Your wish … yada yada yada …
2 Likes
For those in Canada this link will work: http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheColbertReport?vid=475173
I think that sort of advice is really only applicable to small group trolls. You know, somebody goes into a marine conservationist forum and complains that they got a ticket because for some reason their fishing license doesn’t apply to dolphins. Or maybe somebody goes into a comic board and claims DC is better than Marvel (kidding!) In those types of situations, yes, ignoring the troll may help, the group is small enough that they can agree to ignore the troll and he eventually gives up or at least becomes nothing more than a mild annoyance.
But when a situation gets too big, like GamerGate has, it BECOMES a broader social issue. There are too many people involved, too many trolls, and even a small number of the non-trolls “not ignoring the issue” is enough to feed them and keep it going. I think I read the point from someone on BB first (though of course I’m paraphrasing): If your proposed solution to the problem is that everybody in the world just not get upset when people deliberately try to upset them, you’re suggesting a vast, probably hopeless collective undertaking to get people to modify their behavior in a way that goes against human nature. And if you’re going to do embark on one of THOSE, why not aim it towards ending the behavior of the trolls in the first place, instead of getting people to ignore them? Then we’d have a troll free world instead of a world of trolls and people trying desperately to pretend they’re not bothered.
5 Likes
I think that what people might be missing is that “ignoring” is being used as something of an oversimplification. It seems to me that most participants in this discussion are, by this, not advocating being ignorant of a real problem. But rather a suggesting means of critically distancing oneself from the practice as a controlled reaction which robs these provocations of any perceived legitimacy. For example, if I say “I have been threatened”, I acknowledge somebody’s actions that a performative social or verbal violence has been committed against myself. Denying them this act by dismissing it as “an impotent gesture” or “attempt at inflammatory speech” can be empowering to the person in question, removing what could be considered by some as a reflexive victory by the aggressor. Sure, we could say that the difference is merely a semantic one. But when it comes to framing this problem for oneself or larger discourse, I think that this should not be overlooked. It can be used as part of a larger empowering strategy of refusal to be victimized, and refusal to be intimidated.
This need not be a rhetorical trick to save face, but I think it is also a reasoned reaction to an aggressors blustery, unconvincing arguments.
Did you see that that was already explained to me? Thanks though.
Yes, thank you! I get really fucking frsutrated with this idea that these are “just” trolls that merely need to be ignored. “Just” trolls don’t send bomb threats. @MBD and indeed, I consider this yet another derail and silencing tactic (even though I know that wasn’t exactly your intention and you were just sharing information, but my response remains: So fucking what?).
1 Like
So you want women who have been threatened to deny that they have been threatened (by not acknowledging the threat)? Is that what you’re saying?
I suggest you read some other responses, including the one I responded to before this. THESE ARE NOT MERE trollies and this is just more derailing and silencing and borders on victim-blaming (well, maybe if you’d just ignored “the trolley” you wouldn’t have received that death threat!).
but I think it is also a reasoned reaction to an aggressors blustery, unconvincing arguments.
So you wish women to have “reasoned reactions” to death, rape and bomb threats? Ugh. This is why I hate this topic of “ignore the trollies, and here’s why, just be more reasonable than the trollies even when you’re being threatened with death and rape!” Oh and once again, this isn’t about trollies. It’s not like only trollies are the ones harassing, nor is it easy to pinpoint who is a trolley (again, what about CaptianPoop?), as I keep mentioning over and over and over and over…
It can be used as part of a larger empowering strategy of refusal to be victimized, and refusal to be intimidated.
And this right here is blatant victim-blaming and missing the point.
Oh man, heaven forbid women feel victimized and intimidated when they are being hurled death and rape threats left and right everywhere they go on the internet (it sometimes feels like). Is your suggestion that women just shut up and take it? That ultimately means women aren’t welcome in spaces … but trollies ARE welcome in those spaces. How is that fixing anything?
Again: We respond to this shit because we have to. And I"m still not convinced “thwarting” the trollies does any good for the larger problem of sexism and misogyny. Except, of course, give “trollies” and others free reign to speak without consequence!
3 Likes
By maintaining silence, many assume that their heroes / idols support or condone their position. See this prior coverage.
An important outcome of calling out trollies or sea-lions is to directly confront their assumptions that they are part of some silent moral majority.
6 Likes
No, I did not say that I wanted anybody to do anything. I said that people were - deliberately or not - oversimplifying what “ignoring” might involve. Honestly, it’s not even a good word for this, but it is part of the dialog.
No. Do you “wish” that people would deliberately be unreasonable when threatened? How would this help anybody? Threats are considered violence by means of performative speech. In other words, a threat can be construed as not only an intimation of further trouble, but also a violent act itself. Not unlike deflecting a physical blow aimed at oneself, instead of agreeing to let somebody strike you - the verbal “blow” of speech which is intended to be harmful can be blocked and deflected away, preventing it from hitting its intended target. In self-defence, ignoring a blow and blocking it are certainly not the same thing.
The idea of defending yourself need not inspire outrage, and assumptions of lacking empathy. I recognize that a person should not need to defend themselves in a civil society. This is part of why the mission of feminism is so crucial. Addressing and giving exposure to sexist attitudes, especially latent ones, and other inequities are what confront the cause of the incivility. But this does not mean that an individual woman should avoid defending herself when confronted with reactionary symptoms of those same attitudes. It is all the more reason why people who strive for a more just society should benefit from strategies allowing them to cope with the difficulties which can occur.
If this is missing the point would be unfortunate, and I would hope to understand. The way I see it “blaming a victim” and “refusing to be a victim” are two very different positions. As I had mentioned before, it might only be a semantic difference, a subjective framing between the same event happening, and whether one feels victimized by it or not. And either way, this should not trivialize the matter. But I think it is worth remembering that feminism is, in many ways, despite more popular acceptance, still a revolutionary movement. The reason why these shock waves, these frissons are happening is because the movement is successful. Of course it is easy to say that the masses should not fear change that is just, but it should not be surprising to encounter resistance.
Well, there are a few ways to interpret this. Speaking out is never without consequence. But these trollies are the ones who are more likely to suffer the consequences of their short-sighted behavior, rather than cultural consequences of bringing about any meaningful change in society.
#notallcommentators
So, you have never done such a thing, so why should Jorpha be complaining about it. Any posting of derogatory pictures was likely done by a rogue element and should be handled by internal policing and not distract us from the issue at hand.
Which is… Stephen Colbert?
I don’t like quoting people. SHRUG.
@Jorpho and everybody else who keeps saying “ignore the trollies” - you should read this article by Cathy Sierra (remember her? The woman who was the target of a full-court-press by Weev* because … she came out for comment moderation? !!!).
It’s problematic. In some situations, ignoring people is the answer – petulant 4-year-olds, non-violent sufferers of erotomania** – but you can’t ignore a potentially violent person, a stalker, or masses of people who issue death threats that are attached to your kids pictures and home address.
* Not a first-name-thing. It’s his nome-de-net. Or something. handle. IDK.
** I had one such charming encounter that went on for years. I was living at home at the time, and eventually I figured out to never speak with her on the phone; it took my parents another year of looong conversations with her to get them to hang up immediately. She was nuts (non-clinical observation - however, she thought I was an angel and/or Jesus Christ depending upon the day, and left nearly-hour-long answering messages on a regular basis) and lived on another continent (where I had lived briefly and taught her daughter English). Yet I feared she would show up in person for several years afterwards. In this case ignoring worked. As did moving and not having a listed number. And I was (am) a guy.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
