melanoman: (Default)
[personal profile] melanoman
I saw geek feminist wiki for the first time today, and after browsing I found that there was a common tactic of troll that doesn't seem to be in their lexicon yet. I call it the Clean Slate argument. Here's a first draft of a write-up:


The Clean Slate Argument is when someone argues that the past should not be considered. The argument typically involves the notion that the future is more important than the past, then makes an awkward leap to the idea that the past should therefore be discounted as unimportant.

An common example is the troll who claims to have been reformed and wants to be taken as sincere in spite of repeated past examples of poor faith. I discussed this previously as D_Vosray:
I generated a mini-lesson that was included into a middle-school “critical thinking” curriculum in his honor. Some of the current trolls and those who have to deal with them could use this highlight from it.
  • ad hominem attack “We should ignore him because he is a troll.”
  • ad hominem fallacy“What he said must be wrong because he is a troll”

  • The latter is a bad idea because trolls can’t be relied on even to be wrong and also because it sets them up to use reverse psychology. The former is just good sense.

    Arguing for a personal clean slate is more destructive when the argument is applied to the subject matter itself. In the example of Martin Krafft under the definition of concern troll, his last statement is a perfect example of this tactic.
    "Under the assumption that most people would like to move forward towards an equal-opportunity community, how does keeping meticulous track of all the problems of the past and present help?"


    melanoman: (Default)

    March 2013

    S M T W T F S
    2425262728 2930

    Most Popular Tags

    Style Credit

    Expand Cut Tags

    No cut tags
    Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 06:47 am
    Powered by Dreamwidth Studios