introduction
As someone who publishes opinion columns almost every week, I want to share the writer's experience with readers.
Writing columns is a process that begins with choosing a topic, continues with research, and moves on to writing and creating visual materials. Then comes the publication, and finally, you have to monitor responses and respond if necessary.
The fate of my only country
Anyone who follows what I write has surely already understood that I am anxious about the fate of my only country, and that I am very concerned about the moral level, the executive capabilities, and the human level of its leadership.
As I understand it, we have placed at our head a corrupt leader who is willing to burn the country down as long as he escapes the wrath of the law. The man has built around himself an irresponsible and incompetent government, some of whose members lack independent thinking.
Unprecedented disasters
This "leadership" has brought upon us unprecedented crises and disasters, and if we do not stop it, we will reach the destruction of the Third Temple. In my understanding, it endangers our existence as a Jewish and democratic state, and even our existence in general.
In fact, I have a hard time finding even one good thing this government has done for its citizens (I mean those of its citizens who are not anti-Zionist).
For this reason, I look for explanations for why there are still people who support such leadership in the psychological and sociological fields.
This is where the explanations are given for the behavior of Goel Ratzon's wives, who enslaved their lives and the lives of their children to their Messiah, and for the behavior of Rabbi Berland's followers, who were willing to commit crimes in order to please their unsettled leader.
I write quite a bit about this topic and also receive many responses.
Bots on us
I brought all of this up as background, to flood something else. Part of the event of publishing an opinion column is the responses it receives. This is true for a post on a social network like Facebook, but also for an article published on a respected online news site, like Hai Pooh.
The opinion columns on Live TV and the comments that accompany them have become a kind of "town square," and they attract an audience and create an impact.
An important part of the responses to opinion columns are indeed authentic. Among the authentic responses, one can find relevant responses that contain significant content (supporting, reinforcing, or opposing what is said), and one can find those that respond to responses that are lacking in content and incoherent, including personal attacks, curses, and other expressions of hatred.
Algorithms in social networks
Unlike publishing a column in person, social media algorithms encourage users to stay on them for as long as possible. Since provocations are inherently interesting, they are encouraged by these algorithms, and in fact, the algorithms encourage provocations.
The result is that the toxic forms of expression posted on social media are “normalized.” Over time, people are exposed to these forms of expression and begin to adopt them. Monitoring online speech will reveal that it becomes more extreme, more polarized, and more hateful with each passing year.
Poison machines
The enormous growth of social networks and websites that post opinions has been seen by those interested in influencing public opinion as a tremendous opportunity. These parties have built influence machines, which often take the form of "poison machines."
The poison machines send “bots,” or professional-respondents-on-behalf-of, to networks to fill them with inflammatory and provocative responses, designed to influence public opinion in the “right” direction. “Bots” are user profiles.
Behind these profiles can be real people, some of whom receive payment for their activity, and there are also fictitious profiles created by a computer, and used to create a mass in the system.
Behind these poison machines can be external enemies (in our case, Iran and Russia, for example) or internal bodies that specialize in social media (there are several of these today, including some that are very close to the government in Israel).
Usually, you need to be an expert to identify a bot, or a proxy, but sometimes, due to amateurism or mistake, bots can be exposed.
Vietnam War
"Bot" and "poison machine" are two concepts that until a few years ago were not at all familiar, and some have difficulty believing in bots powered by a poison machine. For the benefit of the doubters, I will provide the following incident story:
A Facebook user recently posted a post calling for a protest vigil in front of the Prime Minister's House. He recounted what happened immediately afterward:
"Fifteen minutes ago I published a post about a high-tech protest vigil today (Thursday, March 27.3) at 35 Gaza Street, Jerusalem.
I was immediately attacked by "right-wing" "citizens" who oppose the demonstrations.
Oh my, the fuckers forgot to change their profile names.
They are all strictly Vietnamese profiles.
Here are their names (screenshot attached) and their responses:
Quân Phương Đặng says: "Left-wing klages"
Binh Binh Yên says: "Damn leftist terrorists"
Tùng Hạnh Bùi says: "How much hatred is there in all leftist terrorists?"
Bằng Vinh Hồ says: "These are not protesters, these are terrorists"
Đức Ngọc Lê says: "Where does this hatred for Israel come from, leftists?"
Quoc Minh Phan says: "We are traitors to you"
And there is more…
And I just asked:
Did masses of Vietnamese suddenly learn Hebrew and become B.I.B.ists?
People or bots?
The automatic bots are activated on sites or networks with particularly high traffic. The chance of finding bots on my private site is small. The chance of finding one on a local site like "Hai Fe" is greater, but in my opinion still small, compared to fake profiles that appear on large networks like Facebook.
