This is perfect. Someone needs to create a "How to tap out a troll in under 10 seconds w/ Judith Chantler" Instructional video.
You hit every mark.
Just for other's education, I'm going to do a quick tactic analysis in the hopes that that Instructional video gets made.
Tactics used-
1. Non ad hominem attack on the troll. Once a person references their belief, opinion, judgement etc in an argument, they are no longer the messenger. They have now self identified as the expert supporting their position. Question and Refute whatever trait they are relying on to subjectively support that position. Show that they lack the resource they claim.
2. Find their errors, present them, but do not explain their errors to them. (If Denise ever reads this, then I am breaking the no teaching the enemy rule, but it is worth it.)
Denise's error was to read the last 5 words of Wendel's comment and gamble on them referencing a singular entity. "WEF mole. See Sasha Latypova" Sasha is a damn good investigative journalist and pharma expert, not the WEF Mole using censorship. A simple copy and paste search of the name would have prevented this error. This is a failure to do even the lowest effort diligence before entering the fray. Pathetic and Judith gets a clean head shot for it.
"What you did was read a poorly worded post and jumped on the bandwagon of ‘let’s get the censorship suspect.’ The “suspect” happens to be someone you have never heard of before."
Judith was able to extrapolate this take down from that one, unforced error. Most importantly, notice the lack of correction or even bio info presented along with take down. This way, Denise leaves the argument only knowing that Judith somehow knew that she had not done even the most cursory review of the topic prior to commenting. Learns nothing from the self inflicted L, but potentially (Hopefully) gains an anxiety of possible future prescient rebuttals.
3. Embarrass their thoughtless supporters. Those people who liked that comment, now have a solid reason to feel that Denise has utterly failed them. They don't know exactly how, but they do know that they have become somehow lessened in the public opinion. They absolutely are idiots for the knee jerk public support of such a flawed comment, but they will blame the injury on Denise. The quality of character it takes to see when one has only themself to blame for a social injury, precludes those who jump, in total ignorance of the topic at hand, to support a position.
Bonus lesson, can anyone point out the grade school tactic Denise crafted her comment around? It's a logical bait and switch.
Appear to support the thesis, "Anyone who uses censorship... is suspect" (censorship bad), then suggest the antithesis as a solution, " Better to spend no time caring about what they have to say" (self-censor them, censorship good). Juvenile but often effective in shifting the Overton Window.
This is perfect. Someone needs to create a "How to tap out a troll in under 10 seconds w/ Judith Chantler" Instructional video.
You hit every mark.
Just for other's education, I'm going to do a quick tactic analysis in the hopes that that Instructional video gets made.
Tactics used-
1. Non ad hominem attack on the troll. Once a person references their belief, opinion, judgement etc in an argument, they are no longer the messenger. They have now self identified as the expert supporting their position. Question and Refute whatever trait they are relying on to subjectively support that position. Show that they lack the resource they claim.
2. Find their errors, present them, but do not explain their errors to them. (If Denise ever reads this, then I am breaking the no teaching the enemy rule, but it is worth it.)
Denise's error was to read the last 5 words of Wendel's comment and gamble on them referencing a singular entity. "WEF mole. See Sasha Latypova" Sasha is a damn good investigative journalist and pharma expert, not the WEF Mole using censorship. A simple copy and paste search of the name would have prevented this error. This is a failure to do even the lowest effort diligence before entering the fray. Pathetic and Judith gets a clean head shot for it.
"What you did was read a poorly worded post and jumped on the bandwagon of ‘let’s get the censorship suspect.’ The “suspect” happens to be someone you have never heard of before."
Judith was able to extrapolate this take down from that one, unforced error. Most importantly, notice the lack of correction or even bio info presented along with take down. This way, Denise leaves the argument only knowing that Judith somehow knew that she had not done even the most cursory review of the topic prior to commenting. Learns nothing from the self inflicted L, but potentially (Hopefully) gains an anxiety of possible future prescient rebuttals.
3. Embarrass their thoughtless supporters. Those people who liked that comment, now have a solid reason to feel that Denise has utterly failed them. They don't know exactly how, but they do know that they have become somehow lessened in the public opinion. They absolutely are idiots for the knee jerk public support of such a flawed comment, but they will blame the injury on Denise. The quality of character it takes to see when one has only themself to blame for a social injury, precludes those who jump, in total ignorance of the topic at hand, to support a position.
Bonus lesson, can anyone point out the grade school tactic Denise crafted her comment around? It's a logical bait and switch.
Appear to support the thesis, "Anyone who uses censorship... is suspect" (censorship bad), then suggest the antithesis as a solution, " Better to spend no time caring about what they have to say" (self-censor them, censorship good). Juvenile but often effective in shifting the Overton Window.
Very interesting Andi. Thank you.