Thread by @JustSayXtian

Let's talk about the use of trolling tactics as a means of proselytizing.

1. Framing proselytizing as an invitation to "debate".

https://twitter.com/AndrewRappaport/status/1330684642861723649?s=19

I put "debate" in quotes because this won't be an actual debate. He'll ignore anything that shows his 'facts' are opinions or disproves his claims and just bulldoze forward or change the subject. He'll pretend that counterpoints just didn't exist. He's already doing it

This is not a new thing. Christian proselytizers have been doing this for around 1000 years. It's always a trap.

https://twitter.com/JustSayXtian/status/1313174071496982529?s=19

2. Weaponizimg offense.

This is a response to a tweet that wasn't even *that* rude, at the culmination of a very long, very frustrating exchange with someone else. Our troll here want involved until he interjected to tone police.

https://twitter.com/AndrewRappaport/status/1330684956717277184?s=19

The implication is that you've been having a logical debate, and getting upset is a sign that you don't have a good argument. But that isn't what's been happening, and even if it were, displaying emotion isn't actually a sign of irrationality. The whole assertion is bad faith.

3. Armchair psychology.

https://twitter.com/AndrewRappaport/status/1330707596907589632?s=20

This is an easy follow up to #2. The very reasonable, rational explanation that repeatedly violating someone's boundaries and acting disrespectfully towards them deserves dismissal, the proselytizer/troll refocuses on what's wrong with YOU.

There could never be anything wrong with the proselytizer. There is no line that the proselytizer could ever cross that deserves pushback. If you're not accepting the message in a calm and grateful way, it's because something's wrong with you and you should fix it.

Ironically, this is just a more 'polite', more verbose version of the thing the proselytizer-troll is implying you are doing. Rather than acknowledging your points and having a rational discussion, they are dodging accountability by attacking you as a person.

4 - Insist that a refusal to engage is proof that the proselytizer-troll must be right.

https://twitter.com/AndrewRappaport/status/1330707092278304771?s=20

The fact of the matter is that I have *already* had this debate. I had it just now, on Twitter, in the thread this guy is replying to. I've had it a million times before with a million other proselytizers.

We've been having it for 1000 years. The demand here, asserted by an appeal to try to get me angry and defensive so I'll protect my intellectual honor, is that I have to "debate" every single Christian on Earth in order to have a right to believe what I believe and be left alone

In fact, I don't have to debate it with anyone. Proselytizing is a violation of boundaries. It's the proselytizer who is inserting himself, unasked, into someone else's personal life. It's an inherently invasive act, as shown by the fact that it's pursued by trolling.