ate: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:14:12 -0400
From: Cryptik
Subject: Re: Ben’s Anonymous follow up
“However, Cryptic, I must say, such noble protections do not apply to the sort of things we see from you. Certainly, your opinions are reasoned, and indeed backed up with facts (such as the recent smart meter post). They’re not even particularly “unpopular” opinions. But, they’re consistently set forth with snark, bile, and gratuitous nastiness. To me, this is the very definition of trolling, and I certainly understand why you wouldn’t want your customers knowing you were behind them.”
No, you’re too sensitive, particularly to the fact that my response was a challenge to YOUR idea that “we should ban these anonymous people [so I know who to dislike in real life and punish]” (bracketed text = the unspoken implications motivating your position). Consider for a moment that your “snark, bile, etc.” assessment is your own perception, and an intentional distraction from what is being spoken so that you don’t have to admit you might be wrong. This pattern is a constant: if someone says something that someone else doesn’t like, they feel this desperate need to “defend their position” even if their position is no longer defensible. This sometimes starts with attempts to respond logically, but tends to devolve into attacking the person (ad hominem) rather than the points; often, this is combined with straw man arguments (“You are wrong about this thing not related to the points being discussed, therefore you’re wrong about the points being discussed!”), and in the worst-case scenario the end game is childish name-calling, as in “you’re a jerk!” It’s unfortunate that you managed to scale the entirety of conversational devolution in one post.
Calling my posts snarky and full of bile is an attack on presentation, which is an irrelevant distraction. Text carries no intonation, so the reader is responsible for reading natural language intonation into that text, derived presumably from its context. Perhaps, for example, you envision me speaking in a loud, rude, rapid tone of voice, shouting down others with my dialogue so that they can’t get a word in edgewise. In such a case, the problem is how you chose to interpret the words.
I don’t try to be egregiously offensive; whether I succeed in that anyway is highly subjective, and the people I call out often respond to my declaration that they are wrong with a defensive posture. Indeed, that is human nature, and it’s difficult to NOT feel like you have to do it. I don’t begrudge you your human nature, and I don’t think less of you as a person for your opinions or for calling me a jerk online, however indirectly. If I ever met you in person, you’d likely hear a different tune from my presentation…so long as you don’t want to talk about smart meters and anonymity online, of course 😉
I’d also like to point out that PSEUDONYMITY is not the same as ANONYMITY. I write my thoughts under a consistent pseudonym; few know the human who maps to it, but there are many years of Chatlist archives in which this email address appears, and my pseudonym is tied to that entire body of posts. It may not be a “real name” but it is nowhere near the same as an anonymous writer’s temporary handle. Some pseudonyms come to carry the weight of a real name; see “Nabooko” for a real life Chatlist example…or Cryptik, perhaps! I don’t attempt to conceal my pseudonymous identity, and I’m sure people prejudge this name as much as they do real names.
The bottom line is what it always was: I want what I say to be CONSIDERED (not taken as gospel) and for readers to change their opinions if they find that what I’m saying is indeed correct. The only difference between “Cryptik” and “Ben” is that I am more protected against harassment for being a voice of dissent than a “Ben” would be. Those who want my real name only want to know who to find some way to punish for saying they’re wrong. Dress it up however you want, that’s the only ultimate reason to demand that I use my real name or not post at all.
As for trolling…Ben, you seem to not understand what trolling is. Having a points-based discussion (sometimes with references or even a stroke of emotional excitement) is not trolling. “I certainly understand why you wouldn’t want your customers knowing you were behind them” is trolling, though on a low level. What is a troll? “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” I’m not trolling; I ain’t even mad! =D
Cryptik avec un pommes des terre
Internet troll extraordinaire, PLLC, DVD, HDTV, BS in BS from BSU
Currently on hiatus for Chatlist subscribers only 😉