watch the alt right playbook. bad faith actors try to “win” arguments by always being the last to post. if you realize you’re in a conversation with a troll you have to make a concerted effort to ensure its clear your lack of a response to their final message was due to a set of terms you set and clarify that they are acting in bad faith. you will look like a loser to a set of people the troll is trying to influence, but you will reduce the damage compared to if you simply don’t respond back.
however, i do think the poster you’ve replied to has made a mistake if they already think this is a bad faith actor rather than an honest to goodness human being they disagree with in that the number one rule is to not engage at all. i will however give the credit that saying “keep it on the topic at hand” does give the threadstarter an opportunity to discuss this reasonably rather than just assume they’re a troll. overall, i would give this trategy a 7/10. i respect it, but i don’t think i’d try it myself
Thanks for elaborating. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just say “don’t even reply, as I will not read it anyways, as I have blocked you”?
And how does this strategy make them any different, compared to the ones you call bad faith actors?
Someone will be the last poster, you cannot avoid this. I understand how the strategy of having the final word works. I just would like to understand what to do against that strategy properly.
too long; don’t read: @Quill7513@slrpnk.net goes on a long in depth explainer on alt right strategies, avoiding having them toll your mental health, and how to make more effective pro-peace propaganda online.
you really have to go point by point summarizing the conversation once you’ve gotten into a bad faith argument. it’s just the best known strategy for reducing the number of observers who think the bad faith actor “won.” the people who think they won were never going to be won over anyway. and yeah, in that disengaging post you have to say “i am blocking now” just like you’re saying so it’s clear to later observers that it was a conscious decision and not just taking your ball home.
but the number one rule of bad faith actors is that when you see one that you think is a bad faith actor, don’t engage. there’s levels of this, too. i take hiatuses from lemmy when the prevailing conversations are unproductive. generally speaking, i think lemmy only works on a confirmation bias. no one’s really changing their minds from any conversations they have here. more and more i think that can only happen with direct one on one verbal conversations. sure, i think people here can adjust their views a little, but their basic political views are remaining the same based on this platform.
however, i do think that lemmy has a significant value as a presence platform. what i mean by that is that effective propaganda has two components: one is presence, the other is verbal confirmation. i’ve come back here up to this point based on the idea that if i want my views that genocide is wrong, all imperial states are evil, and that we of this world are all of one international human identity despite our superficial differences of nationality people have to be being presented those views in places they are. if i abandon lemmy and assume my messaging has no value here, my propaganda has less reach. but when i have the mental energy for it i post here and try to have faith that someone else out there is doing the verbal confirmation part
i do what i can to lower the temperature. i’m being particularly careful right now because some comments i made recently about how to resist a genocidal occupation were interpreted as being pro-genocide, which horrifies me to my core.
watch the alt right playbook. bad faith actors try to “win” arguments by always being the last to post. if you realize you’re in a conversation with a troll you have to make a concerted effort to ensure its clear your lack of a response to their final message was due to a set of terms you set and clarify that they are acting in bad faith. you will look like a loser to a set of people the troll is trying to influence, but you will reduce the damage compared to if you simply don’t respond back.
however, i do think the poster you’ve replied to has made a mistake if they already think this is a bad faith actor rather than an honest to goodness human being they disagree with in that the number one rule is to not engage at all. i will however give the credit that saying “keep it on the topic at hand” does give the threadstarter an opportunity to discuss this reasonably rather than just assume they’re a troll. overall, i would give this trategy a 7/10. i respect it, but i don’t think i’d try it myself
Thanks for elaborating. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just say “don’t even reply, as I will not read it anyways, as I have blocked you”? And how does this strategy make them any different, compared to the ones you call bad faith actors?
Someone will be the last poster, you cannot avoid this. I understand how the strategy of having the final word works. I just would like to understand what to do against that strategy properly.
too long; don’t read: @Quill7513@slrpnk.net goes on a long in depth explainer on alt right strategies, avoiding having them toll your mental health, and how to make more effective pro-peace propaganda online.
you really have to go point by point summarizing the conversation once you’ve gotten into a bad faith argument. it’s just the best known strategy for reducing the number of observers who think the bad faith actor “won.” the people who think they won were never going to be won over anyway. and yeah, in that disengaging post you have to say “i am blocking now” just like you’re saying so it’s clear to later observers that it was a conscious decision and not just taking your ball home.
but the number one rule of bad faith actors is that when you see one that you think is a bad faith actor, don’t engage. there’s levels of this, too. i take hiatuses from lemmy when the prevailing conversations are unproductive. generally speaking, i think lemmy only works on a confirmation bias. no one’s really changing their minds from any conversations they have here. more and more i think that can only happen with direct one on one verbal conversations. sure, i think people here can adjust their views a little, but their basic political views are remaining the same based on this platform.
however, i do think that lemmy has a significant value as a presence platform. what i mean by that is that effective propaganda has two components: one is presence, the other is verbal confirmation. i’ve come back here up to this point based on the idea that if i want my views that genocide is wrong, all imperial states are evil, and that we of this world are all of one international human identity despite our superficial differences of nationality people have to be being presented those views in places they are. if i abandon lemmy and assume my messaging has no value here, my propaganda has less reach. but when i have the mental energy for it i post here and try to have faith that someone else out there is doing the verbal confirmation part
I really appreciate the time and effort you put into this. Thank you a lot.
i do what i can to lower the temperature. i’m being particularly careful right now because some comments i made recently about how to resist a genocidal occupation were interpreted as being pro-genocide, which horrifies me to my core.