Don’t be a Troll
A reminder (and a warning).
I will be blunt: I am tired of certain commenters who feel the need to insult rather than argue. I would name them here, but I get the impression that that would make them happy. Despite their protestations about the uselessness of the authors of this site, they clearly want us to pay attention to them.
Here’s the deal: we do this for free. It is an outlet and a hobby. It serves certain needs and uses, but there is nothing that requires this place to exist. We don’t need to have comment sections, nor is there any requirement to engage.
I engage because I enjoy it. And, yes, I actually think I have something to say. I know no one has to read it, let another engage me over it. I can live with the fact that comments can sometimes be annoying. I am self-aware enough to know that I, too, can be annoying.
This post is not about annoying.
I have no problem with disagreement.
I would honestly welcome a useful debate from a different perspective.
I understand that locking metaphorical horns with someone who disagrees with you can be cathartic.
BUT.
I do not enjoy sneering complaints and insults.
I see no need to constantly deal with people who can’t even be bothered to engage with the contents of the post.
I have tried to be patient.
I have tried, in some cases to point out that engagement is not happening.
In some cases over the years I have actively tried to help such people learn to engage.
I would note, as I have in the past, commenters are guests. I am not asking for deference, but I am at the end of putting up with rudeness and the derailing of conversation. Life is short and my time is valuable, at least to me.
SO.
Starting right now I will delete any comment that is rude or simply oppositional for the purpose of simply being oppositional.
Anything deemed derailing will be gone. Anything that hints of insult will be trashed.
And soon, commenters who can’t act like adults will be banned.
We provide a free and open space for anyone who can behave.
So. Behave.
Thank you.
Good. Since they always claim to dislike the posts and the other commenters, it’s the logical thing to do. Thanks muchly.
Two thumbs up.
And many thanks.
Yeah, I don’t think unmoderated discussions work at all. There’s always someone trying to stir things up.
I have tried – on a different platform – grabbing a post that I found offensive, repeating it with my own frame, and banning the perpetrator. It had the benefit that people could see what the offense was, specifically. That doesn’t work well on this platform, though. Banning can’t really stick.
Thanks for what you do and for trying to keep the signal-to-noise ratio as high as possible.
So much of what’s wrong with our politics and society in general these days is that, for whatever reason, things are not done in good faith.
Thank you.
Dr Taylor
I think there is an awful lot of discretion in that. Very grey. But may I say this. I apologize to you for my comment this morning using terms like “idiotic” or “unserious.” Unwarranted.
Politics gets emotional. I would only ask that you apply the same standard to the majority here who piss all over the very few here with alternative views. Its like being at the Alamo.
Do you want you blog to be an echo chamber, or a debate?
Looking for the button to upvote the OP.
@Jack: “Do you want you blog to be an echo chamber, or a debate?”
To paraphrase: A debate is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It’s not just contradiction. Debate is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
If you want me to go on debating, you’ll have to pay for another five minutes.
Thank you!
@Jack:
I think Steven explained his reasoning in his post. There are an increasing number of – to be objective about it – jerks who’ve recently taken to sh*t-posting on this site and throwing wild claims around (over and over and over again). That’s not debate – that’s just being disruptive and derailing threads, not to mention being delusional.
My personal choice would be a return of the Down-thumb icon so that if someone gets a huge number of down-votes their comment can be automatically deleted. I do remember a few years ago when that happened to Jenos. But then someone got all butt-hurt that he was getting so many down-votes and James removed it. I still think it was a bad decision.
Having written for an Australian blog with a sizeable readership back in the day when blogs were a thing, I applaud the post and the proposed action. There are certain commenters who hug themselves with glee every time they manage to attract responses to an offensive comment. The solution, recognised for at least 20 years, is to ignore them; certainly never reply to them, because any response at all makes them happy.
Inexplicably, some people are incapable of following this simple rule. Therefore the only way to have civil, focused discussions is to stop them interrupting.
@Jack: I appreciate, and accept, the apology.
