Disingenuous Rhetoric?
Disingenuous Trollcat
Yesterday's post defending free speech against Islamist terrorists received a puzzling, anonymous comment:
disingenous rhetoric is no less disingenuous accompanied by a veneer of (in no way unjustified) indignationThis comment was accompanied by an unlinked link - maybe too much trouble for the anonymous individual? I decided to help the person out:
Here's your link, properly linked.No response so far. But perhaps the implication was not about de Boer. Maybe the anonymous statement was directed at me.
And here's your statement, properly written: "Disingenuous rhetoric is no less disingenuous accompanied by a veneer of (in no way unjustified) indignation."
Perhaps you could unpack that for readers here. Are you implying that Fredrik de Boer is disingenuous?
If anonymous meant that I am the disingenuous one, then that's hardly the way to initiate a discussion - starting off with an ad hominem attack calling me a liar.
Such a conversation as that never makes any real progress, and if that's the game, I refuse to be drawn in.
Labels: Dark Humor, Freedom, Trolls
posted by Horace Jeffery Hodges @ 11:03 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
incredible. it's no more effort to copy-paste a URL into the browser bar than it is to parse a comment without capitalization. and there's no conversation to be had or started when the boundaries of any such conversation would be automatically drawn as "pro-murder" vs "pro-freedom", hence the importance of the noun "disingenuous" is modifying.
"[T]here's no conversation to be had or started."
We seem to agree. Let's leave it at that.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
so your position is indeed that one cannot in any way be critical of the way the atrocious attacks in paris are instrumentalized without endorsing the actions of murderers? a one cannot both be critical of the #jesuischarlie campaign and condemn Islamic terrorism? any reasonable reading of my comment could hardly conclude it claims there's no conversation to be had tout court.
Conversation between us would get nowhere since you began it by calling me disingenuous:
"disingenuous rhetoric is no less disingenuous accompanied by a veneer of (in no way unjustified) indignation."
I think you're an internet troll, and I have no interest in discussing anything with you.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
interesting how your focus on a perceived slight (what was called disingenuous was the rhetoric,, one's style of composition is hardly identical with one's own intentions) allows you to totally dodge the questions im raising. if i were trolling (as opposed to simply disagreeing with you) i would simply make some sort of ludicrous claim that the staff of charlie hebdo deserved to be killed, a claim i absolutely do not countenance and repudiate in the strongest possible terms.
State who you are by name, use proper grammar and punctuation, ask direct questions rather than insinuating ones, don't make any assumptions about what I think, be friendly instead of supercilious, and maybe I'll believe you're not a troll.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
as if my not being considered a troll by you would be some kind of victory for me? it's clear you're either unwilling or unable to actually engage the points raised in the de boer piece or the questions in the second comment (and those are very simple questions, with clear yes/no answers), preferring to cry "troll" as if it were some kind of magical invocation that banishes dissent (a usage of "troll" that evinces no understanding of what trolling actually is on the internet). you're welcome to the last word on this since we've gone for four comments and a post and i haven't seen a reply of genuine substance.
As if I owe some anonymous troll any answers . . .
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Here's a piece that talks sense without typos, run-ons, tortured syntax, or lapses in logic. Excerpt:
"One of the guests said there is a 'fine line' between free speech and offending people's sensitivities. My response was simple: the whole point of freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. This is the reason free speech is so ardently protected."
Only the truly obtuse fail to see this point.
You might want to consider holding comments for approval, Jeff, thus giving you the option of deleting something before it ever sees the light of day. Why give a troll the time of day? Trolls thrill to the sound of their own voice. Cut that off, and they've got nothing. And as I explained in my own comments policy, such cutting-off isn't censorship, as the troll still has other options—which he is usually too lazy or too cowardly to choose—such as starting his own blog (too lazy to do this: it's easier to be parasitic and inhabit pre-made comment threads) or emailing you directly (too cowardly to do this, as it would reveal too much personal information, thus forcing a troll to take responsibility for his words).
Thanks, Kevin, for the support and the advice. I actually thought of you and not only your method in dealing with trolls but also your fearlessness in expressing your views and your intelligence in defending what you think.
I'll probably keep my comments open. I never take trolls seriously, but I give them enough fishing line, baited and in motion, to lure them into taking the bait no matter how they choose to respond.
The weak point of all trolls is their certainty of their intellectual superiority. Let them expose themselves.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
"Now we've given them something else to shoot at."
—Captain Hikaru Sulu (George Takei), Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Shoot happens.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
The troll alludes to some interesting points, unfortunately buried under unwarranted sniping. The troll must not be a regular reader, or she'd know better than to provoke your dry wit.
Sonagi
Thanks, Sonagi. The troll was obviously intelligent, but lacked the decency not to insult me in his initial remark.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Pah. The dog barks, the caravan passes.
Yeah, he only hounded me for a short while.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Post a Comment
<< Home