“I’ll geolocate your ass!”

Conversation moves to the extremes because it gets the most attention; it’s the most interesting. After all, who wants to listen to a reasoned debate on water storage when “You’re killing the delta smelt!” But it has a secondary effect: people hide their true feelings in the face of extremism.

I was going to write a post about trolls, after I heard a radio guy say, “I’m gonna geolocate your ass!” jokingly, but upon reflection, trolls dominate the conversation in many situations. Or at least, we don’t call them trolls when we agree with them.

BTW, this is what a Delta Smelt looks like. It’s an endangered Californian fish.

Take something banal – “Next Generation is the best Star Trek of them all!” I’m actually a huge fan of Deep Space Nine. I also know I am in the minority. Most Trekkers hated that show and I know why. For most of them, Star Trek is gleaming spaceships, boldly going, and science solves all problems. For me, DS9 rings more honest to me. Everything gleaming falls apart eventually, people DON’T get along, and you can’t just technobabble your way out of this one (although, let’s be honest, they still do). Because they were in the same place, they had the best recurring villains, and the more interesting plots.

I might say that in a small group of Star Trek fans, or even a small group in a friendly conversation, but I’m not going to get on social media or in front of a group of Trekkers and say that. Why? Because I don’t like conflict. With my ADHD, I feel emotions more. I think this makes me a better listener, but it also means that strong emotions bother me, so I try to avoid them. So if you profess a strong stance on something, most likely, I’m going to stay silent, even if I completely disagree with you.

What’s scarier to me is not the “silent majority,” but rather the “wannabes.” The people who disagree with someone’s strong opinion, but pretend to agree with them because they really don’t want the argument. They figure the best way to avoid it is to agree with them. It’s effective, but it gives the trolls power. More importantly, it gives the false illusion that everyone thinks the same as you. We create the bubbles we live in.

And the trolls want us in those bubbles. There’s a debate theory called the “motte and bailey,” which are the two parts of a castle – the strong fort inside and the walls on the outside. You start out with an easily defendable premise and then expand on it. If someone questions you on the expanded premise, you retreat to the easier point. For example:

A: “I believe that every child has the right to education. So we should instill mandatory attendance for all children in public schools. That means raising property taxes to have the best schools, and of course, to keep them safe, we need to have mandatory vaccination…”

B: “Hang on, parents have the right…”

A: “What! You don’t believe children have the right to education?!”

This is why I’m seeing people being more willing to be vocal. Because you can only be stomped down with debates so long before you crack. You will either then become the “wannabes,” or you’ll embrace the blatant “wrong.” It’s never been a better time to be a racist because when the trolls put the “racist” label on everything not theirs, you start to think, “#*($ it! I am a racist. Deal with it, brown boy!”

Is that better? No, but inevitable. But I could be wrong. What do you think? Are the trolls winning? Are we becoming more troll-like? Or will the silent majority surprise us all? Let me know in the comments below!