Over on Dalrock, there was an entire article devoted to someone — no one knows who — simply because he was related to someone that the author doesn’t like. That sort of tastelessness offends my sensibilities, and I expressed as much a couple of days ago.
Naturally, all the usual suspects were immediately activated, jumping into the fray. First on the scene was Cane Caldo…
The fact that Cane Caldo is libeling someone with zero evidence (no one even knows their target’s first name) shouldn’t come as a surprise. He’s made his internet career doing similar scroungy things, a couple of examples have been archived here.
Some time later, God is Laughing showed up to agree and amplify…
If someone is spreading “moral rot” then (of course) they are fair game. We should troll such people mercilessly and with abandon. The problem, in this instance, is that no one can point to the target with anything substantive, suggesting he has ever done anything at all… with the exception of being related to someone they don’t like.
There are a group of people who regularly harass and threaten the family members of those others they disagree with. I’m talking about feminists and their allies, both CONservative and SJW liberal.
There is no reason for anyone on our side to stoop to this level. In the first place, such a descent would injure the dignity of a normal man. In the second, these tactics rarely work. To attack someone’s uninvolved family members is to invite all and sundry to see you as an unhinged internet kook, rather than someone who has a legitimate argument.
In any case, since God is Laughing scoffed at the idea of ethics in trolling, I thought I’d throw some thoughts up here. Ya boy Boxer grew up in the golden era of usenet, and cut his virtual teeth in places like rec.pets.cats. These are the rules I learned way back then, and I still try to follow them:
- Do not troll any forum with “support” or “recovery” in its title.
Hassling the despondent is the sign of a very weak troll. - Do not “go real life.”
This rule includes what is now termed doxxing, but it includes looking up people’s relatives and neighbors, in an attempt to harass, threaten or otherwise bother them. That’s what began to happen over at Dalrock, and it was disturbing to see it. - If the forum’s owner/moderator asks you to leave, do so immediately and without drama.
This is just common politeness. If someone came to your house and pissed on your rug, you’d probably order him out. - When engaging with a target, keep your sense of humor.
The difference between a troll and a kook is basically predicated here. You can be hostile, but if you’re not being simultaneously funny or interesting, then you’re just a bore.
I have been banned from too many places to count, including David Futrelle’s Manboobz, WF Price/Welmer’s The Spearhead, and, my favorite, Catholic Answers. I have never kicked up a fuss about being asked to leave any of these places. A troll will come to expect that his account won’t last forever. Even so, sometimes it’s fair to question who is the actual “owner” of a forum. I’m speaking specifically of Twitter, which is run by a billion dollar transnational corporation, and which claims to be a public utility.
Thus there is a certain measure of exception to rule three. Aside from Twitter, I’d also put Facebook in this category. Being suspended from one of these platforms is something that can be fairly ignored (though if someone has a private page on one of these frontends, and he asks me to leave his own tiny segment, I’d respect his wishes.)
Protip: One can use Google Voice and GMail to facilitate the creation of a new Twitter account. Never stop playing one huge, faceless, corporate monstrosity against another. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
Edit 1: Dalrock has penned a good-natured rebuttal to the points I’ve raised here. I’m copying his reply below. I suppose we’ve both made our positions clear, and tomorrow is a new day to put the screws to our common feminist enemas, so without further comment…
Edit 2: As of Sunday, 7 January, Dalrock has deleted all comments which include the legal names of the family members of the combatants. I am personally grateful to him for a wise decision. This conversation is now closed, and we’ll all move on to better things.
Dalrock usually has worthwhile posts…but this was the first one I’ve seen in a long time that didn’t make much sense. It was pure speculation just because the wording he said about his son didn’t make sense.
From my perspective .. (I’ve been everything from a forum moderator to “jus a lil ole simple’ton” poster at many places) .. and this seemed like an out-right doxxing.
I would never expected Dal’rock to do any such thing.
Sigh .. hopefully he got it out of his system.
BTW .. love your new Mathy’Mo’Tician Avatar .. she’s an idiot.
As usual Boxer, you are the voice of reason here
This kind of shit happening over at Dalrock’s doesn’t surprise me in the least….Artisanal Toad was quoted as saying that Dalrock has gone full SJW gamma, and I heartedly agree with AT’s sentiments
As far as I;m concerned it’s only a matter of time when the cracks will show in his fortified armor, and then everyone will see Dalrock’s true colors, you mark my words
You can tell a person’s belief systems but not just seeing what they say, but what they don’t stand against…..The obvious question for your perceptive viewers, is why Dalrock won’t warn Cane Caldo and others for their comments on that particular blog
I’ll give you a hint, it’s because Dalrock agrees 100% with Cane Caldo
‘The obvious question for your perceptive viewers, is why Dalrock won.t warn Cane Caldo and others for their comments on that particular blog’
Well for reference…what have been things Dalrock has warned about when it comes to comments? When it comes to ban hammering…he’s been known to usually have a long leash.
Dear Kryptonian:
I know you don’t like Dalrock, but from where I sat, that argument was soundly won by Mr. D.. Worst of all, rather than conceding and thanking his opponent, Artisanal Toad began kooking out, and then violated rule 3. He made himself look incredibly stupid. I expected much better from that exchange.
