This also applies to "trolls" and bullying on the internet. The method "Do not feed the trolls" seems (to me) to fail most of the time. And I tend to believe it fails mostly because the definition of "troll" is ambiguous and vague. People abuse the term all the time. Most of the so-called trolls I've met are actually authentic contributors who simply don't know how to get along with the people/fora they contribute to. Those who perpetrate and tolerate the false positives have, to me, a weaker moral foundation than the troll. To boot, in the case of an actual troll, it's universally the yahoos who insist on yelling about the troll who are more at fault for the degradation in quality content than the troll.
Bullying is similar. Those who bully are one bogey, but they're a well known one. Everyone's experienced bullying at some point, I think. But the people who _refuse_ to speak out against the bully are, again, on a weaker moral foundation than the bully. Hell, many bullies may not even know they're bullies and all they need to hear is "back off" from someone in the their clique. Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/15/2012 02:24 PM: > Respecting a person's right to believe in a cause that clearly resonates is > one thing. Tolerating irrational, abusive, and amoral actions performed in > the name of those causes itself comprises an amoral act. > > Just because people have the right to believe in whatever value set appeals > to them does not mean that they are not sometimes due criticism. To hide > behind the veil of "tolerance" in the face of clearly amoral (or perhaps > just plain stupid) behavior is to allow these anti-social behaviors to > spread like the cancer they are. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
