When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice

I think he's right. He really does that, too.

I agree it's better to issue a calm "you're out of line -- please stop it", and withdraw only when that doesn't help. It's especially worth doing when you think the other side can be reasoned with. But if this turns out to escalate, not de-escalate the problem, nothing good can come from repeating the point, even if you're right on the merits.

Is silence sometimes equivalent to ignorance?
Argument from silence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The argument from silence (also called argumentum a silentio in Latin) is that the silence of a speaker or writer about X proves or suggests that the speaker or writer is either ignorant of X or has a motive to remain silent about X. When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but it may be valid circumstantial evidence in practical reasoning.

Here is an easily recognizable example:

Bobby: I know where you live.
Billy: Where?
Bobby: I'm not telling you!
Billy: You're just saying that because you don't know!
Another example of this type of argument:

John: Do you know any Spanish?
Jack: Of course. I speak it like a native.
John: That's good, because I need to know the Spanish phrase for "Happy Birthday".
Jack: Sorry, I don't have time for that right now. Maybe tomorrow. Bye.
Afterwards, Jack continually refuses to give John the Spanish translation, either by ignoring John or by giving excuses. John then concludes, by argument from silence, that Jack does not in fact know Spanish or does not know it well. In other words, John believes that Jack's ignorance is the most plausible explanation for his silence.
Some may consider the use of argument from silence in this situation to be reasonable.

Here is another example using the same argument but in a different context:

John: Do you know your wife's email password?
Jack: Yes, I do as a matter of fact.
John: What is it?
Jack: Hey, that's none of your business.
When John repeatedly asked for the password, Jack ignores him completely. Thus, using the argument from silence, John concludes that Jack does not actually know the password.
Such an argument from silence, in contrast, may be considered unreasonable, in consideration of individual motives. It may be reasonable, by contrast, to assume that Jack will distance himself from John as a result.


[edit] Scholarly uses of the argument

And thus is presented opportunity for those who choose to excercize some of that which has been discussed. This should be interesting.


Well, mebbe not so much interesting as revealing.

Silencs is golden, in many cases.

The NIH, as the Federal government's leading biomedical research organization, is implementing the President's policy. The NIH funds research scientists to conduct research on existing human embryonic stem cells and to explore the enormous promise of these unique cells, including their potential to produce breakthrough therapies and cures.

Investigators from 14 laboratories in the United States, India, Israel, Singapore, Sweden, and South Korea have derived stem cells from 71 individual, genetically diverse blastocysts. These derivations meet the President's criteria for use in federally funded human embryonic stem cell research. The NIH has consulted with each of the investigators who have derived these cells. These scientists are working with the NIH and the research community to establish a research infrastructure to ensure the successful handling and the use of these cells in the laboratory.

TOPIC: When Shutting Up Isn't Cowardice


In the early nineteenth-century German university, and coincident with the increasing emphasis on political and intellectual freedom that had characterized the Enlightenment, academic freedom began to take the form we recognize today. This modern notion of academic freedom encompassed the freedom of both teachers and students: the content of professors' lecture and scholarly materials was free from supervision or censorship by superiors; the character of study and learning undertaken by students was given great breadth, restricted only by their abilities to pass regular examinations. Lehrfreiheit ("freedom of teaching") and Lernfreiheit ("freedom of learning") went hand-in-hand, establishing a reciprocal and symmetrical relationship with each other. The American Association of University Professors has championed the cause of academic freedom in this country, continuing the Enlightenment tradition of understanding academic freedom in terms of both professors' freedom to teach and students' freedom to learn (1).

However, this principle of academic freedom has in recent years come under assault, sometimes directly, and other times in not-so-conspicuous ways. For example, universities--sensitive to the ways in which students have been disadvantaged and traditions have been marginalized by curricula, pedagogy, and institutional structures--are rethinking what it means to provide an adequate, well-rounded education. In the process of this reexamination, the concept of academic freedom, central to our understanding of the modem university, has come under serious, though indirect, attack.

This assault stems from an ever-increasing tendency of modern universities to include as part of their mission, the function of social, psychological, and moral therapist. In general, this tendency is evidenced in therapeutic strategies adopted by universities to insure that individuals' (primarily, but not exclusively, students') rights are not abridged, that their potential is not stifled, and that their integrity is respected. This therapeutic tendency manifests itself within the university in the ever-increasing importance of any number of diverse issues ranging from the development of classes on topics such as "self image" and "personal growth" to the now-often-heard demand that students should be shielded against that which might offend or frustrate their sensibilities.

