It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That there be wisdom, me thinks.
in which case, who the hell cares what they think?
originally posted by: Anaana
Keeping your own counsel from time to time, biting your lip now and then, and most of all, not giving a # about the unimportant details, is not conforming, it is putting aside your needs for the good of the whole and not only choosing your battles wisely but understanding the battlefield. Take a passive stance and assess the territory, get to know the team and understand it's structure in order to establish what they do not have which you can bring in order to improve the system. Individuality is highly important but to be beneficial to the whole, and therefore appreciated, it needs to tempered in relation to that whole (any "whole"). What can you, as an individual, add to the group to make it better?
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Bluesma
That there be wisdom, me thinks.
in which case, who the hell cares what they think?
We can be knowledgeable with other peoples knowledge but we cannot be wise with other peoples wisdom.
There are 2 rules in life Bluesma:
1. Never tell everything you know.
A typical formulation might involve the troll's invocation of a site's espoused ideals alongside a perceived example of hypocrisy (such as contrasting "we value free speech" with the banning of a "dissenter"), and with a call for some relevant reform by the troll. This reform will frequently be burdensome or silly - the concern troll's message is: "I have some concerns about your methods. If you did these things to make your message less effective, it would be more effective."
One common tactic of concern trolls is the "a plague on both your houses" approach, where the concern troll tries to convince people that both sides of the ideological divide are just as bad as each other, and so no one can think themselves "correct" but must engage in endless hedging and caveats. This preys on a willingness to debate critics and allow dissent; everyone wastes time discussing the matter and bending over backwards, so as not to appear intolerant of disagreement, all to the great amusement of the troll.
The danger, of course, is that not everyone with a concern is a concern troll - and not every concern is unreasonable. In environments of genuine groupthink, applying the concern troll label may serve as a means of enforcing conformity and punishing (or silencing) dissent. And even without actual groupthink in play, many Internet posters find dismissing an argument much quicker and easier than evaluating it.
In addition, the term "concern troll" focuses not on what the person is actually saying, but on some alleged agenda.
Thus, if misused, it is the perfect refuge for someone who has no counter to the actual argument: simply ignore the points made, allege some other position, and then accuse the other person of lying if they deny that that is what they're really saying. It's a combination of straw man and argumentum ad hominem: make up something to attack, and ignore their actual points on the basis that since the points were made by someone acting in bad faith, they need not be addressed.
Sometimes outsiders will come by and make concern troll-like statements sincerely. Some are sincere but stupid. Some may be insightful, and justified iconoclasts, merely making valid observations unwelcome to the dominant ideology or culture of the forum (the Cassandra syndrome). Often, of course, the person is misguided, wrong, and not actually trolling.