I want to float what’s perhaps a controversial opinion to see what everybody’s thoughts on the matter are. The general consensus is to try and be polite at all times. However, I will argue that there are necessary limits to politeness and that it can be counterproductive at times.
When somebody makes a comment in good faith, I think it’s important to engage with it in good faith. If there is a disagreement then it can be articulated in a clear and polite manner. The hope is that the discussion will be productive and everyone will learn something in the process.
On the other hand, when comments are made with the intention of trolling then trying to engage them as if they were made in good faith only plays into the hands of the troll. Addressing the points that the troll makes as if they had merit implicitly validates these points as if they need to be debated.
In my view, the proper response to trolls is ridicule. They have to be called out for what they are and we should not take the bait to attempt starting a debate with them. Instead, it’s better to simply make it clear that the opinion is garbage and not worth discussing.
The argument against being snarky is that it can drive people away, but I don’t know that there is much weight to that in practice. Anybody who’s read Lenin can see that his writing is full of snark, and he often ridiculed opportunists and revisionists. Clearly that didn’t hinder the Bolshevik movement all that much.
I think it’s important for us to express confidence in our views, and to be assertive about our positions. The facts are on our side, and we don’t need to act as if our position is the one that needs defending.
While they can try our patience at times, we should remember that since our goal is to create more communists, we should try to be courteous and engage respectfully. If not for their sake, then for everyone else on the sidelines who, seeing communists as diligent fighters for the betterment of all mankind, will come away realizing the communists have their best interests at heart.
Our ideals when engaging with liberals should be to follow the example of Fidel, Newton, Robeson, Liu Shiaoqi, Lenin (on his good days lol) and nameless others who knew how to engage with liberals, educating whilst not talking down to them.
Sure we all fail at this because our patience has its limits, but ‘dunk culture’ and alienating everyone you come into contact with, is something edgelords, ultralefts, and clout chasers / careerists strive for; not communists, and it’s not something to look up to.
I think Liu Shiaoqi, how to be a good communist, and fidel and newtons autobiographies really get this idea across well.
Edit, I agree with the two other posters here that recommended just reporting the trolls so admins can remove their comments. Nothing good comes from engaging with them in a negative way, but I also haven’t seen that hardly at all here: most of us still rightly use their trolling as an opportunity to educate them and others.
I agree with this, the angle I was trying to highlight is that ideally we have a balance where we’re not alienating potential communists while we avoid validating trolls. I think the most important part to keep in mind when replying to trolls is that the response for other people reading the thread as opposed to the troll. I very much agree with the approach of using troll comments as an education opportunity for others.
Definitely. Trolls really do want to ruin our day more than anything. IMO the best way to flip it on them, is not by lowering our rhetoric down to their level, but to help enlighten everyone else on the sidelines, as you say. Their goal is to de-platform communists, and the best way to frustrate those attempts, is to show them that they don’t have that power here, and are going to get even more spoonfuls of communist agitation the more they engage with us.
I think you’re exactly right, the hard part is often in not getting baited by these people. :)
Personally I think it’s fine to err on the side of snark. If someone runs away because of it they probably weren’t ready yet anyway.
I agree, it’s also instructive to look at how the right has been developing in my opinion. There is a ton of toxicity there, yet they’re growing and organizing a lot faster than we are on the left. I think that one reason is that being unapologetic and confident tends to resonate with people who are more likely to be active. While you might be losing people who are turned off by the aggressive style, chances are those people weren’t actually going to do anything anyways. Passive support only has so much value and any serious movement needs passionate people who are committed to a long term vision and who are willing to work to make it happen.
This is why big tent approaches tend to fail in my opinion. You end up with a diluted vision that doesn’t offend anyone and that doesn’t lead to any action. Incidentally, Lenin talks about this as well in terms of movement building. Bolsheviks ultimately rejected the idea of left unity and went with an uncompromising approach that ultimately culminated in the revolution.