All I want is this:
1. No personal attacks on post authors.
2. Actually engagement with the post.
3. If you want a debate, show your work.
And FWIW, I deleted one of Kathy’s comments the other day and have asked MR on more than one occasion to tone it down.
I don’t want to be the comment police, so if we could all just try and have a reasoned debate, that would be awesome.
You are correct, however, politics generates emotions and I get that.
And let me note, this is the first comment from you in recent memory that didn’t feel like a sneer. I point that out to perhaps give you an idea of how you tend to come across.
@Ken_L: I, myself, know that I respond sometimes when I shouldn’t.
@wr: You beat me to it.
Thank you Dr Taylor for doing this site and being my home for rational political discussions for the last fifteen years.
We will behave
@Steven L. Taylor: Thank you for all the work you (and the other principles) do on this site. I’ve said in the past, but don’t mention enough, how much I learn from your posts and the thoughtful way that you engage with comments.
Like many others here, I originally came to the site (probably also 15 years ago!) because I was looking for thoughtful posts from a more conservative position than I had so I could better understand that point of view. What surprised me is that I came to appreciate the comment section just as much. This is the only site where I read them. While the distance between my viewpoint and those of the front page authors has narrowed, so I don’t have my views challenged as much as they once were, I still value the free education that all of you provide. More often, now, the challenges come from commenters, so I am happy to read comments that have a distinct difference from my point of view and have tried, when I have time, to engage with them.
Over the last few weeks I have increasingly skipped the comments, or at least those that I would consider from trolls. As their frequency has increased I have spent less and less time in the comments section. That has meant missing out on value, but I do not enjoy seeing taunts or reading shit posts. I recognize that some posters, for example, are quite pleased with the election results (I am not), but what would be interesting would be to understand why they are pleased. Obviously they see value where I do not (as some have repeatedly stated) and I would very much like to know what I am missing. But insults and belittlement prevent me from taking the posts seriously, and also make it emotionally difficult to want to listen well. This is, perhaps, entirely my problem to “get over” my “snowflake” response. I will own that, and also say that if others really want someone to understand, and perhaps adopt, their position rather than simply amuse themselves, derogation is a very unproductive approach (and yes I condemn that approach regardless of who uses it, and include myself as I admit that I have not always self censored as well as I ought have).
So I am very grateful for the additional work you are putting in to provide moderation. I hope that this will encourage everyone to address the substance of the conversation in a way that at least allows all parties to understand how positions were arrived at, even if they think that process is flawed or comes to an incorrect conclusion.
@RyGuy: adios!
@wr: Stop hitting me in the head!
Thank you. This means a lot to me. I have been a wreck lately and I miss all of you. I will be back soon and knowing this means I’ll be back sooner.
@Jack: It is his site mate and it is a hobby, he will apply as he wishes.
He and Joyner have always been rather fair minded, they are the certain fraction of the commentariat who do indeed desire nothing but the self-affirming echo chamber.
@Not the IT Dept.: The down thumb icon works as a reinforcement of the rather strong tendency to close-minded cliquishness and a closed-ears sanctimony that has rather overtaken the US Left.
As you lot – the Democrats writ large, failed us all and now we have the disaster of Trump II, it is hardly an effect that should be reinforced – I should not care except for the real fear of Trump II leading to Trump III or mini-Trump and the damage you will inflict by ricochet on the world.
Joyner and Taylor are well-centred people if overly professorial (but that is them as I am I, so fair).
@Beth: So glad to see you here. We have missed you too.
@Lounsbury:
I’m not a Democrat, have never registered as one. I’m an Independent officially and if I’ve been forced to favor one particular party over the years it’s because they’re the only ones making sense. I disagree with your assessment of the down-vote icon as it was not used indiscriminately.
In recent months I’ve noticed a tendency on the part of sh*t posters who favor MAGA views to swarm substack and blog comment sections with repetitive and constant insulting “rebuttals”. Clearly OTB is one of those sites. Steps are being taken.
