Read on Twitter
Let& #39;s talk about the use of trolling tactics as a means of proselytizing.
1. Framing proselytizing as an invitation to "debate". https://twitter.com/AndrewRappaport/status/1330684642861723649?s=19">https://twitter.com/AndrewRap...
1. Framing proselytizing as an invitation to "debate". https://twitter.com/AndrewRappaport/status/1330684642861723649?s=19">https://twitter.com/AndrewRap...
I put "debate" in quotes because this won& #39;t be an actual debate. He& #39;ll ignore anything that shows his & #39;facts& #39; are opinions or disproves his claims and just bulldoze forward or change the subject. He& #39;ll pretend that counterpoints just didn& #39;t exist. He& #39;s already doing it
This is not a new thing. Christian proselytizers have been doing this for around 1000 years. It& #39;s always a trap. https://twitter.com/JustSayXtian/status/1313174071496982529?s=19">https://twitter.com/JustSayXt...
2. Weaponizimg offense.
This is a response to a tweet that wasn& #39;t even *that* rude, at the culmination of a very long, very frustrating exchange with someone else. Our troll here want involved until he interjected to tone police. https://twitter.com/AndrewRappaport/status/1330684956717277184?s=19">https://twitter.com/AndrewRap...
This is a response to a tweet that wasn& #39;t even *that* rude, at the culmination of a very long, very frustrating exchange with someone else. Our troll here want involved until he interjected to tone police. https://twitter.com/AndrewRappaport/status/1330684956717277184?s=19">https://twitter.com/AndrewRap...
The implication is that you& #39;ve been having a logical debate, and getting upset is a sign that you don& #39;t have a good argument. But that isn& #39;t what& #39;s been happening, and even if it were, displaying emotion isn& #39;t actually a sign of irrationality. The whole assertion is bad faith.
3. Armchair psychology. https://twitter.com/AndrewRappaport/status/1330707596907589632?s=20">https://twitter.com/AndrewRap...
This is an easy follow up to #2. The very reasonable, rational explanation that repeatedly violating someone& #39;s boundaries and acting disrespectfully towards them deserves dismissal, the proselytizer/troll refocuses on what& #39;s wrong with YOU.
There could never be anything wrong with the proselytizer. There is no line that the proselytizer could ever cross that deserves pushback. If you& #39;re not accepting the message in a calm and grateful way, it& #39;s because something& #39;s wrong with you and you should fix it.
Ironically, this is just a more & #39;polite& #39;, more verbose version of the thing the proselytizer-troll is implying you are doing. Rather than acknowledging your points and having a rational discussion, they are dodging accountability by attacking you as a person.
4 - Insist that a refusal to engage is proof that the proselytizer-troll must be right. https://twitter.com/AndrewRappaport/status/1330707092278304771?s=20">https://twitter.com/AndrewRap...
The fact of the matter is that I have *already* had this debate. I had it just now, on Twitter, in the thread this guy is replying to. I& #39;ve had it a million times before with a million other proselytizers.
