Signs you are Dealing with an Online Troublemaker
This is a short blog telling you about a few things that online troublemakers do, and how to spot them in a conversation.
Please remember that not everyone who posts online sounding upset is a “troll”. They may have just had a bad day, and something someone said set them off.
Also just because someone calls someone else a “troll” does not necessarily make them one. Many times people will call other people “trolls” just because they disagreed with them. That is not right nor honest.
- Personal attacks
Many times, online troublemakers (e.g., trolls) will post a quick message with a personal attack in it. They usually will have little to no discussion about the topic at hand, and they will just seem to want to call people names and taunt people. Basically they will give pointless talk with little to no technical arguments.
Conclusion: If an online poster (in a comments section or forum) keeps “trash talking” (abusing) users, they are probably just out to cause trouble and nothing more. It is best to ignore such posters. As they say, “don’t feed the trolls”.
- Out of Context
You may find online troublemakers posting unrelated information.
For example, a discussion is going on about Windows and a fella comes on and starts saying how bad Windows is and how MacOS X is a much better choice.
This person is a troll. Why? He is posting irrelevant information that has a good chance of causing people to become agitated. While there is a chance that he is honestly posting information, it would be unlikely given the circumstance.
Conclusion: Posters who post off topic for no apparent reason usually have an agenda that is not in your (or anyone else’s) best interest.
- Fake Sincerity
These people are harder to spot. They usually come in the form of wanting to know more about a subject, but when you engage them in conversation, it starts to become apparent they already made up their mind on the subject, and for some reason wanted to debate it with you.
I think people who do this are trying to trick you into believing just like they do, without you realizing it.
Conclusion: These posters are definitely wasting your time playing dumb. They were not even open to an honest, mature conversion to begin with. Do not ask me why people do that, but it is dishonest.
- They have the “know-it-all” attitude
These posters like to post to show off their knowledge (as well as feed their ego). They really do not care if you learn anything from what they said (assuming they are correct to begin with).
They just like hearing themselves talk and they like thinking that everyone around them assumes they are smart.
Conclusion: If you see a post online that seems to go on and on with a hint of bad attitude, you have a clue that this person will not take criticisms of their posts lightly, and may even argue with you even if you have shown proof to disprove what they said.
- The “you are wrong!” kind of people
These people usually will reply to someone saying “Your spreading FUD“, “your an idiot”, “your stupid”, “you have some mistakes of what you said…”, etc. You get the idea. They typically will give little to no technical arguments. They basically just say you’re wrong without explaining why you are wrong.
In my opinion, whenever someone says “your wrong” but they cannot explain why, they don’t have any argument and just disliked what you said. That’s silly.
Posted in General, Internet and Servers, Society
Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them
Everyday people disagree about something. That is just a fact of life. However what a lot of people tend to do when giving arguments, is to commit what is called a “logical fallacy”.
Logical fallacies are arguments that sound good at first, but when thought through, do not really make sense. Also, some logical fallacies actually are not really arguments at all, but instead attack the person giving the information, instead of attacking the information itself (e.g., ad hominem arguments).
Sometimes, however, a logical fallacy can still be factually correct (see: circular reasoning).
Now let’s cover a few logical fallacies that are committed every day.
- ad hominem attack
This logical fallacy is when someone directs their argument at the person who gave the information, instead of the person’s position in the argument.
For example, Bob tells Fred that he thinks sports cars do not get good gas mileage, and that people are better off not buying them. Fred responds with calling Bob an idiot and saying that he is incorrect.
You see what happened? Fred not only directed his argument at Bob (instead of Bob’s position in the argument), but he also said Bob was wrong without giving any reason. Fred might as well have not said anything, since he really didn’t anyway!
This has happened to me in real life. I once was on a website commenting on my views of the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity. All I got for my trouble was baseless arguments (things said without proof), insults (ad hominem attacks), and large “walls of text” (useless information that adds nothing to the argument).
Remember: Mark it down…if someone commits the ad hominem attack, he or she probably does not have any real arguments to begin with, and is trying to win an argument using bad arguments. Simply put, if someone uses Ad Hominem attacks, they have pretty much lost the argument.
- circular reasoning
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the person starts off an argument with the assumption that what they are arguing is true.
For example, when a book shows the author’s name, does not repeating that information to someone technically circular reasoning? Think: “Who wrote the book?”…”John Doe did.”…”How do you know?”…”His name is in the book listed as the author.” See what I mean? You are saying John Doe wrote a book because the book itself says so.
Something to keep in mind, just because someone uses circular reasoning does not mean the information they gave is incorrect. Circular reasoning may not be the best way to discuss a subject with someone else, but that does not affect the truth of someone’s statements.
Also, someone pointing out something as a circular argument, then not bothering to explain their own position on the matter, is doing a cop out. They do not have proof of what they claimed to begin with. It is easy to say “that is a circular argument” then not give any counter-argument of your own.
Remember: Circular arguments do not invalidate facts, even if they do happen to confirm themselves.
- straw-man argument
This logical fallacy is when someone incorrectly states their opponent’s position. This is when someone “puts words in your mouth”. Then the person “defeats” the straw-man argument.
The problem? The person never did “defeat” his opponent to begin with, since the opponent’s position was not the same position as advertised.
For example, Sally says that she does not like working when she is tired. Then Betty tells someone else that Sally said she does not like working, but then Betty continues and says that she thinks Sally is being lazy.
Betty misrepresented Sally’s position, and then “defeated” Sally’s position even though that was not her position to begin with.
Remember: Straw-man arguments are nothing more than misrepresenting what someone said to make your argument look valid. Technically you could consider a straw-man argument a form of lying.
- appeal to accomplishment
This logical fallacy is when someone agrees or disagrees with stated information, based upon the credentials of the person who gave the information, not if the information itself is factually correct.
For example, Greg says that getting too much sun on your skin may cause skin cancer. Tyler then responds, dismissing what Greg said because Greg is “not a doctor”.
Now does Greg not being a doctor change the fact that you may get skin cancer being exposed to too much sun? Of course not! However Tyler decided to dismiss this information just because Greg is “not a doctor”. He could have at least asked a doctor to confirm what Greg said, before deciding to dismiss it.
Remember: Appeal to accomplishment is nothing more than dismissing what someone said based upon their “credentials” regardless if what they said was true or not.
5. “light” ad hominem attack
This one is very similar to what I wrote at the beginning of this post. Someone does not like what someone else said and then proceeds to insult the person.
However instead of giving no argument after the insult, the person does give an argument in reply, but the argument is pointless and does not come close to refuting whatever was said.
Remember: Using bad arguments, while insulting people, does no good for you or anyone else.
Posted in Christian, General, Society