In which I explore dealing with trolls, anger, taking offense, flaming and reasons to find tolerance, forgiveness and appreciation, even amongst assholes, myself included.
One of our senior editors, Frank Ranelli, wrote me, observing that we've had a lot of new visitors, coming to the site for specific issues, and that among them, some have been, well, let me just cite his words;
"I have noticed an up swing in one-hit-wonders, people joining simply to be provocative or insulting and then disappear -- using silly and bizarre pseudonyms -- or to disparage and degrade authors through juvenile tirades and ad hominem salvos."
Frank goes on to observe that the majority of them come to the site to discuss one issue, and comments:
...this angry zealotry and enragement they portray "" toward anyone who is not in favor of ******* "" is distasteful at best and vile at its worst.
And Frank reports that he's deleted and or flagged some nasty remarks. I've done the same as have a good number of our other editors-- all volunteers, by the way.
Frank asked my thoughts on the matter and I thought my reply might interest you, our readers. My response started with web oriented thoughts and moved into a more philosophical realm, based in part, on my years of reading classics and philosophy, and the quotations I've collected on human flaws and foibles. First, some thoughts, then some quotes, with my favorite one last.
* * *
It's a mixed blessing, drawing new visitors to OpEdNews here. They add to traffic, DO read other articles and even contribute to support the site financially. But some are idiots and some are trolls.
Our traffic is WAY up this month. I'm talking 25-40% by some measures. That's huge and means we'll probably have at least 100,000 more unique visitors than ever before-- probably over 600,000. That probably means at least 400,000 new people.
Statistically, if you encounter hundreds of thousands of new people, some of them will be totally mentally ill, some will be crude, some will be brilliant and wonderful additions to the community and some will be combative or impulsive, angry trolls.
Some of the mentally ill will be wonderful additions to the community... at least most of the time.
Over the years, I've come to believe that people's flaws often contribute to, or are even essential to what makes them special. Actually, it's one of the gifts of being alive, to make the most of what you have, to find gifts in adversity, in the cast of the dice you are thrown.
I can't take credit for figuring this out. As a quotation collector, I've encountered some wonderful ways of thinking about this. They've helped me to become more tolerant of myself and others. Further down in the article, I'll share partial listing of quotes from my "FLAWS" file of quotations. I'll save my favorite for last.
First, I want to admit that I can have a temper. When I was a teenager, I was actually proud of it and would rationalize that it was better to express anger than to bottle it up since then, I've learned that it is better to not fan the flame of anger, to develop into being a less combustible person. That means that you don't take offense as easily.
There are some people who take offense far too readily. They've established a very low threshold and once that threshold is passed, they may go ballistic or they may merely burn on the inside, perhaps cutting off conversation or even severing relationships with colleagues, friends or family.
Others are so much more tolerant that the words or action or inaction that set off the taking of offense by someone with a low threshold do little or nothing. These high "taking offense threshold" people go through life with far greater equanimity.
Part of the gift comes from being more secure in their selves, in who they are, being more comfortable in their skins. Part of the gift comes from relating to the world free from anger-- anger simmering just below the surfact, that's ready to be ignited and inflamed by the slightest provocation.
Actually, some people are fire eaters. They look for and enjoy the conflict and uproar, so they seek it out and provoke it. I pity them, but generally also ban them from this site and from my life. They need to find their entertainment elsewhere.
But there are so many people who are souls in progress, who do not seek to engage in conflict. They are passionate people who lose it for a moment. As a website administrator, it's not that hard to tell the difference if a person has been a regular on this website. I can go to his or her archive, check out the comments he or she has posted and see if there has been a history of genuine conversation and dialogue or simply a few or many offensive, rude, netiquette violating postings.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
The framed magazine cover, with the word "IDEAS" spelled out in lightbulbs, is based on an article Rob wrote for Writers Digest, telling the magazine's quarter million readers how to come up with and pitch article ideas.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
Or check the archived interviews at:
whiterosesociety.org
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
I've published two (I think) main articles here, and dozens, if not over a hundred comments, but I'm clearly not of the political mindset of most of the writers here. I find OpEdNews very useful in inspiring articles on my own site, sort of as an "opposition research" type of thing: I'm trying to find out just what the other side thinks. I do get some back-traffic from OpEdNews, though not as much as I'd like.
