here on Green Comet, because we don’t have any.-)

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Creationism Invades Europe

I thought Europe was our bastion of rationality. Our mature cousin who could be counted on to buffer the immature enthusiasms we’re prone to on this side of the Atlantic. Now I’m not so sure. If this article is to be believed, our European cousins are just as susceptible as we are.

An antiscience movement once limited mostly to the U.S. is gaining ground on the eastern side of the Atlantic

It’s following the same path it took over here. Although forewarned, European journalists are apparently not forearmed. They’re falling for the same tricks over there as ours did over here. They frame it as a conflict between science and religion. They fall for the false dichotomy of evolution versus creation, lured by a nice, simple, easily-headlined conflict. And they accept the false premise of a balanced debate.

Some investigative journalists tried to make sense of what was happening and figure out who these creationists were. Most, they found, were just reiterating the old science versus religion theme—evolution against creation, with Darwin in one corner and God in the other, waiting to go the next round at the sound of the bell.

If it follows the path we followed over here, soon they’ll have their schools teaching creationism in science classes, so their students can get a “balanced” picture of the two “belief systems.” I’m sorry Europe. We should have tried harder to warn you. I guess we just didn’t think it could happen there.

Check out the article.

Source: Creationism Invades Europe – Scientific American

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Aquatic Ape – Attacked Again

David Attenborough’s latest BBC documentary indulges wishful thinking over evidence.

Internet magazine, The Conversation, has published an article by authors Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin entitled “Sorry David Attenborough, we didn’t evolve from ‘aquatic apes’ — here’s why.” They begin by claiming that the Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) suggests that a whole raft of our biological features stem from an aquatic phase in our evolution. Then they go on to imply that the “hypothesis” says that everything about those features could only have come about due to time spent in the water. Once they have set up this implausible falsehood, they proceed to cherry-pick it apart, beginning with the fact that the “hypothesis” had its beginnings a long time ago, and we’ve learned a lot since. They imply that the AAT is the plaything of fuzzy-thinking amateurs, while they represent clear-headed professionalism. In other words, it’s the same old thing all over again, only from a new generation of Savanna apologists.

Like their predecessors, they portray the AAT as an unscientific Just So Story, and say that all of the anatomical features can just as easily be attributed to other hypotheses. We’re left to presume that these other hypotheses are not Just So Stories, but Real Science. They run through all their Straw Men, showing that there are plausible explanations for all of them, thus implying that the Aquatic Ape explanations are not plausible. Then they accuse the proponents of the AAT of trying to use it to explain everything. That’s a typical ploy. You ask your opponent to support their argument, then when they’ve done so, you accuse them of overdoing it. It’s very handy. Either they don’t have enough, or they have too much. You simply ignore the sweet spot in between, all the while highlighting the weaker arguments and ignoring the stronger ones.

Their conclusion is nothing more than a reiteration of their opinions and beliefs. There’s nothing new here. It’s just the same old thing dressed up in new clothes. They say they’re making use of new knowledge and new ideas, but it’s obvious they’ve restricted themselves to those they agree with.

See for yourself.

Source: Sorry David Attenborough, we didn’t evolve from ‘aquatic apes’ – here’s why

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments