It can be fun, I will guiltily admit, but not nearly as much fun as trying to present what you actually believe in a clever enough way that somebody goes… click. (In which endeavour, by all means be sarcastic and use pathos).
You have to do some sort of calculus on what the upshot of this trolling is though… if the upshot is increased irrationality, well, there isn’t much functional difference between you and your alter ego.
And all the Anonymous_Coward arguments I’ve seen that you listed are BETTER arguments (sad as that is) than most sincere ones in support of similar conclusions. The Good Soldier Švejk isn’t actually supposed to be a good soldier. :P
Just to add to this: Goebbels was perfectly right about the phenomenon of the Big Lie. If you repeat an argument—even a TERRIBLE argument—enough times, people will start to believe it. Exempli gratia:
‘Evolution is just a theory.’
‘Where are the transitional forms?’
‘Hurricane in a junkyard.’
There are the partisans of evolution by n.s. and then there are the partisans of creationism, and then there are the other 85% of people who are too busy getting their GED or feeding their kids or trying to make partner in the firm, to bother really thinking about these issues. A few exposures to an unchallenged, vaguely plausible-sounding meme are enough to put them in the ID camp (say), politically, for life. You are contributing to that irrationalist background noise!
Point taken. When forming a troll post, I make the arguments with the lowest ratio of length to “confusions one needs to disentangle in order to refute”. I use “isn’t evolution still basically just a theory at this point?” because it’s a slightly improved variant by that metric.
As with my other response, perhaps I could find the good-rationalist analog of this technique and optimize for that? Perhaps minimize the ratio of argument length to “confusions one needs to detour into to refute”?
I think part of what made me stray from “the path” was a tendency to root for the rhetorical “underdog” and be intrigued—excessively—with brilliant arguments that could defend ridiculous positions. I think I can turn that around here.
I think part of what made me stray from “the path” was a tendency to root for the rhetorical “underdog”...
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy arguing for the other side too, provided it’s disclaimed afterward. It’s a good way to see your rationalization machine shift into high gear. There is always a combination of lies, omissions, half-truths, special pleading and personal anecdotes that can convince at least a few people that you’re right—or, MUCH better, that your position should be respected.
But… rationality is usually the rhetorical underdog. Tssk! :P
...and be intrigued—excessively—with brilliant arguments that could defend ridiculous positions. I think I can turn that around here.
Want a brilliant argument defending a silly position? Try Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. To ascend such lofty heights of obfuscation, bring lots of pressurized oxygen.
To wit:
-Evolution optimizes for survival value, not truth value in beliefs
-Beliefs are therefore adaptive but not necessarily true (you could, conceivably, believe that you should run away from a tiger because tigers like friendly footraces).
-Therefore, on naturalism, we should expect the reliability of our cognition to be low
-This means we should, if we accept naturalism, also accept that our cognitive apparatus is too flawed to have good reasons to accept naturalism. QED, atheist.
Hm, so you’re saying I should use my clever trolling skills to promote rationality, instead of to unsuccessfully satirize irrationality?
More or less. I’m saying it’s a successful and rather amusing satire for people here. But by the standards of internet discourse among the teeming multitudes, you’re actually being fairly rhetorically effective. Case in point:
Are you just trying to insult sincere believers with this smear? Because that is NOT how praying works. No SERIOUS Christian actually tries to backup data by praying to God, okay? So I don’t even know what you’re trying to prove with your bigoted smear against sincere Christians… Let me just ask you this: have you ever read any serious works by any serious theologians about the nature of God and prayer?
The “serious theologians” line makes me smile. But that is actually the tack taken by many of the more ‘sophisticated’ goddites. It works rhetorically when you think about it. They are saying we are avoiding our belief’s weak points.
It’s your call… I didn’t quite mean “troll with your actual beliefs,” so much as “use the considerable rhetorical skills you have to advance your sincere position.”