The question becomes: is this site an open forum for discussion even with those with whom you disagree, or is that not what you want it to be? One of the problems with supporting freedom of speech -- and I recognize that this site is private property, so you are bound by the First Amendment only philosophically, not legally -- is that some speech isn't what you want to hear, whether it is politically challenging or simply insulting.
by
Dana Pico (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 135 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 8:20:25 AM
... the difference to me is first, whether someone addresses the points or the person. If you address the points and not the person, you are 99% of the way there to being a contributing and respectful member of any online community.
The other 1% goes to how you address the points. As someone who submits a lot of articles here and gets a lot of public and private feedback, I am happy to get well thought out comments with links or other citations. Comments that I get back that are along the lines of "Just so much socialist drivel" or "Just so much right wing drivel" are not welcome.
Again, this is just my opinion and may not at all relate to what Rob wants.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1263 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM
that 90% of the angry comments you get are from Ron Paul supporters such as myself, and also willing to bet that Ron Paul is responsible for your big uptick in web traffic. I found your site through google news by looking for Ron Paul myself. That being said, i can tell you why we're posting angry comments-
We are so fed up with the mainstream media portraying him in such a negative light, distorting his positions, or flat out ignoring him. That is why we have turned to the internet. And once we see "progressives" who are always touting themselves as open minded and unbiased telling blatant, uneducated falsehoods, which is posted on this site on a regular basis, well we are human beings also and we get angry. The reason for the nastiness is nowour anger is at you directly. You are doing exactly what hannity, o'reilly and the like are doing, while still claiming to be unbiased.
Stop all the lying about Ron Paul and you'll see a huge downturn in angry posts.
by
jeremy xx (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 23 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 2:03:18 PM
we publish highly laudatory, enthusiastically supportive articles and we publish critical articles. Frankly, because of our commenting system, you ought to appreciate the articles that lay inaccurate claims. They give you the opportunity to correct the inaccuracies.
Now here's the rub. If you respond civilly, with factual information and links, then you have taken the opportunity and possibly used it to harvest converts.
But if you respond with name calling, incivility and trollish behavior, what kind of impression do you think you leave upon the undecided? Do you really serve the cause of Ron Paul's campaign? I don't think so.
There aren't many progressive sites that have allowed pro-Ron Paul articles. I've taken flack and even lost some readers because of it, but I think it's the right thing to do. But that doesn't mean Paul gets a free ride. If Hillary doesn't, why should Ron. But it IS reasonable to excpect civil behavior. Dana asked how I define trollish behavior. Incivility is a piece of it, as well as the usual netiquette-- no ad hominem name calling as the first rule.
by
Rob Kall (728 articles, 3775 quicklinks, 311 diaries, 1520 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 5:29:00 PM
I am still waiting for your apology for misrepresenting my article, and then going on to call it: "stupid, despicable, insane and pure propaganda." As if that was not enough, you went on to claim that it was "spinning on top of spinning on top of spinning. Total nonsense." Still waiting for an explanation from you.
by
Niloufar Parsi (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 73 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 2:56:08 AM
I've been a Ron Paul supporter throughout his campaign so far, and I still think that compared with the front-runner alternatives, his positions on the issues are the best. Yet, I find him weak on the issue of reigning in corporate power, and as one poster noted, he lacks the "scary eye" needed to make Congress, foreign leaders, and the U.S. public take him seriously. Americans like forceful dynamic Presidents and it is a valid issue with respect to electability that he seems like a nice grandfather figure rather than a Presidential candidate.
The best thing I can say about his position on corporations is that if the Federal Reserve were to be abolished and our monetary/banking system were to be reformed, the resultant system might do a lot to break up the money trust that is so advantageous to corporations.
