This is probably just a whiny complaint of well-known and long running issues. Indeed for a long time most blog sites (not to mention most twitterspheres and Instogram Idiotspheres) have been mono-partisan in those who participate in their discussions/debates. This has been true for a long time for most sites in the Econoblogosphere, including this site, which clearly tilts “left,” even though we have always been open to comments from a wide variety of views.
I have in mind here a particular blog site that I respect and have been spending a lot of time and attention at for some time. It is Econobrowser, initially set up by Jim Hamilton, now at UCSD, and a leading time-series econometrician, long viewed as a nonpartisan technocrat. Some years ago he brought in Menizie Chinn of UW-Madison as a co-blogger, with Menzie becoming the main poster recently, with Jim H only rarely now posting or commenting on anything.
This site has been for some time now one of the few among higher level economics sites where people from different partisan positions have been regularly posting, reasonably intelligently. It has been for some time tilting “left,” as Mr. Apolitical Jim H rarely posts, with Menzie Chinn dominating the site. He served for both both Clinton and G.W. Bush as staffer on the CEA, giving him a cred cover of bipartisanship, although since Trump came in he has clearly been negative on Trump.
I do wish to see the various trollish right-wing posters disappear or be banned. There should be no room for trolling here or at any blog that strives to be a forum for diversity. No. Trolling.
As for misinformed, we all labor under some degree of misinformation. But arguments from authority have no place here or at other blogs that strive to inform. If you have evidence, bring it. If you doubt but have no evidence to bring, ask honest questions and be prepared to listen for answers. But misinformation isn’t just another form of opinion.
Define “troll”. Is “troll” a stereotype you attribute to an opinion or assertion you won’t or cannot refute?
Words have effect, I suggest you look up Alice’s interaction with Humpty Dumpty from “Through the Looking Glass.”
Then Barry Ritholtz is about due to link “The Ten Commandments of Logic”.*
Some of us “trolls” get kick out of the illogic used to respond to positions some find uncomfortable.
Calling your debate adversary a “bot” or “troll” does not win argument, and implies the position defended is soft.
“There should be no room for trolling here or at any blog that strives to be a forum for diversity. No. Trolling”
*Something similar to what Ritholtz has linked. The Ten Commandments of Logic”.
“In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain. ”
“I suggest you look up Alice’s interaction with Humpty Dumpty from “Through the Looking Glass.””
LOL! I was probably reading that before you were born. But if you actually did look up Alice’s interaction with Humpty Dumpty (not exactly my source for rational discourse, but you brought it up), you would discover this:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Is that the sort of guidance you’re endorsing?
Sorry, I overlooked this:
“Calling your debate adversary a “bot” or “troll” does not win argument, and implies the position defended is soft.”
Calling your debate adversary a troll when they are trolling isn’t calculated to win an argument, any more than calling a bully a “bully” or calling an economist an “economist.” It is simply a description. Don’t want to be called a “troll?” Don’t troll.
Joel, well states the problem: “I do wish to see the various trollish right-wing posters disappear or be banned. There should be no room for trolling here or at any blog that strives to be a forum for diversity. No. Trolling.”
By closely linking right wing and trolling in his opening sentence. Citing alternative views is not trolling except to a those with a closed mind. Making them disappear has succeeded in dropping the numbers of comments/commenters on too many sites.
“Is that the sort of guidance you’re endorsing?”
I was doing what Lewis Carroll did, opening the idea that words have import in debate, and logic cannot go on if the meaning of words is not standard.
On the “troll” or “bot” topic, why call someone you do not agree with a stereotypical nomen?
Both you and CoRev are talking to yourselves, not to me. I never said or implied that someone I disagree with is ipso facto trolling. I gave you the wikipedia definition of trolling, which does not include disagreement. For you to persist in baiting me this way in spite of my posts fits the definition of trolling.
I don’t feed trolls.
No “baiting” intended……
Whatever you mean by “baiting”.
Note that I carefully said “trollish,” not “troll,” and did not identify specifically anybody as that, although it is amusing that the person I had most in mind has shown up here, the notorious serial liar, CoRev.
I note that there is at least one more leftish leaning regular poster I think is “trollish,” but I am not calling any of them, even worst offender, CoRev, “trolls.”
Also, ironically, Peak Trader has reappeared there, whining that he has been censored a lot. I think he iis lying and have challenged him to report the number of times he has been censored by the blog masters. He has not responded to that so far, and I suspect he will not.
Barkley’s comment is indicative why we so often choose to stop commenting. Name calling, liar, racist, troll, etc?
How sincere is Barkley’s complaint?
I tossed you and Sammy into spam before. Leave do not come back. I am not going to put up with it.
Wow,, CoRev, you have just that you are a liar. I have never called you a “racist” or a “troll.” I have called you a liar, which you are. You owe me an apology on Econbrowser for about me, now more than once.
You are a total serial liar, CoRev, to the point of being utterly nauseating. Menzie only lets you keep lying on Econbrowser because he is setting you up to be an example for future students as a total ignorant fool.
I was a long time 20 years commenter on this blog. I was even given the opportunity by cactus and rdan to put up many main story posts, which garnered WSJ “Best of the Web” links and would get 200+ intelligent comments. Until I was banned.
You should look at the miniscule readership numbers at angrybear, both prior to banning conservative commentators and compared to econbrowser, which allows some conservative comments and it’s clear: you have committed the ultimate sin. Not censorship, but being BORING.
You do not need to stay either.
sammy claims the heyday of the econoblogosphere was due to him and corev….? Flame on!
You now owe me another apology for your latest lie, that I supposedly called you a “racist” and a “troll.” This is you to the max. You are just scum.
You are imitating Trump, CoRev. He has now lied way over 10,000 times since becoming prez. When caught lying he simply distracts by issuing fresh new lies.
That is your approach as well. I have long lost count of the number of lies you have put up on Econbrowser, but when you are caught, you just issue new lies. YOu never admit wrong, you “double doen” and insist on “having the last word.”
So, folks, I am not going to import CoRev’s garbage into this blog. Menzie should have shut this worthless lying scum down a long time ago, but I am not going to reply to him further here. The record is that we have lost count of his lies. I could lay them out here, but I do not wish to pollute this blog by responding further to this trolllish garbage.
You will not have to respond. CoRev just stopped by to say hello and is leaving along with Sammy.
“Citing alternative views is not trolling except to a those with a closed mind.”
CoRev protests too much. This blog is not closed minded. Those who actually contribute over at Econbrowser are not closed minded and in fact welcome well articulated alternative views. We do not welcome blatant lies and sheer stupidity which is the only thing CoRev does. Well – maybe he does one other thing – worship on the alter of Donald J. Trump.
“I was a long time 20 years commenter on this blog.” – Sammy
Angrybear did not exist in 1999. Take this from one of the original 3 Bears. And yea – I do remember some of your choice comments from say 15 years ago. You were a troll then and you still are.
“You should look at the miniscule readership numbers at angrybear, both prior to banning conservative commentators and compared to econbrowser, which allows some conservative comments and it’s clear: you have committed the ultimate sin. Not censorship, but being BORING.”
PeakTrader accused Menzie Chinn of banning conservatives. Of course PeakTrader lies a lot. Yes Menzie welcomes the stupidity of the likes of CoRev but then Menzie notes how stupid it is. And for that CoRev pollutes the comment section with more stupidity, a lot of lies, and childish insults launched at Menzie. Webster’s Dictionary should have a picture of CoRev when it defines troll.
PT was here also as well as others whose only mission was to conflate, contort, and confuse the issues. If this back and forth of refuting the gymnastics and contortions of a few has resulted in large numbers of comments, AB can do without it. Other good blogs have seen the same reduction and they “still” present sound information the same as AB without resorting the tactics of Tweeter, facebook, Instagram, etc. AB will still exist well into the future as a place to look for sound and factual information.
I find it humorous that our Usual Suspects who pretend to be conservatives object to banning trolls. Greg Mankiw – a leading GOP economists – has banned ALL comments. Some tell me that my reminding his readers that we pay taxes beyond what the Federal government set Greg off. I guess when a liberal insists on full and accurate information, the Usual Suspects call that being a troll.
OK on topic. I too long for reasoned debate among people who have very different word views. However, I do not hope for reasoned debate including conservatives and non-conservatives. I think the conservative movement has degenerated to the point that conservatives have nothing useful to contribute. It hasn’t always been this way. “Reflections on the Revolution in France” is an excellent book and well worth reading. I suppose that wasn’t the beginning and end of worthwhile conservative writing.
Evern since I read Paul Krugman’s phrase “short list of reasonable and reasonably honest conservatives” I have been looking for reasonable and reasonably honest conservatives. This is very frustrating, because time after time, a few months after I identify one, he or she breaks with the conservative movement.
I do not think it is possible to be reasonable and reasonably honest and remain a conservative in good standing. I think membership in that tendency requires believing or dishonestly claiming to believe crazy things.
I think there is plenty of room for vigorous debate. However, I don’t think it is necessary to consider all perspectives. I don’t pay attention to astrologers or conservatives.
Thanks for the book recommendation.
Several of us wander around looking for information. The terms “conservative” and “liberal” are almost useless these days. “Conservatives” seem to think that “liberal” is an insult. In the classic sense, a true liberal can also be a true conservative. There are not enough people who understand this.