It’s your call… I didn’t quite mean “troll with your actual beliefs,”
Right, I meant that by framing it as a troll exercise I could come with a better phrasing of my argument, not that I would necessarily slip in the angering jabs that make something a genuine troll post.
It can be fun, I will guiltily admit, but not nearly as much fun as trying to present what you actually believe in a clever enough way that somebody goes… click. (In which endeavour, by all means be sarcastic and use pathos).
You have to do some sort of calculus on what the upshot of this trolling is though… if the upshot is increased irrationality, well, there isn’t much functional difference between you and your alter ego.
And all the Anonymous_Coward arguments I’ve seen that you listed are BETTER arguments (sad as that is) than most sincere ones in support of similar conclusions. The Good Soldier Švejk isn’t actually supposed to be a good soldier. :P
Hm, so you’re saying I should use my clever trolling skills to promote rationality, instead of to unsuccessfully satirize irrationality?
Because I used to do the reverse: whenever someone was making irritatingly stupid arguments, I would just add that technique to my trolling arsenal.
Just to add to this: Goebbels was perfectly right about the phenomenon of the Big Lie. If you repeat an argument—even a TERRIBLE argument—enough times, people will start to believe it. Exempli gratia:
‘Evolution is just a theory.’ ‘Where are the transitional forms?’ ‘Hurricane in a junkyard.’
There are the partisans of evolution by n.s. and then there are the partisans of creationism, and then there are the other 85% of people who are too busy getting their GED or feeding their kids or trying to make partner in the firm, to bother really thinking about these issues. A few exposures to an unchallenged, vaguely plausible-sounding meme are enough to put them in the ID camp (say), politically, for life. You are contributing to that irrationalist background noise!
Point taken. When forming a troll post, I make the arguments with the lowest ratio of length to “confusions one needs to disentangle in order to refute”. I use “isn’t evolution still basically just a theory at this point?” because it’s a slightly improved variant by that metric.
As with my other response, perhaps I could find the good-rationalist analog of this technique and optimize for that? Perhaps minimize the ratio of argument length to “confusions one needs to detour into to refute”?
I think part of what made me stray from “the path” was a tendency to root for the rhetorical “underdog” and be intrigued—excessively—with brilliant arguments that could defend ridiculous positions. I think I can turn that around here.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy arguing for the other side too, provided it’s disclaimed afterward. It’s a good way to see your rationalization machine shift into high gear. There is always a combination of lies, omissions, half-truths, special pleading and personal anecdotes that can convince at least a few people that you’re right—or, MUCH better, that your position should be respected.
But… rationality is usually the rhetorical underdog. Tssk! :P
Want a brilliant argument defending a silly position? Try Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. To ascend such lofty heights of obfuscation, bring lots of pressurized oxygen.
To wit:
-Evolution optimizes for survival value, not truth value in beliefs
-Beliefs are therefore adaptive but not necessarily true (you could, conceivably, believe that you should run away from a tiger because tigers like friendly footraces).
-Therefore, on naturalism, we should expect the reliability of our cognition to be low
-This means we should, if we accept naturalism, also accept that our cognitive apparatus is too flawed to have good reasons to accept naturalism. QED, atheist.
More or less. I’m saying it’s a successful and rather amusing satire for people here. But by the standards of internet discourse among the teeming multitudes, you’re actually being fairly rhetorically effective. Case in point:
The “serious theologians” line makes me smile. But that is actually the tack taken by many of the more ‘sophisticated’ goddites. It works rhetorically when you think about it. They are saying we are avoiding our belief’s weak points.
Hm, maybe I’ll try to frame my real arguments as trolling, and see if that makes it easier to effectively convey them. Thanks for the idea.
It’s your call… I didn’t quite mean “troll with your actual beliefs,” so much as “use the considerable rhetorical skills you have to advance your sincere position.”
Right, I meant that by framing it as a troll exercise I could come with a better phrasing of my argument, not that I would necessarily slip in the angering jabs that make something a genuine troll post.