However, save your anger for the people involved in the big corporations and money trusts. Do not take it out on the people on this site. I've posting here for quite some time, and they really do, for the most part treat Ron Paul the same way they treat the other candidates. Some here disagree strongly with Paul's political philosophy and express their opinions.
One reason I post here is because of the diversity of opinion, while websites such as "dailypaul" treat everyone who isn't willing to grab a pom-pom and join the cheering section as a troll.
If you read the articles on this site pertaining to other candidates, you will find they are just as hard on Democratic candidates. I find that Democrats in general and progressives are far more open in their criticism of candidates of their own party, even candidates they support, than could be said about Republicans.
That's my two cents.
by
Paul Rye (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 253 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 11:17:22 PM
I will answer your question: “Is this site an open forum for discussion even with those with whom you disagree?” The answer is, yes.
As a website and forum/blog proprietor yourself, the troll activity Rob is referring to is the hollow, pointless, inane and obvious agent provocateurs who only wish to disrupt or senselessly antagonize. I will make a naked assertion that you have had plenty of these at Common Sense Political Thought and I hope that you do not tolerate the ignorant and the insufferable among us, as well.
I won’t take the discussion any further as we have had are “intellectual confrontations,” as civil as they were, but we have so little in common and disagree so vehemently that any addition discussion, at least among the two of us, would not serve any purpose.
As a human being, you have always displayed courtesy and respect here at Op Ed News, something I cannot say for many others on the right.
Regards,
Frank J. Ranelli, Associate Editor
by
Frank J. Ranelli (59 articles, 141 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 331 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 3:01:11 PM
I think my take on all of this is that people only attack what they fear. OpEdNews has become a force, a voice that has started to pierce the darkness of lies and deception.
While some may post rude comments and such, and God knows I have lost it many a times, for all we know those mental giants could be King Bush. Truth be told, America only works when ALL of America works together, people who think like people and us who do not.
Please keep up the great work...........
PS..I will get that letter to you about what we discussed...
by
Michael Morris (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 293 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 8:35:25 AM
I have a slightly different take on these trolls. If those of a radically conservative or fascist bent take the time to post on this site, they probably have also taken the time to read at least part of an article and maybe a comment or two, and this has to be a good thing. These people may seem a bit disruptive, but in the process they are getting eductated in another point of view and in time may come around to see reason in it.
On the other hand, it is clear that there should be a mechanism for keeping offensive comments from polluting the web site. My suggestion would be to introduce a simple filtering mechanism that would allow individual users to permanently turn off comments from particularly offensive contributors (others would continue to see these comments). This would keep the trolls busy reading and writing while allowing others from having to see what they write. And it would have the added benefit of keeping the editor's blood pressure under control.
by
PrMaine (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 243 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 9:08:00 AM
I've forwarded it to our programmer. We'll discuss it and see where it fits into our plans. We DO have about 100+ other projects for upgrading the site on the drawing board. Coming next-- events and calendars.
by
Rob Kall (728 articles, 3775 quicklinks, 311 diaries, 1520 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 11:59:38 AM
After reading your article – in regards to the one-hit-wonders – and the many comments that ensued, I have come away with a least one conclusion on how I believe this should be handled: The comment must have some redeeming value to it; it should not be a blatant “hit job” and it cannot be obvious spam or advertisements.
I’ve mentioned this before, but a certain level, in my opinion, of decorum, etiquette, and civility must be maintained. Contentious and oppositional viewpoints are absolutely fine – and they are often the fodder I need to begin a new essay – but they simply cannot be puerile and pointless, and their only expressed purpose of being disruptive.
Sophomoric drivel, personal attacks, implied violence, and feigned hostility – full of machismo bravado, yet empty of any significant expression of contemplation – are the essence of unadulterated ignorance and even hate that should be summarily shown the door.
The first person to raise his fists in anger is indeed the first person to run out of ideas.
