Tuesday, December 27, 2011


Response to one Marinus:

"Troll" is second-gen internet speak for "Other."  Anyone who says unpopular things may be a "troll."  Had the internet existed prior to the American Civil War, abolitionists in the south would have been considered "trolls."  Slave-owners who debated them would have been unable to justify their way of life in the face of evidence of African-American humanity, intelligence and good character, ergo negroes had to remain nigger Others and abolitionists wacko Others.

Right now, it's popular to accept mass murder as long as a member of Party Y does it, because Party Z is so much (theoretically, if not actually) worse.  Therefore, this one must be Othered.

Having at hand a popular, readily-available slur to designate someone as worthless remains an effective way to avoid having to think about the points they make.  In the absence of a real name to use for shunning them, classifying them as a "troll" allows you to ignore anything they say and not have to address it.  This is why "third party wackos" do not often appear in the official American presidential debates.

Notice how, instead of paying any attention to what this one says, and therefore debating the issues of whether or not it is right to support Barack Obama's many murders in order to (theoretically) prevent a "Republican" from committing a greater number of murders, the discussion has shifted to whether or not this one is worth listening to.

Who needs issues when you have sound bytes?  God bless America.

All that said, Dr. Wolff wins a few human quality points for, despite having crossed the boundary of post-deletion, indicating that he is willing to at least let things go up so that his readership at large can ignore them.

Remember: the most effective form of thought control is not to send the stormtroopers directly in.  Eventually, even the most troglodytic will resist.  Instead, it is more effective and cost-efficient to allow every viewpoint out in the open, but use group consensus to stifle anything deviant as "unserious" or "uncivil."  Look how delightedly Marinus revels in ignorance.  Educated people would typically claim that it is "ignorant red-staters" who deliberately ignore the facts they don't like.  Here, though, Marinus is able to use more sophisticated language to state that he ignores things he doesn't like.  Shamelessly and publicly.  

The real insanity comes when the individual rationalizes this ignorance in the context of avoiding a discussion about why bombing women and children into rotted bolognese is acceptable.  As said before, God bless America.

No comments:

Post a Comment