Liars, bullies and trolls
Andrea Bocelli’s live performance in Milan was a wonderful experience and has gone down a storm across the world.
As Kevin Courtney writes in The Irish Times, ‘the Italian opera singer’s Music for Hope concert from Milan soothed fevered souls across the world.’
Italy has suffered untold tragedy during the coronavirus crisis, and it will take a lot of healing before the scars begin to fade. On Easter Sunday, Andrea Bocelli performed a special Music for Hope concert in the empty Duomo cathedral in Milan, at the invitation of the city at the heart of the country’s hardest-hit northern region.
“I believe in the strength of praying together; I believe in the Christian Easter, a universal symbol of rebirth that everyone – whether they are believers or not – truly needs right now,” said Bocelli. “Thanks to music, streamed live, bringing together millions of clasped hands everywhere in the world, we will hug this wounded Earth’s pulsing heart.”
This ministering to souls is worth stressing given the rather peevish assault on the Pope and the Catholic Church I had to suffer in the build up to this concert from an American pastor. Before I go any further, let me make it clear that whilst I hold particular views in ethics and politics, I am actually open and generous and count friends across the ethical and political spectrum. Before Christmas I wrote in praise of Rory Stewart, prospective leader of the Conservative Party and hence Prime Minister of the UK. I wrote in his favour to local MPs as well as generally, and posted a blog entitled The Politics of Love. I affirm every word I wrote there. I argue for a positive sum politics based upon genuine dialogue and engagement as a mutual learning. So when I identify people as liars, bullies, and trolls you had better take the caution seriously and guard against such characters. They are toxic and operate to divide and fracture the public realm, weaken the body politic to make it available for the exploitation of predators, the free-riders that these people represent. They are toxic scum and need to be given short shrift.
Andrea Bocelli is a prominent Catholic. His voice served to soothe the fevered soul of a country in mourning. He performed at the request of the region hardest hit by the coronavirus. I posted a heads-up to people on social media to encourage people to watch the concert, giving the different times for different parts of the world. At the same time I posted a review of Massimo Faggioli’s book on Pope Francis, The Liminal Papacy. Read Bocelli’s words again, declaring his belief in the Christian Easter, as a universal symbol of rebirth that everyone – whether they are believers or not – truly needs right now. That seems to strike just the right chord to me. It did to the millions of others who tuned in. But not to certain American pastors, it seems. On the contrary, such pastors see such unity and expressions of solidarity as a threat to the way they seek to preserve the boundaries of marginalization, division, and exclusion. I had a very light-hearted exchange with a friend on Bocelli and his Elvis connections in advance of this concert on the thread on Faggioli’s book which caused such rancour. No doubt this pastor saw that, saw the uplift, had seen my critical comments on the US and UK governments with respect to coronavirus and decades of neoliberalism in previous days, and could no longer control his festering political resentment. Most of all, he knew that I and others were right and that he and his ilk had been caught bang to rights. And I suspect he saw that I had tagged Massimo Faggioli himself, theologian, historian, and friend, and decided to play at being a big shot by hurling abuse. That is all he can do in such company. He is a moral and intellectual dwarf and cannot enter in such circles on his merits. He has none. He is a political operator who divides the world up into ‘us and them.’ He has nothing to offer intellectual exchanges. He can merely turn up, abuse, and then be removed. I know for a fact that he has been removed many times before. He has a history of trolling my friends in philosophy and ecology, and being simply removed by them without comment. This guy is big on ‘debate.’ He is a phoney. I have seen him ‘debate.’ As with this young guy on coronavirus. One side reasons, cites sources, puts up facts, and he response with abuse and insult. And that’s on his own page. On others’ pages he indulges in all the cheap shots designed to turn ‘debate’ rancorous. I have a friend who works in environmental design. Said pastor turned up on his page with the usual cheap shots, and my friend just deleted him without comment. I was asked why this happened, with all the usual complaints about the suppression of debate. I didn’t tell him then, but I shall happily state why he was deleted. He was identified as an obvious troll and troublemaker by people who are trained in communication. No-one is beholden to debate with anyone, least of all with those hellbent on causing trouble and spreading disinformation.
One of his accusations was that ‘photo opportunities is not helping.’ He said this in relation to a review of Massimo Faggioli’s book on Pope Francis. He also added that the Pope should sell at least half the art in the Vatican to give to the Italian people. That’s a typically cheap shot I hear from the stupid end of atheism. People who make such comments know fine well that it is a call that will not be heeded. It is an effective demand that the Catholic Church dismantle and dissolve itself. The charge is put this way so as to give the accusers the licence to charge the Pope, the Church, and Catholics in general with hypocrisy. The art, architecture, and assets of the Church are part of an ongoing raising and recycling of revenues which in turn go to good works across the world. The Catholic Church is second only to the UN when it comes to such expenditures, on social welfare and educational activities. I have no interest in rebutting such cheap shots, because the people who make them are not interested in the activities of the Church. They are ersatz radicals deliberately taking positions they know are false for the reason they know such radical demands cannot be met. It is a pose, a safe radicalism. The response back is to ask them to join social movements for the radical transformation of social relations and the democratic restructuring of power and resources. I know for a fact this person possesses a fear and loathing of socialism and thinks Bernie Sanders the road to Stalin. Or pretends to. He isn’t that stupid, but along with the rich people he works with pretends to be so as to mislead those who really are stupid in his flock.
To have timed the assault on the Pope and the Catholic Church and to charge Catholics in general with hypocrisy on Easter Sunday, the holiest day in the Christian calendar, just proves how paper thin the commitment to Christianity is on the part of these people. The fact that such views were expressed in relation to a book review and a photograph that had nothing to do with coronavirus and Italy also indicates the depth of bigotry and prejudice eating such people away. The article was accompanied by a photograph of the Pope kissing the feet of a Muslim prisoner on Maundy Thursday 2018. This pastor took this to be a photograph of the Pope kissing feet in the midst of the coronavirus in Italy and proceeded to remark that ‘photo opportunities are not helping.’ The photograph was clearly captioned. The speed with which he jumped to harsh judgement is precisely what prejudice is all about. The kissing of feet on Maundy Thursday is quite traditional. This pastor clearly has no idea of the solemnity of ritual and what it takes to create sacred space. And no idea of the importance of tradition and spectacle. The Catholic Church does it well. That he evidently considers it shallow indicates the extent to which his focus is on the surface level of appearance. He can’t see the depths. He’s all about manipulating surfaces, and people.
Anyhow, he embarrassed himself with his bigotry. And he exposed the political motivations behind his ministry. Any true religious leader would have thought long and hard before such an intervention on Easter Sunday, and in the very least ensured his charges were accurate before launching them. The post had nothing to do with coronavirus. What makes the accusations all the more galling is the fact that this pastor has been denying and downplaying the threat posed by coronavirus from the first. Instead, he took an ugly delight of pointing to the number of deaths in Italy to warn Americans not against coronavirus but against socialism and socialized healthcare. With respect to coronavirus he continued to claim that social distancing and personal hygiene would be enough. And he continued a constant assault upon government, only closing his church when he claimed God told him to, not the government. A prize idiot, then, and outsized hypocrite. He knew damned well the government was right and obeyed rather than have the courage of his overt, and overtly stupid, convictions. And then he had the nerve to issue posts claiming that ‘all media’ downplayed the threat posed by the coronavirus. No, wrong, very wrong. Certain media, lapped up by people like him. The warnings were long, loud, and clear, and this guy heard them. He was engaged in a long and nasty exchange with a young man who warned of the threat. This young man remained calm and factual and was abused and ridiculed by this pastor for his trouble. ‘Do you even have a job?’ this pastor sneered. The abuse continued. ‘Living the dream at your parents’ home lol!’ This young guy calmly noted that as he gave reasoned arguments with sources, the pastor responds with abuse, ‘that’s not very Christian,’ he rightly said. It isn’t Christian at all. People can make their own minds up about such pastors who lead political pulpits. Such people turn Christianity toxic and turn good people away.
The last thing you do with trolls and troublemakers is engage with them, and invite them to detract from a point or a post. Their business is to hijack spaces where people come together in positive endeavour and poison them, drain energy and hope. So the lesson is to identify them early and remove them without comment. You give trolls no air, no space, no words, nothing to feed on, leaving them to return to their own hollow existence to feed on themselves and their own negativity. Trolls insist that persons with views, principles, and ideals owe them a ‘debate.’ By that they mean that people they object to have to make themselves available for destruction. Don’t fall for it! You owe trolls nothing. They are not even worth the energy of abuse. Remember there is a snare here in which the trolls attempt to reduce you to their level, so as to be able to accuse the high-minded of hypocrisy. It doesn’t worry me too much, I have never been so high minded. I don’t just take the abuse and delete in silence, not least when I know I am right. In fact, having researched alone for so many years, I have developed the art of self-criticism to a high level. When I have something wrong, I am able to identify the error or respond to others’ identification of it and make the necessary corrections. I can spot trolls and their ‘debating’ points a mile off. I see the little snares and traps and spring them. And I don’t mind cutting loose with some harsh words. I come from the rough-end of the building sites, where people know how to ‘debate’ with trolls. I reminded this character of his denial and downplaying with respect to coronavirus, his continued Trump apologetics, and told him straight that he has blood on his hands. That must have caused him to pause, because it revealed a knowledge about him on my part that made further engagement dangerous for him.
Who wins from such ‘debates’? Why, liars, bullies, and trolls, of course!
‘We are told debate is the great engine of liberal democracy. In a free society, ideas should do battle in the public forum. Those who seek to lead us should debate with one another, and this will help us make the best possible informed judgments. Schoolchildren should be taught debating skills to better prepare them for the intellectual cut-and-thrust of the adult world.’
That optimistic view is drivel, of course, a liberal delusion. Rousseau told us this long ago.
As philosopher Steven Poole comments:
‘That’s the theory, anyway. In practice, modern debate has a structural bias in favour of demagoguery and disinformation. It inherently favours liars. There is no cost to, and much potential advantage in, taking the low road and indulging in bullying and personal attack. There’s a reason why we talk about “point-scoring” in debates, and it is because we think of a debate as like a boxing match: it’s a competition rather than a collaboration.’
Precisely. I don’t give a damn about free speech issues, you can say what you like, have no intention of calling for bans. But on my patch, what I say goes. I believe in good speech more than free speech, and if you don’t meet the mark you are gone. My time is precious and I have none to waste on idiots. Just a week earlier I had posted a link to The Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments, a guide to the logical fallacies that people commit when reasoning poorly. I made a statement to the effect that this little book could save you a lot of time, especially on Facebook. I also noted that those committing logical errors do so deliberately, because they invariably have an ideological and political point they want to press regardless of its truth and accuracy. In which case, the book is merely idle entertainment. I declared further than as soon as I get wind of point scoring and ‘owning’ an opponent in ‘debate,’ I move on. I have no idea if this character saw this. I know he must have seen the critical posts I have been making on the UK response to coronavirus and seen the correlation with the US. He was in the mood for a fight. He opened up with a cheap shot. Instead of responding with a defence of the Catholic Church listing all the good works it puts its wealth towards, which is undoubtedly what he expected, I went immediately and aggressively on the attack, using all the knowledge of this character’s ugly political positions at my disposal. I study the Bible, too, you see, and believe very much in the precept ‘know thy enemy.’ I identify bullies very quickly and make short work of them. I am not a liberal who believes in debate. The point about these debates is that no-one wins and everyone loses. That is why the defenders and apologists for the status quo love them, because they drag everyone into the cesspit and issue in a mutual self-cancellation.
“‘Debate me’ is a tactic of attrition,” says the writer and critic Sarah Ditum. “When some guy shows up in my email, or on Twitter, or in comments demanding ‘a debate’, he’s not after a back-and-forth argumentation closing in on a conclusion; he’s after throwing up enough dust that I ultimately decide stating my opinion is more trouble than it’s worth.”
And these guys, these children, go ‘Debate me, debate me, debate me.’ It’s pathetic.”
“I don’t owe a response to unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions.”
You owe such people nothing. Most of all you owe it to yourself to avoid feelings of upset and anger in the aftermath of being trolled. I am rather enjoying myself in having incited people who pose as religious leaders to expose themselves for the politically motivated bigots they are, perverting Christianity to political ends. I can only presume that they don’t actually believe in God, since if God does actually exist, their behaviour would surely send them to Hell, as sure as it sends people to Hell on Earth.
Who really loves “debate”? Shills, bullies and those who want to muddy the waters on objective questions. In 2018, philosopher, Green party activist, and friend Rupert Read refused to appear on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire to “debate” global warming with a denier. He received huge plaudits for this. Hallelujah! I had been advising this for years and years, denying the deniers a platform and forcing the media to move beyond climate as entertainment.
Spoken debate also favours liars. It is easier and quicker to tell a lie than it is to check for truth. The need for “balance” gives a structural weight in favour of liars. The facts can always be checked and established later, but the attraction is the hot-air and heated excitement of the exchanges. Very few of those lapping up the entertainment will be paying attention later when the facts of the matter are ascertained.
In 2009, George Monbiot refused the challenge of a live “debate” on anthropogenic global warming with the geologist Ian Plimer. Monbiot explained what lay behind his refusal: “It takes 30 seconds to make a misleading scientific statement and 30 minutes to refute it.” Monbiot called Plimer’s bluff and challenged him to first have a carefully sourced written exchange. Plimer not surprisingly refused. He knew fine well that his climate lies would be checked and rebutted by such means.
Dark arts aren’t a lamentable perversion of debate; they are the whole tradition of it. And people have been pointing this out ever since people have been debating. In Plato’s dialogue Gorgias, Socrates meets the titular character, who is a rhetorician, describing himself as someone “able to speak and to persuade the multitude”. This skill, Gorgias thinks, is the greatest of all arts. Socrates is sceptical. Debates (or “disputations”), he points out, “do not always terminate in mutual edification, or in the definition by either party of the subjects which they are discussing”; indeed, very often they turn into abusive shouting matches. Socrates argues that rhetoric is not an art, but an “ignoble” practice, a “counterfeit” of politics that favours the strongest speaker, and which tends inevitably to injustice.
So the art of debating is one that rewards liars and bullies, is about beating the opponent rather than finding the truth, and is structurally biased in favour of conservative bromides rather than surprising new ideas. If that’s what debate is like, perhaps we shouldn’t aspire to be good at it. “Of course, it’s not just the demagogues whom spoken debate favours, but also the posh boys – I know, I’m one,” Monbiot says now. “When Jeremy Corbyn flounders at PMQs, part of me thinks: ‘For God’s sake man, just go for the throat.’ But another part of me thinks: ‘This whole tradition stinks, and it’s almost to your credit that you haven’t mastered it.’”
Read the rest of Steven Poole’s article. He goes on to challenge the western prejudice of favouring speech over writing, which he calls ‘the superstitious valuing of speech over writing.’ I am a writer. I address the world with my ‘writing voice.’ I never became a teacher or lecturer, I seem to have a congenital predisposition against the use of speech in teaching. I dislike it immensely. I dislike the phone, too, and use them when only absolutely necessary.
‘Might it then be a cause for hope, rather than lamentation, that today’s teenagers apparently prefer texting one another to speaking on the phone? Maybe logocentrism is on the way out; and if so, good riddance. Writing is more accountable to evidence, and is also immune from the interpersonal emotional factors that autocratic orators have always relied on.’
Writing is more accountable to truth, logic, reason, and evidence. Poole ends his article by celebrating ‘the peerless technology of writing.’ That’s a fitting conclusion and may serve for my life’s work.
I will add one last thing: liars, bullies, and trolls are NOT Christians, and to the extent that such characters infest Christianity in order to peddle politics they work contrary to Christ. But, of course, seeing as they don't actually believe in God, that doesn't worry them. It should, of course, worry those who do, the people whom such characters mislead grievously into error.