Cannibal Trolls and Omphalos Stones by McWilliams Thomas

Author:McWilliams, Thomas
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: UNKNOWN
Published: 2020-02-05T16:00:00+00:00

“Claim, no evidence on display nor offered, someone still doesn’t know that every new claim also requires support, and despite plenty of opportunities to learn proper standards.”

“You’re a dumb ass!”

“You already tried calling me names when you couldn’t keep up. It made you look stupid the first three times. Why don’t you try presenting evidence this time? It’s the one thing you haven’t tried.”

The repetition means that they can’t claim ignorance of the information about how to proceed, and telling them of their circling is how they know that you know that they know that you know that even they know they have no way to turn rhetorical bullshit into a valid premise.

Smug-bombing Lots of folks don’t mean to troll, but do attempt to use a smug attitude to assert a level of confidence and authority that they shouldn’t feel and don’t have. When someone tries to use smug as an argument, feel free to give them back 10x as much smug after refuting them. But make sure you lead with the refutation.

Being smug while​correct is fine. Being smug instead of ​correct is trolling, and making sure your corrections are way too smug for their ego will help them realize why smug isn’t an argument, and isn’t helping them.

“Your claim, your burden. Did you really not know that because you’re stupid about debate?”

Stacking conclusions Many trolls try to overwhelm people with piles of claims and accusations that nobody wants to take the time to refute in detail. When some troll starts fight-seeking it can often disperse the crowd, and if they stack up multiple accusations, lots of people just let it go because even if you prove them wrong, they don’t care, don’t change, don’t stop.

One way to turn that around is to cram lots of conclusions into a single sentence, in a connected chain of claim-evidence steps so that the troll has to write out the argument in parts to start trying to refute it. Narcissists and other Cluster B types have a hard time with narrative-jamming, and trolls are often that type.

“Oh, you went into denial about the conclusion instead of answering the evidence because your seduction by the master/slave system made you like being wrong and looking stupid? Good luck with that!”

Similarly, you can draw the inescapable chain of inferences out into a pile of statements, not a single one of which seems like the real point. “You didn’t follow up on your chance to present evidence against Stockard Channing because you don’t have any evidence. And you don’t have any evidence because you couldn’t find any. And the reason you couldn’t find any is because there isn’t any. And the reason there isn’t any is because what you’d said … was wrong.”

To begin refuting that kind of thing requires extracting it from the rhetoric and then dealing with every premise along the way. Most trolls are poking things with sticks, not really trying to have a discussion, and that answer to their game will leave many exhausted.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.