In addition, I second the motion that trusted authors should have the ability to delete worthless or vituperative comments.
- Frank J. Ranelli, Associate Editor
by
Frank J. Ranelli (59 articles, 141 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 331 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 2:41:16 PM
"When two people of total agreement have a conversation, one of them is unnecessary."
As to those who are able to control their anger at all times...the fire in the boiler is down to the pilot light.
I was recently censored on this site for a comedic comment that contained the phrase Oh sh.t! The same day I read a response that you had posted which included language that I haven't heard since being discharged from the Navy. That must have one that didn't hold for review?
It is said that those who use profanity and anger in defense of their positions, or to attack others, lack vocabulary and specific knowledge to behave otherwise.
Attempting to learn from others and conversely teach what we know, should be done so in civil manner...just so long as our passiveness does not douse the fire that fuels our passion.
by
Mike Folkerth (104 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 503 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 9:33:13 AM
I read it all with relish. Great quotes, some of my favs, especially Leonardo and Voltaire'. Great tolerance as well. Funny, I am far more tolerant with the highly gifted, the Michelagnello's, Babe Ruth's, Barry Bonds than with elected officials. When I was CEO of an ad agency sometime back (my 3rd profession) we had a political consulting arm which consisted of me and two assistants. I got to meet and hired by some politicians and made lots of friends-few of them were people I liked or admired, even those whose political views I shared.
Artists, writers, athletes and other genius' I may agree with them on little to nothing but would tolerate and defend them more readily than most politicos.
I tend to agree with PrMaine. A trusted writer should be enabled to, with no comment, delete a very rude comment, one that raises the BP with no redeeming qualities, or at least edit the comment. That would be easier than waiting for an intervention that may not occur and thus get a BP boost each time we visit to answer legitimate comments.
That would also release your editors for more fruitful ventures, like editing articles, because God knows some of mine need something more than spell check at times, which sometimes is quirky and not a good shot, missing misspelled words often, even after 2-3 passes.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1216 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 9:37:53 AM
I like the essays here very much and they keep me alert and going in a small town. I read an essay quickly and then try to reply if something clicks. I try to keep my replies short and hopefully witty. But, sometimes cruelty and meanness can be the soul of wit. There are a few things that set me off, but not terribly. One is false hope and optimism about the human species. The other is excessively precise and academic prose. Those are the folks that I probably sniped. So, I apologize to them too.
I don't like filthy Republican frat boy types. I play with them like a cat would with a kitten.
by
John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 859 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 9:51:20 AM
"I don't like filthy Republican frat boy types. I play with them like a cat would with a kitten. "
I could have used this level of a sense of humor... As an OpEd editor, I recently reviewed a sexist piece that included the derogatory term, "Femi Nazi" - I was so inflamed I quit editing for the day. Then I find that writer sent a special note to me specifically, so I realized he submitted that piece just to ruffle feathers.
Unfortunately, another editor posted the sexist pig's piece - even tho it more appropriately belongs on some right-wing conservative crapsite.
My question on this whole topic is what do we really gain by printing the views of what corporate media and most talk radio spews? They have their place; let us have ours.
I mean, really, if OpEdNews wants to win a popularity contest, just start printing the crap that 90% of media spews... but then OpEdNews loses its "progressive, liberal" bent.
I avoid websites that offend me ONCE - I don't give 'em a second chance because there are so many websites vying for my attention. The exception to this is when a trusted source sends me to a specific article.
When it comes down to it, the choice for Rob is to become popular, or to stay focused on progressive or liberal ideals. In today's culture, you can't be both.
by
Rady Ananda (78 articles, 219 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 569 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 1:40:05 PM
Part of being progressive, to me, includes tolerating a wide range of latitude in discussions. It does not include toleration of hate or bigotry. But, because the site flourishes when discussion occurs, I beleive that it can be very healthy to allow non-progressive viewpoints to be posted-- so that progressives can dispute, refute, argue and debate the positions.
I think this is a great way to help our readers get a better grip on how to hold discussions with right wingers.
On progressive talk radio, some of the most successful hosts routinely invite right wingers on their shows. Why? So they can debate them, dispute them and put them in their place. There are times I'll publish an article I totally disagree with, only to, within moments, post a comment stating my disagreement, disputing claims. Sometimes, this outrages the writer who submitted the article. Too bad.
In regards to popular, Rady, I'm not sure what you mean, and I'd like to thoroughly understand what your concerns are.
by
Rob Kall (728 articles, 3775 quicklinks, 311 diaries, 1520 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 5:37:43 PM
I'm glad you wrote me personally, Rob - so I could detail what I meant. for clarity here, I'll say:
I would prefer a "progressive, liberal" site publish articles that exemplify progressive, liberal values. Allow free rein to those who comment (within normal standards, e.g. no ad hominen attacks, relevant, etc.), but our writers, imo, should reflect "progressive, liberal" values.
This will undoubtedly be unpopular with right wingers, but they have their views aired on TV and in other corporate media. We get blasted every which way with right wing views - why should OEN publish their articles?
Rob suggested that OEN editors immediately comment on any right wing article they publish. In the spirit of compromise, I could feel assuaged somewhat, but let's play this idea out a bit. Will the daily digest also include right wing articles?
When I open my email from a progressive, liberal news site, and see articles discussing "femi nazis," shouldn't I wonder if the progressive site had been bashed into submission by the dominant culture?
I do agree with you, Rob, that part of being progressive is being tolerant of other views - ergo, my compromise is to allow them to comment.
If OEN publishes right wing articles, then OEN will lose its personality as a progressive site. It may become more popular, but at what expense?
by
Rady Ananda (78 articles, 219 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 569 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 9:31:19 PM
I have seen very few articles that would lead one to believe that a Rush Limbaugh soul mate had authored them. For the rest from the right and the Ron Paul boosters particularly, I don't mind seeing them here.
One could think of it as a session in the intellectual gymnasium, where one can sharpen their arguments and thoughts about those claims with which they disagree, to whatever level of vehemence.
A filter must indeed be placed to catch arguments that are without merit due to being simply ad hominem attacks or perhaps when a poster is simply quoting Dubya. We heard all of those noises in junior high school, and they aren't likely to shed much light now.
However, if you love debate, many of these posts provide a valuable service, and if you are a revolutionary,... know thy enemy.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 897 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 7:37:11 AM
Not many right wingers know the difference between the two! When you use your right of free speech to insult, or degrade someone because of their race, gender or political stance, it is longer *free* speech. It becomes *hate* speech. Using your right of free speech to spread bigotry and hatred that results in discrimanation, beatings or even murder (Matthew Shepard and Brandon Tinna.) is criminal. You are just as guilty as the one who pulls the trigger or delivers the blows. No one has the right to use their twisted version of *free speech* to spread such ignorant, Neanderthal, behavior! I say, ban them for life and wish them into the corn field!!! x Jayne County
by
Jayne County (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 8:27:19 PM
this is one of the few places where free speech is tolerated. Certain monkey sites will not allow talk of 911. Other "left" sites dont tolerate criticism of Dimos. Attempts to control content are very revealing . Alex Jones has stated he will not talk about "mythical" ambassadors with trillions of dollars. Did Hillary's Childrens Defence Fund recieve 250 million on the orders of a US president ? When subjects are taboo on the MSM then the alternative media must take up the slack. Intelligent debate on "fringe" issues might bring out more facts whether pro or con. Barring profanity or insults is there really any subject that will not bear scrutiny ? If a writer or site is under attack it means someone or their agenda is threatened.
There is an old fable of a troublesome goat. The farmer threw the goat into a deep well and began to shovel dirt in on the goat. As the farmer threw in dirt the goat would shake it off his back and pack it down with his hooves. Finally the old well was filling up to the top and out jumped the goat much to the farmers surprise.
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 352 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 9:51:43 AM
