While MR (Men's Rights) does not actively pursue trolling (for sake of argument, we'll consider trolling simply as intentionally inciting controversial arguments) other subreddits, nor does it endorse such behaviors, they do display similar behavioral trolling tendencies toward outsiders who post in MR. (One must also consider the possibility that MR subscribers may go into other subreddits to troll, but again, this isn't something that is condoned openly by the community.)
A quick screen capture from the front page of MR indicates some of the specific language that posters use (red underlines are mine; I wanted to highlight some of the purposeful language used):
Additionally, going under the "controversial" tab reveals further inflammatory discussions. ("Controversial" ratings are calculated by the amount of "downvotes" it receives. Discussions that are avidly voted upon, but have a low overall score are filed under "controversial")
"A quick question for you /mensrights/" begins with a post from the original poster, KaseyKasem
Why is it that in a situation where two drunk people sex, the man is always the aggressor? I understand rape is very serious, but it seems like it's a weapon that only women can use against men. If they wake up in the morning and realize that they DIDN'T want to have sex with that guy, he "raped" them. This completely negates the fact that this so-called "aggressor" could have been equally as drunk and consenting. Women are the de jure victims. I don't think I've seen a case like this where the woman was held responsible for taking advantage of a drunk man.A selection of responses are as follows:
girlwriteswhat: Because society (and feminism) sees women as objects that are acted upon, and women's sexuality as something sacred, while they see men as agents who act upon others and who are always up for getting laid.
Also, society (and feminism) prioritizes the protection of women, therefore when women are harmed (even by their own idiot decisions), it is obvious that they were not protected properly by the man.
T3ST1CL3: Women want to monopolize sympathy. Yet all the evidence is that men deserve more sympathy.
ghbert001: Women don't want to be held accountable for their bad decision making. Women want have the privilege of being a total fuck-nut while under the influence of alcohol and then be able to say "Oops, sorry I was drunk, not my fault, tee-hee!". In some cases you'd be considered lucky if you even get an "I'm sorry".
Another low-voted discussion entitled "Am I missing the point?" original poster bannister0142 asked the community. The emboldened text points are his own:
Hey Mens Rights? I joined a few weeks ago and I'm kind of confused by what I see here. Let me preface by saying I'm putting down anyone's point of view, I'm just trying to get an idea of what they are so I can decide if this is a place I'm interested in spending time and energy.What I see in this subreddit is mostly anti-feminist sentiment and people who feel threatened by the feminist movement. They don't support the changes to our society. There also appears to be a lot of attention paid to examples of women doing horrible things to men, and a lot of accusations or examples of women "crying rape" What I don't see Conversations and debates about masculinity, society and what it means to be a man. Discussions about real problems men face and the pressures our culture puts on them. Questions about how we can improve these problems Am I way off base here I honestly want to know. Like I said, I have no judgements either way. But I don't want to waste my time here if there aren't the conversations I'm looking to have.
Some of the selected responses:
smartsenior: Your post looks like concern trolling to me.
white_cloud: If I may be so blunt, I have seen your kind before. You are the kind who is quite frankly ignorant of men's rights issues, as you have not spent the time and effort that some of us have to educate ourselves about these issues. You come in here with some vague notion, probably derived from a feminist-inspired source, about how men have problems due to "masculinity, society, what it means to be a man, and the pressures that our culture puts on men" (your words). I've seen it before. In your shallow understanding of the problems faced by men, you cannot yet see beyond these mere buzzwords into the deeper, much deeper problems that males face (the things I mentioned before).
PierceHarlan: You've obviously never been falsely accused of rape.
thingsarebad: This sub-reddit is mostly just a place for people to vent, whine, complain, and post frivolous, sensational stories.
There are a few real MRAs here, and a few people who actually get the whole picture, and occasionally a few people here will help someone in need, but mostly this sub-reddit is full of people who don't actually want to solve the problems our society has but only wish to complain about them. [Note: This post was downvoted so much, it reached a negative score]
moscova89: THANK YOU! [Note: Also downvoted into the negatives]
So while MR is not purposely engaging in external trolling, there are moments when they troll or condescend outsiders, or posters who post against the accepted community's grain. Their behavior toward non-MR posters has little room for compromise or acceptance of alternative ideas. They are unwilling to be flexible within their discussions; they invoke strawman arguments, they tend to be quite hostile, and they are completely married to their stringent set of community beliefs.
Rhetorical techniques are often employed in order to elevate the poster to a supposed standard of authority and correctness, which will allow them to speak down to outsiders. This behavior creates an illusion that they are "fighting" fairly, and when they are opposed, it is acceptable for them to downvote, condescend, and otherwise humiliate their perceived opponent. Those tactics are thinly-veiled attempts to justify their posts, and this is exemplified particularly with the user white_cloud. Surely, it begs the question if that method is truly the only means possible of debate, and what it might suggest about the argumentative skills of the author.
The major issue with trolling is that neither side truly benefits or wins. These are processes with no fruitful goal in sight; the antagonizers simply want to piss off the targeted audience, and the victims, no matter how effective they will be, may not win the war of words, but can win in at least banning or reporting trolls. When it all boils down to it, it just ends up that a lot of people wasted a lot of time arguing in a digital environment, with no intention of acquiescing to the (unconvincing) opposition.
In the case of MR, since they vastly outnumber any outsider, they will always "win" in their eyes -- such is the mentality of the "hive mind" (a popular way, on online message boards, to refer to the same-mindedness that many participants share). And whether the win is important or not, it hardly matters to many, since each participant occupies a virtual space and likely does not met any of these members in real life. Using the Internet as a platform to propagate an agenda or ideology is easier than in real-life; one is offered almost total anonymity (if they are careful constructing their online identity), and can reach a great number of people whether they consent to it or not. Naive Internet users seem to forget that normal social behavior in "real life" is inapplicable to many online spaces. That is one of the successes of MR: they are a widely-subscribed-to subreddit, they encapsulate a controversial view point, and are extremely vocal about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment