Blog

Enough is Enough!

I should have listened to the guy who said “less is more.”

My last “blog” post on this subject was so long even I had a hard time fighting my way through to the end of it.

And I wrote it!

Lesson learned – this (and future blogs) shorter and less bloggier! J

This topic, however, still represents the change I want to help make in this world. For democracy to work, we need to be able to disagree with each other – as Americans in good faith – without tearing each other apart.

So onward, into the troll fog – to make these small contributions to a more productive, healthy society – a society that can sustain a functioning democracy … even in a world of trolls.

Today, I’m going to:

• Start by (briefly) recapping the points made in previous articles on this subject
• Add one more tool
• And then share how next week, I’m “going in” to the lions’ dens where trolls growl and snarl to experiment with using these tools.

Who Reads the Instruction Manual?

My goal is to collaboratively create an “instruction manual” for how to create safe places to discuss our differences, with an emphasis on “troll-proofing” forums on the internet. I offer these “instructions” as a first rough draft which I enthusiastically invite others to contribute to – I particularly welcome comments from those whose points of view disagree with mine!

The “manual” to this point:

1. Commit, right now, to never getting angry over any comment posted on the internet, ever.

We cannot disarm trolls by becoming trolls ourselves. Never allow yourself to get angry over anything posted at you on the internet. Ever. Take the high road.

2. Never lose sight of the fact that we could be the ones who are wrong.

We cannot call for open-mindedness in others if we are not committed to open-mindedness ourselves. Realizing we could be wrong – by accepting this premise as an absolute fact – also helps with implementing tool #1.

 3. Begin with the end in mind.

What exactly are we hoping to accomplish by posting our opinions? Are we seeking to persuade those who disagree? Are we wanting to provide support to those who agree? Do we want to model appropriate exchanges to raise the level of discourse? Are we wanting to simply vent, to make someone else angry? Clarifying our purpose in advance provides us with guidelines for everything we say and do – and that most certainly includes our interactions on the internet.

A New Tool – Begin on Common Ground

I’m a “communications person.” Committed much of personal and professional life to studying it. I have come to a central belief about how Americans communicate – we are very poor as a culture in disagreeing with each other.

We Americans are TERRIBLE at this. Instead of healthy, even robust, expressions of disagreements, we engage in arguments which quickly devolve into ugliness. As a result, we avoid it. We become very reluctant to express our opinions – any opinion – that might start an argument.

So often in my college classrooms, students quickly become stressed and anxious when disagreements are expressed. They try to pull the rip cord early by imploring “let’s just agree to disagree” right at the precise moment where new, important enlightenments might be discovered.  If we can’t listen to other points of view without becoming uncomfortable, how can learning take place? How did we used to do this?

The answer is “politely”.

It used to be considered a matter of simple politeness that, before we shared our disagreements, we would first begin by sharing where we agreed. We would begin on common ground. If our intent is to move others’ opinions, we need to first start where they are now. Only after we’re together in the same square does it then becomes possible to walk someone’s heart and mind to another place, another point of view.

Go Fix Yourself!

Begin on common ground. We don’t’ do much of that anymore. Not only do we not begin by pointing out where we agree, we no longer limit ourselves to attacking someone’s argument – we immediately attack the person themselves! Since I must be right, you must be wrong. Not only that, but if you are wrong, there must be something wrong with you… and we are only too eager to tell people what’s wrong with them and what they need to do to get fixed.

Well, no one likes to be told to go get fixed.

It’s no wonder we avoid “arguments” when they quickly become unpleasant name-calling contests! We can do better, by adopting the “argument sandwich” – Agree/Disagree/Agree.

Have a Sandwich

Once we agree, we at least have the potential to find an open mind when we state our disagreements. This could sound like this “I can see where your concern about home safety is important. As someone with a family myself, I don’t even like to think about the horror stories we hear on the news about dangerous people breaking into my home. So, I get why you’d feel so strongly about the right to bear arms. Home security is important to me too. Let me share, however, why I’m not convinced that your views on gun laws are the best solutions here.”

This is the sandwich technique of argument. Agree. Disagree. Agree. You’ll also notice some language I used here “I’m not convinced…” suggests I have an open mind on the subject. It invites a rational response. “You’re wrong” or “I’ll never believe” do not.

The Fine Print

Of course, there are some opinions that are beyond common ground. Racism, sexism, ant-Semitism – all the bigotry and hatred we hear – we don’t engage with by first agreeing. These need to be confronted. I wouldn’t suggest we placate those whose points of view are ugly and unacceptable. Today’s tool assumes we’re dealing with someone who at least desires to engage in good faith. I believe that oftentimes we find what we seek, and if we look for open minds we may find them, but for those whose minds are full of poison, the Argument Sandwich is not on the menu.