I support Dalrock’s well-defined comment policy, which neither Cane nor I have apparently violated, despite months of back’n’forth. In any case, my original point is equally applicable here. It’s impossible to blame anyone other than Cane Caldo for the bad behavior of Cane Caldo. If Dalrock (or I) were to do that, we’d become like Cane Caldo.
He might agree with him. He might not. The only point I care to contend is that Dalrock’s blog doesn’t begin trafficking in the sort of nonsense Cane Caldo finds normal. Dalrock is one of the most effective bloggers for our side. Yesterday’s contribution was terrible optics, and I’m glad it’s over.
Best,
Boxer
I got hold of her CV today. Like the typical feminist wimminz, she seemed to do some work for a few years, then spend the rest of her life coasting. I’m not at all surprised she left both academia and big finance. She seems entirely unmotivated to do anything but write a blog which features articles like this gem:
https://mathbabe.org/2015/06/22/fuck-trigonometry/
In this example, as in her book, her weird anger at men (and the world-at-large) get in the way of some fair points. Trigonometry is faith-based. We were all in grade 10, memorizing those identities. There are probably better ways to teach it (I had such great teachers – no shit – but my experience isn’t the norm, and it probably isn’t even common).
@Boxer
“but from where I sat, that argument was soundly won by Mr. D”
Sorry Boxer, but I strongly disagree…I was a witness to the exchange between the two, and because Dalrock couldn’t refute Toad’s logic and arguments, ended up banning him. Dalrock’s special sauce ingredient for “marriage” is downright laughable and AT was right to pounce on him…..You know my views on this already Boxer, anyone, and I mean anyone, I don’t care who they are, if they are ultra heavy handed in their moderation, and uses censorship to delete comments, and ban those they disagree with, are nothing but despicable cowardly FAGGOTS in my eyes, as those tactics are used by our mortal enemies, the SJW’s, the Feminists, and the Libtards
I have a zero tolerance policy towards those that use such tactics, and Dalrock is THE worse offender I have ever seen
“Dalrock is one of the most effective bloggers for our side”
Sorry but I strongly disagree with you on that one as well……What’s the point in having those that agree with us on the Manosphere, if our comments are continually monitored and subject to the strictest scrutiny….I followed Dalrock for months, and made many many comments, and not once was I ever pulled out of moderation, even though I agreed with EVERYTHING that Dalrock has ever said..And when I pulled him up on it he promptly banned me….so FUCK EM, I don’t need his shit in my life, life is way too short to stress over some fuckwit who is such a pussy mangina that he cowers behind his impenetrable wall of moderation….Need I remind you, that YOU took me out of moderation on my very first comment in here, as far as I’m concerned that makes you a real man in my sight
Anyway I am truly done bashing that fool Boxer, I will not use your wonderful blog and clutter it up with my hate for Dalrock
From this point forward, I will be strictly dealing with the awesome subjects that you bring to your blog
Having high school and college behind me for more than 30+ years .. and performing jobs requiring navigation (land, air and sea) for a living .. I’ve never once bad mouthed math.
I may not agree on how we teach it (i.e. math) .. but .. it’s one of the foundations of eduction (i.e. the written word / language .. math .. and science) and skills for life.
In fact, when I am instructing a new student (e.g. flight instruction), I have them draw a bicycle.
Because if they can’t .. we have bigger issues to deal with first .. and it will affect how I teach this person.
Anyway .. that broad (with blue hair) is crazy.
You should feel absolutely free to criticize (or mock) anyone you want here, including me — provided you abide by the comment policy.
Well, I brought Dalrock’s article to my blog. You’re not off topic.
I don’t know why you got asked to leave Dalrock’s blog, but you’ve always been civil and polite here. Disagreeing and arguing in print has always been a manly virtue, so you shouldn’t feel like you need to excessively moderate yourself. You’ll always be welcome.
Ah well, it’s a new day. I’m gonna go to vigil mass tonight and get in the right frame of mind for another busy week ahead.
Incidentally, do you ever hit the saturday evening services? In my area, it’s a lot less crowded, and skews more toward older people and intact families. Sort of a snapshot of what I’d like to see society look like in the future. I guess the single mom parishoners are out partying Saturday night. Something of an aesthetic delight, for guys like me.
Brother Boxer ..
I give Dalrock wide latitude on his blog because he has earned it. Plus, I never post / argue with the host. That’s bad form. If I don’t like the behavior of the host or its guests .. I leave .. and move-on to other things.
I read his response (above and at his site). I’ve stayed out of this and justed watched it from afar. I’m glad you (or anyone really) ask / demand the tough question gets answered.
Bravo .. I’m glad you challenged Dal and that he answered the challenge.
It has been fun the last month with all this time-off I’ve had to get to be active on the blogs. It never lasts though. I’ll see yenz again when I can come to periscope depth to check-in.
Dear Honeycomb:
I think the non-confrontational attitude you have is mature and reasonable. It’s also worth noting that Dalrock has deleted the comments that spilled the legal names of the family members from his blog. Credit where due, I think this is a very sound decision.
I always enjoy your comments, wherever I find them. What I would really like to see, at some point, is everyone who comments here getting a blog of their own. You can both blog, and comment on other blogs. Having your own space is one more fleck of spittle in the feminist eye, so it’s particularly satisfying.
Be well!
Boxer