The proliferation within the university of this kind of thinking indicates a significant shift in how the academy comprehends its character and its function. Increasingly, many universities understand themselves as caretakers of students creating a dual responsibility: first, to develop in students positive and self-supporting attitudes that are believed to be foundational to human flourishing; second, to protect students from what might hurt, offend, upset or destabilize them. In a variety of ways--ranging from the monitoring of course content and mandating a recognition of marginalized contributions to prescribing what can and cannot be said in what contexts--universities more and more seek to insure the full development of students' potential and to guarantee that students' rights, sensibilities, and dignity are not abridged.

To accomplish these goals, members of the university community are increasingly concerned with "personal growth," "self development," and "character formation," labeling "offensive" and "oppressive" that which hinders the realization of these objectives. Along these latter lines, some universities are developing policies that prohibit language and actions that might, as one University Vice President recently put it, "demean, defile, degrade, or violate the human dignity of others" (2). We are told that this sort of "discrimination" has no place in higher education, and that we "must work to eliminate these oppressive behaviors and provide opportunities for all individuals to develop their full potential." We are encouraged and sometimes even required to criticize and eradicate those "attitudes and behaviors [that] negatively impact the personal, intellectual and social development of individuals."

Yet, I contend, the supposedly "brutal effects" consequent of such behavior are, at least some of the time, exactly what the university should strive to accomplish. On occasion, only by upsetting students' expectations, making them uncomfortable, and outraging their sensibilities can the university do its job. A significant portion of education is a process of positive disillusion. If, along the way, feelings are hurt--so be it; but such hurt feelings alone do not indicate an unfair form of discrimination: they need not indicate that one's dignity is being disrespected.

None of this is to deny that unfortunate and ghastly forms of discrimination exist. Nevertheless, merely because individuals feel as if they have been victims of discrimination does not itself indicate that discrimination has taken place--especially in the university--where the principle of academic freedom is in place to guarantee the free exchange of ideas in an arena marked by unhindered critical scrutiny. It is a mistake to emphasize the subjective responses of individuals to an action or statement when attempting to decide whether or not discrimination has taken place. Instead, such so-called "brutal effects"--including being offended and outraged, or feeling demeaned and having one's sensibilities insulted--often result from encountering hard, critical questions that are essential to the mission of the university. Feelings of hurt, discomfort and inferiority are and will be, from time to time, the fully anticipated upshot of critical investigation free of outside influence and constraint. In short, one should expect such "negative" subjective responses from students in an environment of academic freedom.

This is not to say the university exists primarily to demean and degrade; rather, the university, with its built-in biases in favor of critical review and free investigation, will inevitably produce such subjective responses in many of those who participate.

The university is not in the business of making sure that feelings are not hurt, nor should safeguards be placed in the university to insure that subjective sensibilities, attitudes, beliefs, commitments, values, and general sense of well being are not upset. Every teacher, certainly every university professor, knows that difficult questions and disciplined research often produce in students a subjective sense that they have been violated, a subjective sense that their potential is being stifled, and, therefore, a subjective sense that "attitudes and behaviors" of professors "negatively impact [students'] personal, intellectual, and social development." However, such a subjective standard, when used by students, is inappropriate in this context.

The faulty logic operates thus:

My values have been challenged, beliefs questioned, world views criticized, or my ideas have been labeled as incorrect.
Because my ideas have been criticized, I feel uncomfortable, inferior, stupid, not as good as the next person.
So, I have been the object of discrimination.
Discrimination is unacceptable.
Therefore, because the kind of activity causing me this discomfort is discriminatory, it is unacceptable.
But such an argument fails to acknowledge that the university does discriminate: against ignorance and stupidity, intellectual darkness and the uncritical acceptance of idiocies and half-truths. The investigations undertaken within the university do discriminate against naive assumptions, against preferences and positions which cannot stand up to critical scrutiny, against unreflective dogmatism, uncritical skepticism, simple-minded relativism, and against a host of other ill-informed, poorly conceived, and sometimes down-right silly ideas that might circulate in the academy. Discrimination of this kind does not prohibit the expression of any ideas or viewpoints, but it also does not let any ideas or viewpoints pass by unchallenged, undeveloped, or unquestioned. Such discrimination is not merely undertaken every day in the university, but it must be actively and diligently pursued if the university is to adhere to its mission and fulfill its task.

Still having mixed feelings on the whole thing, Snood.

True, but hard to do.

I disagree, dys. Unless trolling the trolls in some way gets them to stop trolling (highly doubtful in this particular case) then adding additional clutter makes the situation worse, not better.

I see that others are starting to pick up the trolling the troll torch. How is this a good thing?





I have no mixed feelings on it whatsoever.

I agree. Trolls troll because they feed on the reactions of others. Any reaction will do -- positive, negative, or absurd. My own perception as a reader of "troll the trolls" posters is similar to JPB's. Every time they do this, they further pollute an already-polluted thread, with little to show for it in terms of de-escalation. I'm curious, Dys: In what sense do you think your approach was "stunningly successful"?

WHY THE LEFT IS BANKRUPT-THEY BELIEVE

My values have been challenged, beliefs questioned, world views criticized, or my ideas have been labeled as incorrect.
Because my ideas have been criticized, I feel uncomfortable, inferior, stupid, not as good as the next person.
So, I have been the object of discrimination.
Discrimination is unacceptable.
Therefore, because the kind of activity causing me this discomfort is discriminatory, it is unacceptable.
But such an argument fails to acknowledge that the university does discriminate: against ignorance and stupidity, intellectual darkness and the uncritical acceptance of idiocies and half-truths. The investigations undertaken within the university do discriminate against naive assumptions, against preferences and positions which cannot stand up to critical scrutiny, against unreflective dogmatism, uncritical skepticism, simple-minded relativism, and against a host of other ill-informed, poorly conceived, and sometimes down-right silly ideas that might circulate in the academy. Discrimination of this kind does not prohibit the expression of any ideas or viewpoints, but it also does not let any ideas or viewpoints pass by unchallenged, undeveloped, or unquestioned. Such discrimination is not merely undertaken every day in the university, but it must be actively and diligently pursued if the university is to adhere to its mission and fulfill its task.

I guess people are occasionally playing with a troll just for the fun of it. A bit like a cat playing with a dead mouse, I suppose - the difference being that the troll enjoys it. Or, in that case, probably even both sides. Which makes a troll out of both the troll and the anti-troll.

I wonder if, in that case, a short word from the author to the side he considers less trollish might help...?

Common techniques > Word games
Name CALLING





"Bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen. They have been and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, tribes, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, sections of the country, nations, and races." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.

The most obvious type of name calling involves bad names. For example, consider the following:
Commie
Fascist
Pig
Yuppie
Bum
Queer
Terrorist
A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected because they possess a negative emotional charge. Those who oppose budget cuts may characterize fiscally conservative politicians as "stingy." Supporters might prefer to describe them as "thrifty." Both words refer to the same behavior, but they have very different connotations. Other examples of negatively charged words include:
social engineering
radical
cowardly
counter-culture
The name-calling technique was first identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) in 1938. According to the IPA, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we spot an example of name-calling.
What does the name mean?
Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name?
Is an idea that serves my best interests being dismissed through giving it a name I don't like?

I engaged an OCD troll for the fun of it a while back, but ultimately, I stopped because I realized that I am only OC to a certain degree, and the exchange was annoying other posters.

I think there's still a difference between talking to just one or two posters on a particular thread and trolling. I happens quite often that two posters are engaged in a back and forth, and I guess this can be annoying to other posters. However, if they are still talking to each other instead of merely polluting the thread just for the sake of it, I wouldn't necessarily see this as trollish behavior.

Like Thomas said: Trolls troll because they feed on the reactions of others. If the back and forth is merely motivated by the desire to get a reaction from any third poster, than yes, I'd call it trolling, too...

Now, Madison has fallen into the snare of actually breaking TOS. The multiple identical posts are VERBOTEN!!

Sure. But that's neither something new, nor does commenting on it bother the troll. Quite the contrary. It's a reaction.

The question is rather: should you even bother reporting it?

Name-calling should not be tolerated

When Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stooped to name-calling he didn't realize that more than just the Democrats he targeted would take offense.

The Democrats responded to this insult by complaining that it was sexist and homophobic, insulting to women and gays, according to CNN.com. State Sen. Sheila Kuehl told CNN the governor had resorted to "blatant homophobia".

Assemblyman Mark Leno, chairman of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus also responded to the "girlie men" comment by perceiving it as misogynist and anti-gay. The National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC) also felt Schwarzenegger was insulting women, Democrats, and transgenders.

People should realize that one little comment by the Governor does not mean he hates lesbians, gays, bisexuals or women. It does not mean he is homophobic or hates transgendered people.

All it means is that Governor Schwarzenegger attempted to make himself a stronger candidate by calling names and pointing fingers at the opposition. He means that the Democrats are wimps compared to his strong self. The Governor was not implying that women, crossdressers, or anyone but the Democrats are weaker politicians.

After all, both parties represent their special interests and spotlighting the Democrats does nothing but turn the spotlight back to the Republican special interest groups.

President Bush and Senator Kerry have been name-calling throughout their campaign, but anyone running for office should avoid silly insults and put-downs. These are the words of children, and most of us learned long ago that name-calling is not nice. True gentlemen (or gentlewomen) do not stoop so low.

The popularity of the Internet has brought about an easy way of creating smear ads, publishing them, and hiding the identity of the creator. The Internet allows easy access to millions of Web users and is not censored or judged for truth. On the Internet, any thought, no matter how false, can be distributed to the masses. Voters should pay close attention to where these ads are coming from and if they are backed by any sense of truth before passing the information along