Getting Real

This won’t work with everyone all the time. Next blog I’m going to be re-visiting specific strategies for dealing with each type of internet forum poster. I realize that there are closed-minded types who are unreachable. We’ll have a specific strategy for them, as well. But, it has been my experience that sometimes people will surprise you. If you treat someone with respect, sometimes … sometimes … they respond with respect. This is the beginning of changing culture – the first volley in the disarming of trolls – not by out-insulting them, but by “becoming the change we want to see in the world”.

Those who seek battles, take heart – we’ll have tools in our instruction manual for combat too, but the real “war” is to seek truth, and the Argument Sandwich gives us a way to express, and hear, different opinions than ours without having to feel like we somehow “lost” if we do what intelligent people do when faced with new evidence and valid argument – change our minds.

Same Time. Same Channel.

Next week, I hope to use our toolkit in a variety of internet forums and share my experiences. Wish me luck. In the meantime, don’t agree to disagree. Disagree without being disagreeable!

HOW TO TAKE THE HIGH ROAD, DISARM TROLLS, AND SAVE DEMOCRACY (Part 2)

We hold these truths to be self-evident…

Americans love freedom. Revere it as a national religion. And our most revered freedom of all, by far, is freedom of speech. According to a recent survey, 47% of those polled said freedom of speech is the single most important right, almost five times the number citing the second-choice, freedom of religion.

Freedom of speech was included in the First Amendment for a reason — debating points of public policy, exposing corruption, and creating a national consensus requires the open expression of different opinions.

But when it comes to the internet, the forums where freedom of speech are most often expressed seem to have become polluted.

Polluted with trolls.

According to a survey cited in a recent Time magazine article, 70% of 18-to-24-year-olds who use the Internet have experienced harassment, and 26% of women that age said they’ve been stalked online.

How can the forums necessary to live in a functioning democracy exist when so many voices are poisoning those forums with insults and threats?

And, how do we take those spaces back?

Anti-troll insurgency

I am writing this series of blog articles to collaboratively develop strategies to take the internet public spaces back. To take them back not by counter-arguing, counter-bullying, or counter-insulting, but by creating a healthy community who talk back from a place of emotional health and calm, clear reasoning, and determination.

I’m convinced this approach is the only approach that can win.

I call this community “the High Roaders.”

I’ve devoted much of my life’s work to the study of communication. Beyond being a college professor in communication, I’ve led programs helping all types of people who act like trolls… only they act out that way in person. To your face.

I’ve managed programs helping addicts, ex-offenders, the homeless, and the mentally ill to move forward in life. It is from this counseling background, in particular, that I’ve adopted the approaches I’m convinced can, and will, work.

And, work not by surrendering but by understanding what winning means.

Begin with the end in mind

In my first blog, I suggested a mindset critical to engaging in a healthy, empowered way when confronted with unhealthy, obnoxious behavior. This mindset has two tools:

• Commit, right now, to never getting angry over any comment posted on the internet, ever.
• Never lose sight of the fact that we could be the ones who are wrong

These tools are necessary. If we are to be part of the solution, we can’t, ourselves, act in a way that contributes to the problem. We need to be like doctors of the internet – “first, do no harm.” J We do not defeat trollism in America by becoming trolls ourselves.

To go forward in developing response strategies, we need to follow one of Steven Covey’s 7 habits, “Begin with the end in mind”. When we post comments on line, what do we actually hope to accomplish?

This requires more thought than you might at first think. “To express my opinion” might be your first thought. Okay. And, then what? What specific difference do you want the expressing of your opinion to make? And to whom?

Or, “to make my point”, “to persuade others” – none of these outcomes are defined specifically enough to guide us in our methods.

When we post a comment on line, what difference do we want it to make? To whom? And toward what outcome?

If our focus is on posting comments that just make us feel good by slamming those who disagree with us, what are we actually accomplishing? Other than the short-term feeling of shallow satisfaction (“ha! Got him good with that one!”), how is that helping anyone or anything? The one outcome we are surely not accomplishing is changing anyone else’s heart or mind about anything… other than making the case to the very people we should be trying to persuade that we’re a jerk.

What is persuasion good for anyway?

Let’s look at what outcomes are realistic whenever we try to persuade anyone of anything.

Below is a standard Likert scale:

All of us fall somewhere on this scale on every issue. When we seek to persuade someone, I’ve long felt that we believe we can somehow come up with some comment, some point, some withering attack that will completely change another person’s opinion 180 degrees – to persuade someone who strongly disagrees with us to, instead, strongly agree with us.

That almost never happens.

On the planet we live on, the human beings inhabiting it are very reluctant to change their opinions. About anything. Regardless of what evidence we bring forward. So, what is persuasion good for, and what can we actually hope to accomplish by making persuasive arguments in the first place?

What is realistic is moving people one square. That’s it. One square. To take someone who is undecided and have them slightly agree or disagree. To take someone who disagrees strongly and have them disagree less strongly. All along the scale. One square. This is what is realistically achievable, and as I am reluctant to attempt the impossible, this is a focus for our proposed interactions, not just on-line, but in life.

To seek to move people’s hearts and minds one square at a time.

Troll Triage

For our purposes, let’s divide up everyone who posts comments on line into four major groups:

1. 1) People who already agree with us

2) People who disagree with us and aren’t trolls

3) People who act like trolls but believe they are reasonable

4)Malicious trolls intent on poisoning the well

As this series of blogs unfold, I’m going to be developing specific response strategies for each group. In wrapping up this week’s lengthy post, I just want to touch briefly on what I consider the low-hanging fruit – group 3, people who act like trolls but believe they are reasonable.

My inspiration for this entire blog series has been the revelation that there are those who act like trolls, but either don’t intend to or believe that’s just the way the “game is played.” Time and time again, I’ll confront this group, not with counter-insult, but instead by pointing out how their poor behavior reflects badly on their cause. This sometimes required initially ignoring relatively minor slights and responding clearly with appropriate methods of expressing disagreements.

And voila!

Group 3 “trolls” sometimes – sometimes – begin to respond more reasonably. I can see them feeling less certain of the rightness of their point of view. No, they don’t agree with me, but I achieve the achievable.

I move them one square.

Moreover, I modify their behaviors by rewarding the behaviors I want. Respond reasonably, and get rewarded with respectful attention. Act badly, become ignored and irrelevant. I’ll be developing more specific strategies for dealing with group 3 trolls, based upon real-world examples, next blog.

I’ll also be developing response strategies for the other 3 groups moving forward, as well. Along the way, I hope others will participate in the creation of a High Road battle plan that can win back our internet public places.

At least some of them. Some of the time.

Is this where we sing Kumbaya?

This won’t be easy. I’m under no illusions that, so long as “we’re cool”, we will encounter nothing but peaceful, cool responses in return. I’m well aware that the very hallmarks of healthy interaction are, in some troll mindsets, evidence of weakness.

I’m not suggesting disarmament in the war against trolls. If I sometimes choose to turn the other cheek it is not out of weakness nor a lack of ability to strike back. No, I am quite capable of insulting people. I’m actually very good at it. Part of me likes to insult people (don’t tell anyone). Just love those “I believe you mean ‘you’re’, ‘it’s’, and ‘their’, idjit!”

But, you know what…

…we do not persuade people by insulting them.

If I sometimes choose to turn the other cheek it is to show that I can take your best shot and you can’t hurt me. In that light, while I reserve the right to return fire, I turn the other cheek as the ultimate power move. (see tool #1)

Where’s this going?

I have a vision. A vision of countless healthy, reasonable people holding differing viewpoints on every issue, disagreeing like adults. Pointedly, clearly, even loudly, but still productively, healthily, respectfully.

Like the Americans we see ourselves as being.

I hope to eventually organize strike forces of people to take over internet spaces with reasonable, healthy discussion – to overwhelm the trolls with our number, by rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior, not by feeding the trolls with insults, but by ignoring them.

One forum at a time. Supporting others who act appropriately, most particularly those we disagree with.

I hope to eventually create physical MeetUp groups where we get together as High Road gangs to take back our neighborhood from the trolls. I hope to maybe live stream these meetings – to be as transparent as possible in our methods, means, and objectives.

I hope I’m on the right track or can at least find it. I hope that others will provide feedback to keep me from getting too far off track along the way!

Next week, we lay out some tools for group number 3.

Stay tuned!

And, please, please, please – by all means – disagree! J

We ask ourselves the questions…

When did it become our habit to start every conversation that’s even remotely controversial by expressing our opinion…. and then ducking?

Why does anything having to do with politics feel so ugly, frustrating, and dysfunctional?

Have we become a nation of trolls?

Like anyone else who’s spent any time on the internet at all, I’ve asked myself these questions. Can democracy survive a culture in which hurling insults is the normal way matters of importance get “discussed”?

A more perfect union…

Democracy requires healthy communication – the ability to express differences of opinion, passionately and loudly even – with an end result of creating a consensus. This is the foundation of self-governance. There’s a reason that freedom of speech and the right of peaceable assembly are in our First Amendment. Without safe forums in which differences of opinion get openly discussed, freedom is not possible.

Yet we seem to have lost the ability to disagree with one another without being disagreeable, replaced by a preponderance of pointless flame-throwing – verbal flame-throwing which threatens to drive out the reasonable voices our nation needs to move forward.

Are the trolls winning?

I’ve chosen to undertake the task of creating a forum in which counter-insurgency tactics against trolls can be discussed and implemented. As a starting point, I’ll be sharing some tools that have helped me walk in this world in a way that feels healthy and allowed me to have healthy, even uproarious conversations with people who hold very different opinions than my own… people who I consider among my dearest friends perhaps specifically because they disagree with me.

I’ll be inviting people to create a community committed to being part of the solution – of making war not on any individual trolls but on the concept of “trollness” itself – of defeating trollness by modeling appropriate communication at all levels and at all times.

I firmly believe that the strongest position to come from is the highest moral posture, and so I call this community the “High Roaders.”

The High Roaders

I’ve spent much of my adult life studying communication. I’ve come to understand that effective communication requires more than audience analysis, rhetoric, encoding, channels, cultural context, feedback, and the like. At its core, being an effective communicator requires one thing – to be the sort of person people want to listen to.

I begin this quest, therefore, by sharing two tools as foundations – not foundations guiding how we communicate with others but foundations guiding how we communicate with ourselves. I offer two tools:

• Commit, right now, to never getting angry over any comment posted on the internet, ever.
• Never lose sight of the fact that we could be the ones who are wrong

Before we get into these tools, however, let’s make clear – there are trolls and there are TROLLS. That is, there are some who are angry, name-calling, offensive jerks (trolls) and there are those who threaten actual violence – who seek out identities, post addresses, children’s names and schools, and act in ways that aren’t obnoxious, but criminal. I hope to disarm trolls through the behaviors of our numbers, with an eye toward helping as many as possible to act more responsibly, to potentially reconsider their positions and behaviors. TROLLS need to be dealt with through law enforcement and forum administration, as limited as those resources and recourses sometimes feel.

Tool #1 – Never get angry, ever

We cannot disarm trolls by becoming trolls ourselves. We lose sight of the high road when we respond in anger ourselves. This is actually easier than it sounds. We tend to respond to obnoxious internet posts in the same way we might respond to someone insulting us, face-to-face, for example, as in a bar. Naturally, if someone insults us face-to-face, in a public space, we are likely to become angry – to feel as though we have face to save and that it would be seen as cowardly not to respond in kind.

The reality on the internet, however, is much different. Insult-throwing trolls aren’t the equivalent of someone insulting us to our face. They are the equivalent of someone hurling insults as they drive past us in a car and then racing off… wearing a mask. To consider them anything more than that is silly really.

Of course, each of us has a right to become angry over injustice, bigotry, and intentional malice. But we fight these not by getting angry at their carriers – we fight injustice not by seeking to destroy trolls but by seeking to disarm them whenever we can. Never allow yourself to get angry over anything posted at you on the internet. Ever. Take the high road.

Tool #2 – It could be us who are wrong!

Out of all the challenges faced with taking the High Road, admitting to ourselves that it could be us, ourselves, who are wrong is perhaps the hardest. Nonetheless, if we are to present ourselves as fair-minded critical thinkers, we need to never lose sight of the fact that we are human too, and imperfect in our understandings and judgments. We cannot call for open-mindedness in others if we are not committed to open-mindedness ourselves. By seeking first to understand (one of Steven Covey’s 7 Principles), we provide ourselves an opportunity to disarm trolls not by overcoming them, but by being relentlessly reasonable… by taking the High Road.

Realizing we could be wrong – by accepting this premise as an absolute fact – also helps with implementing tool #1 – it’s harder to be angry if we realize we could be seen as a troll by someone else.

“Opening” Thoughts….

I realize some of this may feel kind of “zen”, but if we’re to take back the public internet forums and create safe places to conduct healthy discussions, we need to start with ourselves. As Ghandi said, we need to “become the change we want to see in the world.” I think of the internet now as being like a public park in an iffy neighborhood – a park where people hang out who are dubious, sketchy, and threatening. The solution is not to abandon the park to the lowest among us. The solution is for everyone in the community to come to the park, to create a safe public space in our number, to crowd out and make uncomfortable those whose behaviors are problematic.

I offer this posting as a beginning, a beginning of what I hope is an on-going conversation. I have many more tools I’ll be sharing in future posts that can, hopefully, become part of a conversation describing potential solutions.

I begin today by committing myself to the High Road, and inviting you to make a similar commitment yourself, and together coming to understand what that means and how we can achieve it.

AuthorBerniePosted onSeptember 19, 2016TagsBernie Nofel, democracy, freedom, trolls

2 thoughts on “How to Take the High Road, Disarm Trolls, and Save Democracy (Part 1)”

1. Jim Brandonsays:September 20, 2016 at 12:16 amBernie – this is good stuff and I look forward to reading further posts. The writing is clear and clean, as are the ideas.I think it’s important, and you may want to address in later posts, the format of how people write on line. Good ideas get lost in long, long, unbroken sentences and paragraphs that are un-readably long. Like the writer is worried someone is going to interrupt them if they take a breath…