> Just scroll past if something isn’t nice or offends you.
It's easy to dismiss this argument as it's obviously weak (it doesn't make any sense) but it sure seems to be a popular thing to say. Why do people think their right to act any way they want supercedes the right of others to not have to put up with trolls and jerks? Do these people have social problems, are they legitimately not smart enough to see the problem, or what is it?
> this argument as it's obviously weak (it doesn't make any sense)
It's the only mature and sane thing to do. Otherwise, what's the alternative?
> Do these people have social problems
I have a theory split in two parts:
1) Because it's online/remote and anonymous: I think that in 99% of the cases, when face-to-face, the toxic persons wouldn't even dare to say what they say online.
2) I learnt that most of the times toxic persons are in the 15-25 years olds range. They are just kids that do not know any better. If a 15 years old kid starts to insult me in the street, I'll just ignore him. It's just a kid.
Maybe because trolls and jerks have no goals beyond heating the discussion? Most calm and constructive forums and mailing lists I’ve ever seen had an unwritten rule (written actually, but who reads ‘em, right?) to ignore “hot” messages or at least the hot tone in these. It doesn’t prove that it’s the only way, but once the reply is done, every other user feels urge to add to that, because it is in a human nature that something said repeatedly or upvoted has more weight than something stated once, but it is harder if you’re first (crowd psychology). It is a culture of a public place (a thing that supports healthy cooperation) and they have to learn it, no matter how strong is their desire to respond.
One forum I'm on has a very strong community standard of "This place is like a local pub. If you show up mouthing off you'll be called on it by the regulars who may all look like they're shit talking each other, but who have mostly spent time together in real life, and who as a group have each other's backs against outsiders. If you keep it up you'll be asked to leave, possibly if needed by the managers (forum mods) who'll ban you for a short or extended time."
It works remarkably well for that particular group of people. It's almost certainly turned a lot of people away who _may_ have pulled their head in and become contributing members of that community, but largely they don't care too much. The forum has stayed small (it was recently characterised only a bit unfairly as "12 cranky old cunts" by someone who wouldn't/couldn't live up to the community standards there.)
> "Why do people think their desire to act any way they want supersedes the desire of others to not have to put up with trolls and jerks?"
There are two answers to this question, a "not nice" answer and a "nice" answer.
Answer 1: Because it does. Freedom of speech is more important than "your desire of not putting up with things you dislike"; so yes, the rights of trolls do actually supersede the comfort of the trolled.
Answer 2: It doesn't really matter. Just ignore the stupid trolls and go on with your life.
Freedom of speech is genuinely important. Critical even.
But it certainly does not extend to my lounge room, Your right to freedom of speech does not mean you get to act like a troll or jerk in my house, or to expect to be able to behave in ways you think I should "just scroll past". You will be asked to "be nice", and asked to leave if you choose not to (and ejected of you continue and refuse to leave). Your "rights as a troll" do not superseded my comfort in my home.
Your (assuming you're in the US) "Freedom Of Speech 1st Amendment" rights mean your government may not pass laws to inhibit your free expression. It does not mean your choice to freely express yourself will be free of consequences (as the well known "yelling 'Fire!" in a theatre" example illustrates), nor does it mean that owners/managers of private spaces are required to put up with your free speech in their venues.
Whether an internet forum is closer to a private home or Speaker's Corner in a public park is a good question. But claiming the forum regulars and owners should "Just ignore the stupid trolls and go on with your life." is not the only possible answer to that.
It doesn't validate it the slightest, but it is a common problem that people claim to be abused if they don't like the content, which results in obvious problems.
Minorities profit most significantly from freedom of speech.
It's easy to dismiss this argument as it's obviously weak (it doesn't make any sense) but it sure seems to be a popular thing to say. Why do people think their right to act any way they want supercedes the right of others to not have to put up with trolls and jerks? Do these people have social problems, are they legitimately not smart enough to see the problem, or what is it?