Is ignoring the troll the only thing one can do? Any other suggestions?
Suggestions for Dealing with Trolls?
Don’t.
Yes. Ignoring is good.
the better question is how to identify a troll (that is how to distinguish trolls from people that just disagree with you)
Just pretend that whoever you think is a troll actually isn’t a troll.
Dont pretend. IF it is apparent to you that it is a troll, it’s not. Real trolls are not just angry dissidents. They are just there to spread the seed of doubt.
How would one deal with pro-war arrogant Australian trolls?
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2010/08/18/only-26-libertarians-in-australia/
The Australian “libertarian” troll is a very specific type of warmongering troll.
Keep agitating Sukrit, you’re doing good work, and those losers can’t do more than troll you.
I am moderator on another (science) forum. Lately I have become too soft-hearted with trolls and my webmaster scolded me… and rightly so.
Thanks for the back-up liberty student. I used to spend a lot of time debating with them in the past, trying to persuade them, but I’ve just given up and am focusing on reaching new people and writing articles/papers etc. making my case.
How can one even be serious about calling himself libertarian and being pro-war? Isn’t this in fundamental contradiction with NAP?
It’s just like William Buckley calling himself a libertarian. It’s a falsehood. They are the remnant of the Fusionist movement..
“the better question is how to identify a troll (that is how to distinguish trolls from people that just disagree with you)”
Intellectual honesty.
How can that be ascertained? A variety of ways. At RPF I would ask those who were arguing against anarcho-capitalist / voluntarism (those with the hell bent attitude), “what books have you read on the subject?”. Naturally, an honest “I have not read any books on the subject”, doesn’t mean their arguments are non existent or suddenly invalid. But their inability to answer that question & in fact, completely avoid it, over and over and over again… was amusing, but also instructive for others (lurkers).
I’d use them as a sounding board, so the viewers can see the opposition get dismantled. If though you can reason with people, if they are intellectually honest and open to persuasion by all means the “soft” approach should be taken. Non adversarial. Socratic method.
boniek, not every libertarian endorses the NAP as a deontic artifact snatched from the magical realm of moral realism.
I much more strongly agree with Hayek’s conception of morality as a product of gene-culture coevolution, a creation that embodies a rationality beyond the reach of human reason.
Milton Friedman didn’t endorse the strict non-aggression principle but he also classified himself as an “anti-interventionist” on foreign policy (though not as much as Rothbard). Johan Norberg wrote a paper about it.
The pro-war so-called “libertarians” have no case whatsoever.
Can you elaborate?
What about NAP as voluntary contractual obligation? Without that obligation one is not libertarian. I was under impression that NAP (as moral or contractual rule) defines this movement and without it this movement doesn’t exist. Correct me if I’m wrong.
“I much more strongly agree with Hayek’s conception of morality as a product of gene-culture coevolution, a creation that embodies a rationality beyond the reach of human reason.”
I don’t understand what you mean here.
When someone continuously repeats the same position without providing actual theoretical support while simultaneously ignoring the rebuttals of others. When their entire argument basically becomes “you’re just too ideological.”
This is how to deal with trolls: Freedom is Slavery