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.
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.
Agree with the comments below about civility. It goes beyond politeness -- it is the willingness also to listen and engage others, and not merely react or respond. That said, from evolutionary biology to game theory and more, we learn that to have a functioning community requires pro-social punishment. Otherwise, cooperation becomes disadvantageous, and can break down almost entirely. For "keyboard communities", the balance can be tricky. Particularly when we are faced with the necessity of building alliances, establishing new networks.
These were the 12 red flags for an in-person community: "typical behavioral patterns of infiltrators/agents provocateurs." But some of them might apply to the communities you all have been discussing. Felt this was too useful not to share:
1. New to the community, yet ignores existing safety standards. Eager to take on sudden leadership roles.
2. Burned bridges or untraceable ties from prior communities. Lacking references.
3. Moves quickly through different orgs and leaves a wake of discourse or drama.
4. Charismatic/zealous, but acts without conviction.
5. Grandiose plans of actions that are highly illegal/risky, but they want YOU to do it.
6. Gravitates towards other abusers and grifters.
7. Poor opsec/infosec, lack of interest in protecting comrades’ anonymity.
8. Suspicious social media presence – new accounts, high # of follower w/ low engagement, or circular engagement within a few similar accounts.
9. Spending doesn’t match stated source of income.
10. Lashes out and makes accusations when confronted.
11. Prioritizing personal financial or reputational gain. Grifting/profiteering, lack of transparency, centering their own story or “brand.” Eager to talk to press.
12. [P]olice, or fed connections (personal, professional, familial).
"Whether by virtue of system or conspiracy, whether engaging in good faith, or bad, they must be treated as enemies if they insist on pursuing conditions antithetical to strategic political success of the dissident community. "
Agreed
I find those who claim their is no virus really aim to derail the conversation you are trying to have. Its like arguing with people about economics and then they start turning the conversation into CRT and identity politics. The conversation ends up being like a corporate biz meeting where lots of things get discussed, nothing is agreed upon and then nothing gets done but everyone who doesn't think about it smiles and pats themselves on the back.
The behavior of these no-virus people was so aggressive and belligerent that I assumed they were a psyoping...what were the odds that every one on substack was an asshole?
The recent C&C comments section comes as handy illustration of what you’re talking about. A good chunk of deeply hurt vociferous peeps just won’t listen to calm voice of reason, and they are cheered on by hordes of approving hearts. The rash gleeful gloating is almost frightening. Hang all the perpetrators first, better by their feet, only then we could mayhaps talk. Strategic thinking woefully fails to register with ‘em. Hierarchy of goals? What hierarchy?! Justice über alles! If we perish in pursuing pies in the sky, so be it, doesn’t matter a fuck 🤦
The righteous indignation is definitely not a malady ravaging exclusively woke domain, it spreads like bush fire across entire political spectrum. Too sweet to resist 😳 Forget von Bismarck's the art of the possible, the attainable—the art of the next best. Who cares.
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.
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.
Agree with the comments below about civility. It goes beyond politeness -- it is the willingness also to listen and engage others, and not merely react or respond. That said, from evolutionary biology to game theory and more, we learn that to have a functioning community requires pro-social punishment. Otherwise, cooperation becomes disadvantageous, and can break down almost entirely. For "keyboard communities", the balance can be tricky. Particularly when we are faced with the necessity of building alliances, establishing new networks.
@ Grant. Your post, which is excellent, made me recall the one Revolver report on Jan 6th. https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
These were the 12 red flags for an in-person community: "typical behavioral patterns of infiltrators/agents provocateurs." But some of them might apply to the communities you all have been discussing. Felt this was too useful not to share:
1. New to the community, yet ignores existing safety standards. Eager to take on sudden leadership roles.
2. Burned bridges or untraceable ties from prior communities. Lacking references.
3. Moves quickly through different orgs and leaves a wake of discourse or drama.
4. Charismatic/zealous, but acts without conviction.
5. Grandiose plans of actions that are highly illegal/risky, but they want YOU to do it.
6. Gravitates towards other abusers and grifters.
7. Poor opsec/infosec, lack of interest in protecting comrades’ anonymity.
8. Suspicious social media presence – new accounts, high # of follower w/ low engagement, or circular engagement within a few similar accounts.
9. Spending doesn’t match stated source of income.
10. Lashes out and makes accusations when confronted.
11. Prioritizing personal financial or reputational gain. Grifting/profiteering, lack of transparency, centering their own story or “brand.” Eager to talk to press.
12. [P]olice, or fed connections (personal, professional, familial).
"Whether by virtue of system or conspiracy, whether engaging in good faith, or bad, they must be treated as enemies if they insist on pursuing conditions antithetical to strategic political success of the dissident community. "
Agreed
I find those who claim their is no virus really aim to derail the conversation you are trying to have. Its like arguing with people about economics and then they start turning the conversation into CRT and identity politics. The conversation ends up being like a corporate biz meeting where lots of things get discussed, nothing is agreed upon and then nothing gets done but everyone who doesn't think about it smiles and pats themselves on the back.
One problem with Qanon being a DC psyop is that Trump recently reposted a picture of himself with a Q pin on his lapel.
https://www.newslooks.com/tag/trump-reposted-an-image-of-himself-wearing-a-q-lapel-pin/
So, there's that... But it was only a "repost", so he maintains plausible deniability, and allows everyone disinclined an easy out.
In other words "No enemies to the right, no friends to the left" ;)
The behavior of these no-virus people was so aggressive and belligerent that I assumed they were a psyoping...what were the odds that every one on substack was an asshole?
The recent C&C comments section comes as handy illustration of what you’re talking about. A good chunk of deeply hurt vociferous peeps just won’t listen to calm voice of reason, and they are cheered on by hordes of approving hearts. The rash gleeful gloating is almost frightening. Hang all the perpetrators first, better by their feet, only then we could mayhaps talk. Strategic thinking woefully fails to register with ‘em. Hierarchy of goals? What hierarchy?! Justice über alles! If we perish in pursuing pies in the sky, so be it, doesn’t matter a fuck 🤦
The righteous indignation is definitely not a malady ravaging exclusively woke domain, it spreads like bush fire across entire political spectrum. Too sweet to resist 😳 Forget von Bismarck's the art of the possible, the attainable—the art of the next best. Who cares.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/c-and-c-news-wednesday-november-2/comments