Internet trolls: What to do about the scourge of the Web?

[laklak]

Black people are the bringers of bacon for they are the children of Ham.

Don't forget the fried chicken, watermelon and collard greens.

[Seth]

Just a quick question before I'm off, this might be best answered by staff here. Would revealing private information about a member publicly be a breach of the data protection act in the U.K. do you think?

Almost certainly. It's certainly actionable under the right circumstances.

[Seth]

The good lady and I were discussing this earlier. Her point was that the net, unlike schools or workplaces is not mandatory. To enter into a place which is hostile and complain that people are hostile to you is pity-mongering, masochism or ignorance.

Is a black person entering an establishment that is known to be racist, being a pity-mongerer, masochist or ignorant? Or are they perhaps standing up for what is right?

Depends. If (in the US) it's a "place of public accommodation" then it's both lawful and ethical (though perhaps stupid) to enter, and it's unlawful and unethical for the proprietor to engage in, or to allow his patrons to engage in racial discrimination under the federal civil rights law.

If it's a private club, however, then it's both illegal and unethical to enter the premises, however morally repugnant or unethical the racial discrimination policy might be.

As far as I know, the courts have never ruled that internet fora are "places of public accommodation" that fall under the civil rights laws, but this is actually a very interesting question.

Actually, I take that back, some court HAS ruled that it is illegal for E-Harmony to discriminate against gays in its matchmaking process. But this may be because it's a business that takes and makes money. I don't know if "free" internet fora would be judged to be a "business" or a "private club" by the courts, though I lean towards "private club" and would certainly prefer that construction.

People have the freedom to associate with others, and that necessarily includes the right NOT to associate with others, at least in the sphere of private, non-commercial activity.

It's an interesting question here because funds ARE solicited for the maintenance of Rationalia, which could easily place it in the commercial domain insofar as to application of anti-discrimination laws.

Very interesting question indeed. This might explain some of the more byzantine and opaque decisions of Mods at RatSkep. Because it's associated with the Dawkins foundation, it may qualify as a "business" and therefore have a legal burden to avoid discriminatory practices...like racial, sex preference...and religious/anti-religious discrimination.

[pErvinalia]

So a black person who enters a racist establishment to challenge societies boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable, is a pity-mongerer, but not doing it because it is the right thing to do? The fuck?

Well I'll grant you he could be trolling racists, but that just makes him a troll (or are trolls good when you agree with their actions, is that how it works now?).

You are making this claim that some imagined black person knowingly goes into a place where people are hostile towards him. Your belief that he is somehow doing the "right" thing is your belief, not an objective fact as such. Many more people might believe the guy was just looking to score victim cred, others might think he's a shit stirrer, others might think he did a stupid thing but exposed an equally stupid thing.

So as to your point in the first place, I think nah was sufficient.

What you are missing is that this sort of act did indeed happen many times in the civil rights movement, and lead to a societal change.

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. It seems you are just being contrarian for contrarianism's sake.

[Hermit]

So a black person who enters a racist establishment to challenge societies boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable, is a pity-mongerer, but not doing it because it is the right thing to do? The fuck?

Well I'll grant you he could be trolling racists, but that just makes him a troll (or are trolls good when you agree with their actions, is that how it works now?).

You are making this claim that some imagined black person knowingly goes into a place where people are hostile towards him. Your belief that he is somehow doing the "right" thing is your belief, not an objective fact as such. Many more people might believe the guy was just looking to score victim cred, others might think he's a shit stirrer, others might think he did a stupid thing but exposed an equally stupid thing.

Let's turn from the imagined to the real. What about black South Africans knowingly and intentionally flouting Apartheid rules by availing themselves to drink-fountains clearly signposted: "For Whites Only"? Or Australian aborigines who knowingly and intentionally seated themselves in the section of the cinema reserved for whites? Just shit stirring trolls, looking to score victim cred or doing a stupid thing? Would that include the nine black students who had to be escorted by a military unit into a whites only school in Arkansas circa 1957?

[Seth]

So a black person who enters a racist establishment to challenge societies boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable, is a pity-mongerer, but not doing it because it is the right thing to do? The fuck?

Well I'll grant you he could be trolling racists, but that just makes him a troll (or are trolls good when you agree with their actions, is that how it works now?).

You are making this claim that some imagined black person knowingly goes into a place where people are hostile towards him. Your belief that he is somehow doing the "right" thing is your belief, not an objective fact as such. Many more people might believe the guy was just looking to score victim cred, others might think he's a shit stirrer, others might think he did a stupid thing but exposed an equally stupid thing.

Let's turn from the imagined to the real. What about black South Africans knowingly and intentionally flouting Apartheid rules by availing themselves to drink-fountains clearly signposted: "For Whites Only"? Or Australian aborigines who knowingly and intentionally seated themselves in the section of the cinema reserved for whites? Just shit stirring trolls, looking to score victim cred or doing a stupid thing? Would that include the nine black students who had to be escorted by a military unit into a whites only school in Arkansas circa 1957?

I think there's a distinction to be made between civil disobedience against racist laws with the intent of changing them and using race as a weapon to disparage the right of others to decide who they will and will not associate with.

It seems to me justifiable civil disobedience for a black to drink at a "whites only" fountain or take a seat in the front of the bus because it's the government that has made the law forbidding them from doing so, which no government has any legitimate authority to do.

It seems like chip-on-the-shoulder bad manners with disruptive intent for a black person to force his way into a whites-only private club. Or, as it makes the point better, for a member of the KKK to force his way into a meeting of the Black Panthers.

There's civil disobedience and there's inciting a riot. The line between the two is not always clear.

[Svartalf]

So a black person who enters a racist establishment to challenge societies boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable, is a pity-mongerer, but not doing it because it is the right thing to do? The fuck?

Unless it's ignorance, it's asking for what's gonna befall them, so either pity partying or masochism.

[Hermit]

So a black person who enters a racist establishment to challenge societies boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable, is a pity-mongerer, but not doing it because it is the right thing to do? The fuck?

Well I'll grant you he could be trolling racists, but that just makes him a troll (or are trolls good when you agree with their actions, is that how it works now?).

You are making this claim that some imagined black person knowingly goes into a place where people are hostile towards him. Your belief that he is somehow doing the "right" thing is your belief, not an objective fact as such. Many more people might believe the guy was just looking to score victim cred, others might think he's a shit stirrer, others might think he did a stupid thing but exposed an equally stupid thing.

Let's turn from the imagined to the real. What about black South Africans knowingly and intentionally flouting Apartheid rules by availing themselves to drink-fountains clearly signposted: "For Whites Only"? Or Australian aborigines who knowingly and intentionally seated themselves in the section of the cinema reserved for whites? Just shit stirring trolls, looking to score victim cred or doing a stupid thing? Would that include the nine black students who had to be escorted by a military unit into a whites only school in Arkansas circa 1957?

I think there's a distinction to be made between civil disobedience against racist laws with the intent of changing them and using race as a weapon to disparage the right of others to decide who they will and will not associate with.

It seems to me justifiable civil disobedience for a black to drink at a "whites only" fountain or take a seat in the front of the bus because it's the government that has made the law forbidding them from doing so, which no government has any legitimate authority to do.

It seems like chip-on-the-shoulder bad manners with disruptive intent for a black person to force his way into a whites-only private club. Or, as it makes the point better, for a member of the KKK to force his way into a meeting of the Black Panthers.

There's civil disobedience and there's inciting a riot. The line between the two is not always clear.

Yes, that is true. The aborigines who sat in the white only section of the cinema were not disobeying a racist law. They defied a local (that is to say in this case, an Australian) custom by privately run and owned businesses. Were they inciting a riot?

[Seth]

The aborigines who sat in the white only section of the cinema were not disobeying a racist law. They defied a local (that is to say in this case, an Australian) custom by privately run and owned businesses. Were they inciting a riot?

This is the tough one. Is this "custom" to be observed in all public venues, or does the right to freedom of association only extend that far in private venues, like the home or a private club.

In the US, we determined that the social cost of allowing discrimination in the provision of goods and services interstate were too high, and that the pervasive racism by, in particular, motel and restaurant owners, was infringing on the right of black to travel freely about the country, particularly in the South. Blacks were prohibited from renting rooms or eating in diners or restaurants in most of the South prior to the Civil Rights era, which made it difficult for them to travel. Whole networks of private black-owned homes were created to give black travelers places to rest and eat.

In the case of the movie theater, like the public busses and lunch counters in the south, the government (and the Supreme Court) decided that so long as a business was engaged in "interstate commerce" that Congress could lawfully prohibit such discrimination. It's a bit of a knotty question whether or not this imposition of federal law is actually constitutional, since the Constitution does not address the issue directly, which is why Congress used it's near-plenary Commerce Clause authority to justify the regulations.

From a strictly legal perspective, many people, including many legal scholars and myself, believe that this, and many other actions taken under the cloak of the Commerce Clause are actually beyond the pale and are a usurpation of state's rights and the 4th Amendment proscriptions on taking private property for public use without just compensation. We believe that the power of Congress to regulate "commerce among the several states" has been egregiously abused and unlawfully expanded and distorted far beyond what the Founders intended. It started in the 30s with FDR's economic programs in response to the Great Depression, where FDR simply assumed executive authority that he had no constitutional basis to exercise which was supported by a corrupt Congress.

This does not mean that I do not recognize that such discrimination is not acceptable and is entirely unjust, but the damage done to private property rights that resulted from such attempts at federal social engineering have caused, in my opinion, far more harm to far more people of every color than necessary. The objective of stamping out state-supported racial discrimination could have been achieved in a different way that would not have so boldly and thoroughly aggregated power to the federal government.

[Hermit]

So, should privately owned bus companies who operate school buses be entitled to require black students to vacate their seats when white students demand it? Are those black students inciting a riot if they refuse?

[Seth]

So, should privately owned bus companies who operate school buses be entitled to require black students to vacate their seats when white students demand it? Are those black students inciting a riot if they refuse?

Not if they are contracted by the government not to do so.

[Hermit]

So, should privately owned bus companies who operate school buses be entitled to require black students to vacate their seats when white students demand it? Are those black students inciting a riot if they refuse?

Not if they are contracted by the government not to do so.

Otherwise no problem? No problem with privately owned and run schools to refuse enrolling dark skinned students? Even when a state government (like Arkansas, for instance) decides to close down all government schools in order to prevent integration?

[FBM]

For over 75 years, Augusta National Golf Club was off-limits to women. Last year they admitted two, including Condoleeza Rice. I don't think they were legally required or forced to. They don't take gummit money, afaik.

The difference I see between activism and trolling is that activists set out to highlight and change injustice. Trolls just want to piss people off for fun or whatever.

[Hermit]

...activists set out to highlight and change injustice. Trolls just want to piss people off for fun or whatever.

Yes, of course, but how can you tell which is which? In some cases the distinction is clear. Compare Elizabeth Pankhurst with Lord Such, for instance, but even there the latter made some serious points, albeit expressed in his own inimitable style. Then there was Charles Chaplin. The Great Dictator was a lot of fun, and it pissed a lot of people off, no? Even more so when he made Modern Times. Looking at narrow gauge examples, we have a member here who, far from trying to piss people off, is trying to convert them to his ideology, and he certainly is not fun to read most of the time. Is he an activist set out to highlight and change injustice, or motivated by a pathological need to be grandstanding and insulting for his own amusement, satisfaction and aggrandisement?

[FBM]

I think the fact that he's trying to convert people to an ideology disqualifies him for the "troll" label. What I call a troll is somebody who annoys others for shits and giggles. Granted, I don't think everybody works with the same definition as I do.