The popular, hated, psuedo-Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica states the following definition of a "Fact":
A fact is a piece of text pasted from a Wikipedia article.[citation needed] In the past a fact was something that could be objectively verified as real, according to the standards of proof demanded by logical positivism and scientific realism. The invention of The Internet made the external justification of facts using peer-reviewed research and education irrelevant, replacing them with a plethora of reliable, electronic means of verification. For a list of facts, see the article on common knowledge.
In it's polemicistic style, Encyclopedia Dramatica has a very robust point with this definition, though some may scoff at my choosing to use such an 'unreliable' source for my definition.
Though this definition was written years before, when Wikipedia was not considered as reliable source of information as it is today, for the most part, it holds glaring actuality about it.
And now the definition of a polemic:
A polemic is a contentious argument that is intended to establish the truth of a specific understanding and the falsity of the contrary position. Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about very controversial topics.
I believe that this may be considered the same methodology used by Socrates and Diogenes in ancient Greece, that of 'trolling'. I also believe that the reason the polemic methodology is resorted to in what in modern times is called 'trolling', is because of the a fore listed definition of a fact.
Firstly, to be clear, 'trolling' and bullying are very different things. To the talking heads on news programs doing interviews with alleged 'internet culture sociologists' they are indistinguishable. To me, the lowly rogue scholar, they represent a fundamental difference in purpose, even if their forms bear similarity at times.
Bullying's sole intention is that of causing harm, of bolstering the bullies self esteem by degrading the self esteem of another.
The troll's purpose is far wider in scope.
If we take the definition above of 'fact' and extrapolate, one observes that in the modern era of internet cultural segregation, facts bear little meaning. Most cultures in online strata arise out of a shared morality or emotional belief, verifiable facts do not negate one belief or another.
In the era when scientific 'data' or 'facts' can be purchased by the highest bidder, where only emotions pretend to appear as logic, the only way in which to disprove an argument is through the polemic.
That is to say, through 'trolling'.
If someone says, they believe in the bible, the troll says they completely agree, and that is why they stone their disrespectful children to death as they are told to in the old testament.
This is extreme example, but I believe it serves as evidence that trolling is modern incantation used by for instance Diogenes.
Diogenes would stand outside a brothel screaming at the sins contained within it. That is until someone would pay him to shut the fuck up. To which he would use the money given to him for his silence, and enter the brothel to spend it.
Dale Carnegie believed that one could never win an argument through disagreement. The facts will never be agreed on. The troll uses the flexibility within the extrapolation of the emotionally driven mythos to accept the system in totality. That acceptance of totality, or extremism proves the point without psuedo-facts and emotional-logic.
They accept the model entirely, and then 'poison the well'.
The purpose of which is the same anytime there is disagreement, to allow the truth of the matter to rise to the surface. Though the troll may not compromise in his totality, he forces the other to compromise by existential absurdity.
When facts mean nothing, the only way to prove something is not to convince another of your belief, but to rebuke belief in theirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment