*24.05.10 Strange Troll Logic

 Link to video:

v4s6teb-strange-troll-logic.html

Script:

In their effort to smear people, trolls apply some very strange logic.

Who do you believe when someone makes a claim and you aren't a personal witness to the event? How do you determine who is telling the truth?

Suppose you are at a bar and some short, 50 year old, overweight guy says he is a wide receiver for the New York Jets football team. Of course you aren't going to believe him. He's too old, too short, and in bad shape.

But suppose the guy is 28 years old and fits the physique of a professional football player? You may still have doubts, but you would be wrong to assume he is lying! So you should say nothing about it - at least until you look up the New York Jets players to see if he is on the team. Simple.

In some cases it may be wise to have some basic reservations, like if some guy trying to get a woman's attention makes claims about having a great job. No problem being wary of such claims. After all, plenty of guys make stuff up to impress - or fool - a woman. But being wary isn't the same thing as just declaring the guy is making things up!

Trolls just believe things they have no way of knowing and write off the opposing statements made by the person who actually would know.

When I've defended The Filipina Pea, showing that what she actually has said is different from what trolls claim she said, I'll have trolls say things like, "You only know what Pea has said on her videos". Well, okay, that is often true. But do you see the flaws in their logic?

First is the obvious that if someone lies about what she said, then all I need to know is what she really said. That's kind of the whole point!

Second, if it is a claim about her background or what she does, at least Pea would know about herself. The trolls typically have just their assumptions and sometimes flat out lies. Yet many believe them anyway while writing off the first person testimony of the person being attacked.

Here is an example I dealt with a few years ago. Amongst the many made up claims criticizing Pea, some were declaring that it was her western boyfriend who decides what she should wear on her videos! Think about that. How could they possibly know? Yet they say it anyway and others believe it!

When I point out how nonsensical that is, they say since I only know what Pea has said, I have no reason to challenge the troll claims. But, as I pointed out, at least Pea would actually know. The trolls don't. That's how absurd troll logic is!

Granted, sometimes it can get more complicated. What if both people are claiming to be in a position to know? That is, both would be first hand witnesses. We had that situation when Big Mouth claimed he dated Pea. Meanwhile, Pea wrote in a comment that she never even met Big Mouth.

Who to believe? Both have reason to say what they did, even if not true. Pea wouldn't want to be associated with a lowlife like Big Mouth and Big Mouth would love to get the attention that saying he dated Pea would give him. Both can make the same claim to really know, yet both can't be true.

Well, that's where we have to dig a little and apply some basic ethics in the meantime. 

The ethical point is simple. If you have nothing to prove one or the other is telling the truth, then you should just remain silent rather than call one a liar.

Speaking for my own approach to this specific example, sure, general observation would lead me to believe Pea. After all, Big Mouth sounds like the blowhard in the locker room telling stories about his conquests which no one can confirm. Pea just puts out educational and entertaining videos, not trying to hurt anyone. To me, that makes her more trustworthy.

In spite of that, before attacking Big Mouth, I still did the research to confirm that Big Mouth was making things up. What did the trolls do?

Well, a lot of them said it didn't sound like Pea would date someone like Big Mouth - but then believed him anyway.

I had another troll, who did that very thing, then said if I would challenge Big Mouth to show the videos he claimed he had and Big Mouth didn't respond, he would admit that Big Mouth made it up.

Well, I had already done that. My challenge to Big Mouth was first ignored and then deleted by him. 

After showing how I had already made the challenge, this other troll simply stopped responding instead of admitting I was right. And later he repeated his claim that Big Mouth was telling the truth!

When confronted by two people making opposing claims and both supposedly being in a position to know, you have limited choices on what you do as an ethical listener.

Sometimes you simply have nothing to help you decide. Well, besides your own prejudices. We see this all the time in politics where "truth" is determined by what they WANT to believe.

In such a case, it is best to at least not take sides - certainly not the side of the person who is making an attack on the other. The "do no harm" philosophy of doctors applies well in this situation.

But other times there is information to at least let you see who is making the stronger case. You might say - and some trolls have - that someone just saying they didn't date a particular person isn't proof that they didn't. True enough. But the same can be said of a person who just declares they did date. Yet these trolls are believed!

Fortunately, there are different kinds of evidence. Pea couldn't prove a negative. That is, there is no way to "prove" she didn't date someone. However, proving a positive is much easier. That is, if someone did date and lived with a particular person for three months, it is common for them to at least take some pictures. So the lack of them at least casts doubt on their claim.

But, of course, in this case it was far more obvious since Big Mouth specifically said his uploaded videos would show Pea, yet they didn't. So why did so many people believe him anyway?

I suspect a lot of you, if someone makes an attack against someone you already don't like, will tend to believe the attack. Sure, some people lie, but you shouldn't assume someone lies just because you don't like them. In fact, you shouldn't assume someone lies about everything even if you can prove they lied about lots of other things.

Thus I could check Big Mouth's own videos to prove he was lying about dating The Filipina Pea. But what about his claim that his actual girlfriend and her whole extended family were scammers? It would be easy enough to say he probably lied about that too, but I can only say that since Pea wasn't his girlfriend, his claims don't apply to her.

He MAY have lied about his actual girlfriend as well, but I have no way of knowing one way or the other. I sure wouldn't take him at his word, based on his record, but I also wouldn't do a video saying he lied about that part.

Seems like a logical way to approach things.

Thanks for watching and don't let the trolls stop you from speaking out.