Discussion about this post

User's avatar
William Hunter Duncan's avatar

I have casually assumed there are many such as slanderman who are paid provocateurs/operatives, though slanderman seems like a guy who just likes to sew chaos. I haven't seen much evidence of DC's or PO's in the substacks I haunt, but I assume the bigger substack gets, the more traffic, the more of that we will see.

I appreciate this post, found it via John Carter's telegram page, and am subscribing.

Expand full comment
John Carter's avatar

Have you read up on the FBI's COINTELPRO operation in the 70s, which they used to spread divisiveness and conflict in radical left wing groups? Lots of other examples as well. I'm convinced the introduction of CRT into #Occupy was the same thing. Cass Sunstein advocated cognitive infiltration of the dissident right, which seeing how things played out there over the last few years seems to have happened and to have been successful.

As you note, it doesn't always require conspiracy. Sometimes trolls are just assholes. Other times, the conspiracy isn't an official conspiracy. Flat earthers or no-virus people can organize on discord servers, and raid comment sections. The comments under Winston's piece had that smell about them.

It seems to me that there are two criteria that can be applied to identify division catalysts.

First is monomania. They always seem to have an idée fixe from which they are incapable or unwilling to deviate. That obsession will almost always be some outrageous claim about physical reality - there were no planes in 9/11, the Moon landing was fake, the Earth is flat, viruses don't exist, etc. - which is in flat contradiction with (generally easily checked) empirical data. This serves as bait by triggering the instinct to argue with people who are wrong on the internet.

The second and most important trait is tone. Someone can say something you think is nuts and say it nicely. Instead, they invariably open with abusive remarks. This also serves as bait, arousing an emotional response: you're motivated not just to defend the idea that they're challenging, but your character and sacred honor.

Both forms of bait are hard to pass by, which is exactly what they rely on. Once one engages, they escalate the abusive tone, while simply refusing to concede any points of logic or evidence. This is infuriating on multiple levels, which draws people further in. Before long the comments thread is permanently poisoned by the angry exchanges, and one has had potentially hours of energy wasted in an activity as productive than masturbation.

What degree conspiracy vs system play a role is hard to say. I suspect in many cases the communities that form around these monomanias are seeded as a deliberate divide et impera tactic. Later, those who get drawn in are simply useful idiots with compatible psychological profiles who adapt well to a group culture that engages with outgroups combatively. This has two useful effects, first by sowing discord in dissident communities, second by associating those communities with loony ideas. Psychologically healthy people don't want to swim in a sewer, so they'll avoid the dissident groups in question and the groups then cease growing and begin to shrink.

As to how to handle it, the only real answers are non-engagement and moderation, the former when commenting on others' platforms, the latter when managing one's own. Unfortunately this problem will be with us for as long as we have the Internet, because it's been around since the ur days of IRC and BBSs.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts