option 3... poke troll with pointy stick
It seems to me there are two basic types of trolls: the harmless ones who are maybe vegans posting some recipes with the hopes of ruffling feathers, or posting some lame old studies that have been debunked a thousand times over.
Personally, I think that when dealing with these types, it's best to use respect and some solid research and information so that perhaps they will realize that they either a) can't get a rise out of people and will go away, or b) actually learn something and change their lives for the better.
However, there is a new breed of troll, and with this type, I'm philosophically conflicted about the best way to deal.
This 2nd type masquerades as someone in the medical field, doling out random info that was probably cut and pasted from a variety of websites to gain credibility. He has no interest in any particular way of eating. Once anyone actually tries to engage with him, he then spirals out of control, betraying the fact that he actually is mentally unbalanced, attempts to discredit everyone who posts different experiences, and resorts to some childish 'I know you are but what am I?' nonsense when he can't come up with an appropriate response.
So here's the question:
When dealing with a troll who is potentially giving out negligent info, (to people who haven't yet figured out that he's a troll) while simultaneously attempting to discredit other people who actually do have some personal experience with the topic of the post, is it better to:
A: Keep him on the ignore list, hope others figure out how craked he is for themselves
B: Continue to engage with him, which will be fruitless but will at least expose him for the nutjob he is.
Which would you choose to do?
option 3... poke troll with pointy stick
Every time I hear the dirty word 'exercise', I wash my mouth out with chocolate.
I go with B... but that's because I have trouble letting things go . I feel compelled to argue whether it seems fruitless or not .
it just depends on how bored you are when presented with said troll
yeah you are
I mean there's so many ants in my eyes! And there are so many TVs, microwaves, radios... I think, I can't, I'm not 100% sure what we have here in stock.. I don't know because I can't see anything! Our prices, I hope, aren't too low!
option A: 0
optioin B: 3
For your own mental health, do what you want. That is to say, if ignoring him and it is better for you, then do it. Or, if just answering with "i did this, and there you go. hope it helps." to the op -- not directly contradicting whatever you consider 'trolling' -- then do that.
On the flip side of it, "handing out negligent info" is really for the reader to decide. You have to realize that your information could be seen in the exact same light (from a different point of view, of course), and really, it's up to someone else to decide which information makes sense to them. There's nothing wrong with a person doing their own thinking based on whatever they are reading online.
Look, I'm avant garde. I know this. I'm an outlier. I had an unassisted pregnancy and childbirth (that means no doctor, no midwife, no tests, no weighing myself, no-nothing medical what so ever or could even be considered medical in any way during my whole pregnancy and the whole child birth). I actually advocate this "mode of pregnancy/birth." I dont' think it's the only way to do things, but honestly, I do think it is a great way to do things. It has risks, but those risks are simply different than choosing other options (midwives -- home or hospital -- doctors, etc).
Most people consider my *free choice* to be a grave risk to me and to my son, a negligent decision. They also consider my advocacy for this sort of birth to be "negligent towards others."
But others are responsible for their own choices, I'm only responsible for what I share. If I believe in what I share -- even if you do not -- that doesn't make what I share wrong or negligent or going to harm people. it just makes it what I perceive to be right and true.
Do I think having an elective c-section is morally reprehensible? Definitely not. Who would? Do I think it's the best possible birth option for mother and baby? That depends. For unassisted childbirth, the questions are answered exactly the same for me.
And diet is also the same. *It DEPENDS.* And honestly, it depends more on the reader -- and them taking responsibility for their own choices -- than it does on the rest of us who are simply sharing how we perceive and choose to do things.
zoebird: great philosophy! I think your screen name should have been "zenbird"!
What I don't really understand are the posters with a compulsion to comment, and in a gratuitously nasty manner, in threads on subjects they would rathet not see discussed. It might be a topic that Mark has shown interest in and been interviewed on by 3rd parties as an expert in. Makes no difference. The nastiness might take the form of insulting the intelligence of someone who's been a guest columnist here, who has impressive academic credentials, an international reputation, and who is even known for humanitarian work. No matter.
Baffles me. If you don't like a tpoic that much why even read the thread.
My advice would be to ignore them in most cases. I'm afraid that's not always what I do do.