This here is the reason why I think that, when dealing with "trolls" of the political influence campaign sort rather than the "just wants to get people mad" sort, the classic advice of "dont feed the trolls" doesnt work. If people wanting to influence public opinion say a bunch of things, and are unchallenged, then anyone coming into the space they are at work in will get the impression that theirs is the sentiment that that community holds and disengage if they dont agree, ceding the space to the influence campaign. If instead those opposed to the influence campaign try to drown out the trolls, then at least they dont appear to represent a consensus opinion.
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
179 points (100.0% liked)
Wikipedia
3206 readers
160 users here now
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
- Only links to Wikipedia permitted
- Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
- Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails
- On Casual Tuesdays, we allow submissions from wikis other than Wikipedia.
Recommended:
- If possible, when submitting please delete the "m." from "en.m.wikipedia.org". This will ensure people clicking from desktop will get the full Wikipedia website.
- Use the search box to see if someone has previously submitted an article. Some apps will also notify you if you are resubmitting an article previously shared on Lemmy.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
it's exactly why ignoring nazis doesn't work:
fascists rely entirely on being perceived as the "majority", the "normal people".
it's why they get so, so mad when you call them "weird": they HAVE to believe they are "normal" and their egos can't take it if you point out that they're...not normal.
that's why it is so important to publicly shame them: fascism dies, when it is denied fertile ground to fester in.
fascists are inherently cowards:
the slightest bit of resistance and they immediately fold. (see TACO, for example)
resistance DOES work!
don't feed the trolls, just call them shitheads and move on
This is a really astute point and I totally agree. I have seen this in public meetings, where a basically the agenda is set by the people who speak up most. One exception might be social networks with feeds that promote based on engagement. They push things up in the feed when they have replies, whether positive or negative. But this is part of why people are pointing out that such networks are harmful, because it amplifies our worst instincts
Nowadays, replace "Majority opinion strengthens" with "Risk of imprisonment and or deportation" increases
I do understand there are some mores (or taboos) that we commonly will find a rationality for, even when there isn't a logical reason for it. A big one is the emphasis of high-contact sports programs in our education system. A lot of lives get ruined (and a few ended) every year to gridiron football injuries in the US, and yet it is difficult to imagine ending football programs in our high-schools and colleges (even if to switch to sports that involve less risk).
There was a study about instinctive mores, featuring the story of Julie and Mark (an adult sister and brother who go camping, have sex, decide not to do it again, but are not harmed by the encounter), and not only did subjects assert such a coupling was morally wrong, but would seek out reasons to justify their belief, even if it didn't fit the specific circumstances. Similarly, it's a common assumption that gay sexual relations between relatives is taboo, even though the commonly understood purpose of the proscription (to avoid conceiving children with birth defects) is not actually possible in the relationship.
For this reason, some social problems that exist (such as the social isolation of boys and young men that puts them at risk of turning to the alt-right) that we are disinclined to address (I've heard the sentiment before: sure, they're suffering, but fuck those guys ) because we have a collective drive to see those issues in a specific way, such as holding contempt for teenage boys as a demographic, even when we know it will drive them into organized hate groups.
Your casual use of the word "our" suggests that you assume readers to be from the same nation as you, which is of course not the case but which, since it is implicitly taken for granted by what you assume is the "majority" yet barely challenged by what you would assume is the "minority", makes a perfect point for this thread's topic.
Not really. Our as I use it implies I, personally, am from the US and that I feel I have some responsibility as a participant in US society (at least, in my case, northern California society).
Contrast using it's to refer to the US state or their indicating I'm on the exterior.
Just as your can mean possessed by you personally or possessed by you, collectively our pronouns can be versitile and ambiguous.
I was writing in good faith, but it is always up to you whether you can trust that.
ETA: I don't know the injury rates or the school-to-professional pipeline of association football, which is highly celebrated in throughout the rest of the world. I do know FIFA experiences high levels of corruption and labor exploitation as NFL or AFL, so there are still reasons for society to regard its sports leagues less. Hominids be hominids, I guess.
There was a study about instinctive mores, featuring the story of Julie and Mark (an adult sister and brother who go camping, have sex, decide not to do it again, but are not harmed by the encounter), and not only did subjects assert such a coupling was morally wrong, but would seek out reasons to justify their belief, even if it didn't fit the specific circumstances.
I just learned this is a criminal offence in the UK as well. Ridiculous. State absolutely should not get involved into what two consenting, non-vulnerable adults are doing. I could understand if conceiving a child in such relationships was a criminal offence but not the sex itself.
Am I a weirdo on for getting louder when I think I my opinion is in the minority? Or is that just a white privilege reaction?
I can be that way, especially when I feel I have the moral or logical upper hand.
I remember once being threatened by fellow passengers on a train to be thrown off. I was in a conversation about religion with someone, and it started when I asserted that Protestants (of any given denomination) have no greater moral standing than Catholics. Evidently at the time, I was in a car full of protestants.
I had already asserted my lack of belief. So what happened next was unexpected, and I still can't explain it. My rival asserted Catholics are deceived by Satan. I countered that Satan, or any other anthropomorphized evil is even less likely than God, or any philosophical notion of an intelligent creator of the cosmos, and that was the point several passengers threatened to physically throw me off the train.
The conversation ceased. I didn't recant and they didn't throw me off the train. And I still don't understand either the logic or the paradigm that defined that as the bar, when my fellow felt driven to threaten violence.
It wasn't very Christian of them, but in the age of white Evangelist Christian nationalism, I don't expect self-identifying Christians to actually seek to be christ-like.
I got pulled into an hr meeting for mentioning that Christians have killed millions (possibly billions) of pegans. But this sounds way more intense to me.
As someone who grew up catholic, yep. There's a decent chunk of protestants that just think Catholics are satanists
i dont like the spiral of silence and anyone who does should shut up about it!
this is the first graph i've seen where time is on the y-axis instead of the x-axis.
that decision makes me immensely uncomfortable.
With other axes it would be a corkscrew of silence.
We are free to name axis however for the sake of better representation, they forgive us and allow us to do so. Sometimes there is no time at all.
I work in a field closely related to gov’t work, very closely. I stopped talked about my politics, when I was an outspoken supporter of workers and human rights before, when Biden tanked his debate. I also weigh the pros and cons of saying anything here, too.
But, it’s not just minority now, although I am the minority at work… it’s gov’t censorship and retaliation against those that don’t toe the line.
In the spiral of silence, important minority opinions can go unvoiced, leading to a distorted sense of public opinion. This can create a climate of fear and conformity over time. Similarly, in the prisoner’s dilemma, mutual distrust can lead to decisions that harm all parties involved, such as missed opportunities for cooperation. Both ultimately undermine collective well-being by preventing optimal group outcomes.
Ooh I quite like this Theory