Molecules exist. Unfortunately, we now live in a world where many feel they would have to apologise for saying as much.
Is there really any point in engaging with people who wander about a world so beautifully made of molecules, all the while denying that molecules exist?
These people are so untouchable, that they will happily argue - at length - with a simple computer algorithm, without realising it. Watching thoughtless people argue with a database of counter-arguments could well become a new sport.
If you spend some time looking at blogs and the associated comments, you could easily fall into the trap of thinking that there are only two types of people in the world: the forthright, stoic and completely rational, and their naturally enemy, the borderline insane. But, it is a trap, because so many people don't leave a comment at all. Blog traffic statistics confirm this time and time again.
This majority of voiceless readers are the people who may be lost in the mire of the endarkenment. Hundreds of equally vitriolic blog comments possibly do nothing to help many of them back towards truth and reason
Comments threads often appear to be little more than a battleground for two diametrically opposed groups, with equally immutable views; a place to enjoy the ritual of repeating the same old tired counter-arguments. Nomadic trolls and counter trolls appear move from blog to blog fighting their endless battles. Is it really worth all that effort to persuade just one, of possibly thousands of voiceless readers, who can be bothered to follow it all?
So, point 1: Let's leave the untouchable trolls to algorithms. No one will notice the difference. Is that dishonest?
Point 2: We need to think about how to communicate with the voiceless. One way conversations are trying. Any lecturer will tell you that.
Who would be best placed to do the talking, and what should they be saying?
[Next: Assessing the damage]
I don't know, this reminds me of being back in school English lessons.
ReplyDeleteA good friend of mine never volunteered answers in class. She hated doing it, and even more hated the fact that teachers were always pointing this out to her.
It used to get on my goat a little too, because she's incredibly clever (now doing a literature-based PhD) and I wanted everyone else to hear what she had to say sometimes.
A combination of shyness and some other factors, but clearly this lack of speaking up didn't do her any long-term harm - she's doing very well.
I think we just have to hope the insights come from somewhere, if not from the voluntarily voiceless. You can't force anyone to say things when they don't want to!
My point is not that the voiceless should speak, but that we need to acknowledge that this majority exists, and communicate to them, not the vocal (and often loopy) minority.
ReplyDeleteHow to do that is the question.
When I write replies to the whackos on my blog, I always try to write the riposte with an eye to the (more numerous) non-whacko readers. That's why I don't swear at the whackos - most of the time, anyway. And also partly why I've never banned anyone. People like "Cybertiger" actually do their own cause a disservice, but if you flame them then that risks getting lost.
ReplyDeleteThe GW computer-tweeter has been doing a polite job, by all accounts. It's author could release a generic version, into which you put polite ripostes. Then add it to your blog post and use your time for more important things.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's dishonest, but if the idiots can't tell the difference....
Oh, that reminds of something else...