I appreciate the work that goes into moderation. I mean, you and James and Matt all have real lives that take important time to live. So your time to keep this site going is a gift. And we need to treat it that way. BTW, my personal approach to those who abuse the site is the same approach I use with certain members of my family. Rather than responding, I just look down and stay silent. I have found that is, at least in family settings, a far more noticeable and effective rebuke.
@Beth: Glad to see you Beth, I hope you are taking care of yourself. xo
@Beth: grateful to see you post this morning. I’ve been worried about you
@Beth: I am so happy you’re here with us again!
@Not the IT Dept.: Of course you disagree with the assessment. I am sure all the core commentariat of vintage since the right side readership melted away do. The lack of awareness is a given.
@Beth: woo-hoo, a Beth sighting! Sorry things are awful. I’ve missed you. Take care, hydrate, etc.
@Not the IT Dept.:
There is an awful lot of, your words, “shxt posting” here. Since the vast majority of commenters are left, I think you see the point.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I honestly don’t want to sneer. But if I could, imagine how one feels when a comment is made and the majority of commenters descend like a pack of hyaenas. It gets old. And the sneering, if that’s what it is, goes both ways.
I would also note, one man’s “facts” are another’s logic or misinformation errors. I am in a profession where vigorous debate – at times very emotional and heated – is simply part of the process. We can’t be wrong too often……or we are out of business. We have serious responsibilities to our clients; its not sport. Perhaps a reason for my, at least perceived, demeanor.
Anyway, last thought, it is a sincere apology. It should be self evident that I wouldn’t drop in here if I didn’t want to see what the left views are.
If a piece of information can be classified as misinformation, an error or train of logic, it is not a fact.
A fact is, by definition, a thing that is known or can be proved to be true.
Fact: Springfield is the capitol of Illinois.
Opinion: Chicago has the best pizza in Illinois.
Fact: Jimmy Carter is 100 years old.
Opinion: Jimmy Carter’s campaign in 1980 was poorly run.
We can believe in opinions with our whole hearts, but they are not facts.
@Tony W: Reminding me of a couple
You tell your cat to behave. If the cat could talk they’d say- “It is more fun to be bad.”
and
“Good girls go to heaven. Bad girls go everywhere.”
The word and insult police. Where were you when a commenter here used the word impotent towards me? It was insulting as was the attitude around here that it wasn’t wrongly said. Steve defended it- ‘I will note that long-time readers might note that he has a very hard time conceding even an inch when he gets in this mode and frequently see personal slights that aren’t intended.’ Bullshit. The commenter could have said powerless. I don’t take the use of impotent lightly. Words have meaning and impotent is insulting.
So it is not ok any longer to use that word towards other comments or are we powerless to change that policy/attitude/ etc?
@Jen:
You completely missed my point.
@Bill Jempty:
Is that directed at me, or Dr Taylor?
I’m not here all the time. And further, I’m sure you are an adult and can take care of yourself.
@Jack:
Jack,
It wasn’t directed at you. I disagree with you but we have almost never interacted. You’re not going to hear from me that you should be banned from the site. Some commenters, not James or Steve, have advocated just that. Intolerance for opposing viewpoints is quite common here.
@Bill Jempty: Holy shit, dude. This again? It was explained to you, over and over—in multiple comment discussions spanning weeks—that the word has meanings outside the context of the ability to achieve an erection and, indeed, was used in a context in which no reasonable person would have viewed it as an insult to your manhood.
@James Joyner:
The same reasonable persons who said I should run for President or gave me till 5 pm to name 5 Democrats who could replace Biden? Those comments are as reasonable sounding as the one on Wednesday that called you a liar.
@Jack: I don’t think that I did, but if that is the case, and you are genuinely looking for community participation, the next step is provide additional context.
Ages ago, part of my job was to basically train communications professionals on how to interact on blogs on behalf of companies. The first thing I advised was to read and lurk for months before wading in. The second was to err on the side of over-explaining, because it is so, so easy to take things out of context in writing.
Most blog commenting communities have a distinctive flow or set of mores. OTB is heavy on details, and showing work/providing sources. Short, punchy statements tend to escalate things.
@Jen:
I will take the “additional context” and “overexplaining” comments at face value.
But on this:
OTB is heavy on details, and showing work/providing sources.
Surely you jest. Details, work and sources means quoting Raw Story, Huff Post or Bulwark. Or perhaps the oh, so center CNN, ABC, NBC, NPR, Mother Jones……… Come on. I’ve never met a leftist who didn’t think they were center. Because all they read is left!
It may surprise some, but OTB is my first read of the morning. I want to see what the left is saying. Later, I tend to go to Hot Air (center right) or Just The News (just plain the news), or Glittering Eye (brutally analytical, and insightful, if authored by a staunch Dem) , and then Citizens Free Press, which is just an aggregator but with bias.
My far right read is Ace of Spades. I can’t stomach Raw Story or Huffpo or Bulwark. They are nuts. Notice, I have no use for, say, Breitbart.
I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect almost no commenters here read real right sources. They read sources who they think are right. I recently heard someone say they read Ntional Review, and I had to laugh. This isn’t a paid political announcement. You want some really balanced and sage political commentary? Go to Glittering Eye.
@Jack: I agree with you on Glittering Eye. I used to be a regular reader, but dropped off a while ago, I can’t even remember why. I do remember I was still a regular reader when he lost a dog to bloat.
I was still a regular Republican voter when I started reading this blog. I voted for McCain, and worked in both Republican party politics, and as a legislative aide for a conservative state Senator. I think the categorization of this as a lefty site is way overstated. While my opinions have changed, I am not a fundamentally different person than I was 20 years ago. The fact that both Dr. Joyner and Dr. Taylor have also shifted their viewpoints in a similar trajectory seems to indicate that there is a fundamental change going on.
@Not the IT Dept.:
I would argue hard that dissenting voices shouldn’t be deleted (mostly). Dissenting voices, not just flat-out denigrating. Even then, I’d tread lightly. Inchoate dissenting often manifests as name-calling. Sometimes there is there there. Not often.
Leave it up for everyone to see. I’d only think about deleting folks who got way too personal.
Leave the damning evidence up for all to see. I much prefer to see the evidence.
I remember Jenos. Yeah, there was no engagement to be had with them. It was just pure vitriol, always. Myself, I wouldn’t have banned, but I get why they did. I like letting people hang themselves by their comments.
Like, the Jake comment earlier up thread. I heartily disagree with most of how he characterized available political analysis and characterization, but Jake tried to make a salient point that often political analysis is partisan.
Folks like Jake and like that, may not be the best interlocutor, but I wouldn’t ban him and that ilk if it were my domain. Unless they went hard personal.
I’m a big believer in letting folks damn themselves by their own words.
Anyway, it’s our hosts’ call on that stuff.
@de stijl: We’re pretty tolerant of dissenting voices, especially if they’ve established themselves as contributing to the conversation first. The problem is that the trolls derail the conversation and refuse to engage with factual analysis. Because others inevitably respond to their trolling, the discussion devolves into targeting them rather than about the points raised in the OP.
Ultimately, the hosts are trying to raise issues and have thoughtful conversations about them. Steven and I have both been doing this for over two decades now and, as the evidence clearly shows, our thinking has evolved—sometimes a complete 180—as we’ve been forced to wrestle with contrary viewpoints and evidence. I’m just not interested in turning the place over to the trolls. They contribute little value and detract from the conversation.
@Jack: I would note that while I would argue that your definition of left/center/right could use some tweaking and that you seem to conflate news and commentary, I appreciate you engaging in conversation and at least explaining yourself. I truly do.
@de stijl: This my general instinct.
But I would note that someone like RyGuy simply refused to engage in any meaningful way.
There comes a point where it is just too distracting, too annoying, and utterly unpleasant that it is time to go.