Just disengage. At a minimum, don't read what he writes. At a maximum, don't use his products. But responding to and discussing his posts just increases their reach.
Ignoring them doesn't stop you from expressing opinions. If you have something to say, then say it. You don't need to feed a troll to empower yourself to speak about your beliefs.
Yeah the problem with that (OP’s) line of thinking was you had people new to the scene who only see one side and assume a whole community and a that way because no one appears to be pushing back.
It has been interesting to see the piling on after he basically just pointed out a very obvious fact. It’s a real emperor’s new clothes moment for me. This is the mob that keeps people silent in general when speaking truth to power. I wonder if they know they’re in the mob and how conscious all this is .
I don't know much about this situation but let's say the premise of this post is true:
>To the best of my kremlinology it seems like he views these posts as some fun harmless sport, where he goes off to "annoy people on the Internet" as a way of blowing off steam, to then sit back and guffaw to himself at how he really pwned the woke-ass SJWs this time, won't they get their panties in a twist, haha roflmao pepe the frog meme dot jpeg. Then he can't refrain from diving into the backlash and escalating the conflict even further. I wish he'd stop. It's unseemly. It's destructive.
What is there really to be done? Will The author of this post really get anything done?
Seems unlikely.
I do wonder about the folks down the rabbit hole as the author describes. It's kinda wild how some rail against some groups like they're bravely fighting the good fight (by posting text online...) and yet at the same time as if on orders from whatever sources they get their info bust out the talking points and new phrases of the week like a good drone.
There’s an interesting point in OP, that leaders should appear neutral, or at least open minded so that they encourage different perspectives to emerge. I think that’s a reasonable assumption for places with democratic cultural traditions, extending to company culture or FOSS organizations.
I think it’s important to be opinionated because otherwise people will bulldozer you with any number of nonsense arguments, but also I think it’s important to be judicious about what one says/posts in a given period of time because the rate of information we receive is beyond a normal person’s rate of information synthesis for a given topic, unless they’re already an expert on the subject and know the nuances.
There needs to be a middle ground for democratic cultures where we can ask questions or share opinions in good faith without being literally killed, or introducing drama into our lives, and I think that’s “polite” anonymous posting. But it’s true that some things you’d have to say would be so against someone else’s sensitivities or cultural values that they would consider you biased or uncivil.
People lost the taste for anonymous posting because of the increase in uncivil behavior under those conditions, and because political extremists were bent on canceling their foes. So posting with your real identity bypasses the drama of the identify reveal, which distracts from the issues being discussed, imo. Facebook and other social media also encouraged real name posting on the internet.
TBH democratic cultures shouldn’t need anonymous posting because there’s an implied assumption of civility, but the internet is not just people educated, culturally or otherwise, in the same way as you, and neither is the internet only composed of good faith agents, so a lot of incendiary material comes from political agents trying to increase forces of destabilization.
There’s also the problem that when the majority wins in a democracy, it believes itself to be the cultural king forever instead of a temporary leader for the times. Just because you won one or two elections, does not mean that your ideas are meritorious or valid for time immemorial. As people are exposed to more nuances about a given way of thinking, it’s normal and expected that they should change some ideas, and vote accordingly. That’s democracy in action, and political extremists hate it.
So I think anonymous civil posting for certain topics helps all types of politics in a democratic culture, and it would help leaders maintain an open minded and neutral persona that I think is vital for encouraging different perspectives in an organization.
When you force people into giving up a socially safe (physical, emotional or otherwise) way to share their perspectives, they get entrenched and get pushed further to an extreme. Democracies cannot exist for a population whose members believe they’re morally superior, just and beyond reproach. That said, there are cultures that do things better than other cultures, and it’s important to take the good parts from those, while not getting bulldozered by propaganda from aggrieved agents.