Here, in this world, we find mostly authentic people. Among them are those who provide relevant and reasoned responses, who, even if they oppose the expressed opinion, maintain the level of discourse.
There are no logical arguments among the respondents who studied hate speech.
The automated bots are being replaced in this arena (live) by people who were exposed to bots on the internet and learned the hate speech on the internet or that which emerges from government institutions. When a panicked prime minister uploads videos like the last of the talkbackists, and the Knesset plenary functions as a satirical cabaret (without understanding the satire), the hatred spills over into the public.
The common denominator of all these responses is a lack of relevance. They contain no convincing logical arguments, nor is there even an attempt to present any. These responses take various forms, and I will list a few of them.
The fundamentalists
These responses come from a public whose logical thinking is characterized by general confusion due to religious delusions. To be sure – this is a select public. Not all who define themselves as religious/believers belong to this type.
Examples:
A naive fundamentalist response:
Dear Yoram,
What will help you deny reality?
The reality is that on the enemy's side, the war is religious. That's clear to everyone.
So what good would it do you to call it a national war?
On the contrary, to the extent that we too are called to war, a religious or faith-based war, we will be able to decide the battle once and for all!
A religious war can only be won with the tools of faith.
So if the people of Israel want to decide the war, this is the way.
This is a way that doesn't require a lot of weapons and blood.
Angry fundamentalist response:
What nations are your parents' parents from?
Is there/is there no God?
Is the Torah true?
Where is the Reverend regarding efforts to fulfill the commandments of the Torah and Halacha?
A delusional fundamentalist response:
The only solution for the State of Israel = the state and the security forces (army and police, and in general the security forces), true Jews according to the commandments of the Torah and Halacha.
Not only are there Jews among them, but they themselves are Jews according to the commandments of the Torah and Halacha.
This is the solution. The only one.
By the way, the delusional one among these commenters chose to identify himself as "Y"Sharali = only someone whose parents are both from the seed of our forefather Israel". He was so enthusiastic about his response that he posted it over and over again – a total of 26 times in one article.
The defiant
The defiant are content to confront an opinion that does not suit them using the simple technique of poking a finger in the eye.
The eye to which the finger is pointed can be "Kaplanists" \ Ashkenazim \ "Smolenists" \ brothers in arms, etc. The most common responses in this group belong to the "it won't help you" category.
Examples:
Nothing will help you, not the High Court, not the Attorney General's Office, not even the Attorney General, only Bibi.
Keep trying to bring down Netanyahu, you floor rags. Nothing will help you!
It won't help you, the alternative of the Lapid Golan Kasif and Tibi government would probably have led Israel to military defeat.
Keep talking and complaining and the right will continue to be elected with a strong army and state.
Cult members
These responses focus mainly on expressions of admiration for the Supreme Leader, in the style of "1984." The leader is perceived as a type of supernatural being in the style of a Rebbe, a big brother, a dictator in the style of Stalinism, etc.
In my opinion, the comments in this category are vying for the title of "most embarrassing comments."
Here are some examples:
- Bibi Netanyahu is the father of the nation! A strategist of the first order, the Churchill of the West.
- Bibi the Giant History will remember him as the defender of the State of Israel for the good of the State
- Bibi, you are the hero of Israel. We are with you all the way.
- Bibi, give them their mother, for the crazy ones.
The ones who are being sent
This is a response technique based on throwing mud at the author of the post. It is a popular and convenient technique for those who are unable to formulate real content.
The spectrum of these responses ranges from "Why, who are you?" and bizarre accusations to curses and threats.
Some examples from the genre:
- Who put you here to criticize high-ranking people? Who are you anyway?
- Classic Bolshevik anti-Semitic left.
- The author of the article is an Israel hater, an anti-Semite.
- A delusional left-wing misanthrope.
And for dessert:
You are a Nazi.
The hallucinations
These are strange people who post strange comments that are unclear where they came from and where they are going.
Examples of bizarre reactions:
- Yoram Katz and you smuggled 50,000 young people out of Haifa
All your children and grandchildren have left town.
What's left for you is to go out on Saturday with whistles to the retirement meeting in Horeb.
Come on, maybe you'll make a gesture and pass it on to your children and grandchildren after you destroyed the city here? - For every Haredi evader, there are 10 Yairlapid and kibbutznik evaders.
- Another beautiful soul, Mr. Katz, because of people like you, we lost the city of Haifa to the Amalek seed, you are the ones who endanger the country, you are the ones who sold it on 7.10.
An interesting dilemma is how to respond to the statements of such human bots, and whether there is any point in addressing them at all.
A possible solution is found in the story of the fox and the donkey (credit to Chaim Shapira).
The fox and the donkey
The fox and the donkey got into a serious argument.
The donkey said: "5 = 2 + 2, every baby knows that."
The fox said: "My friend the donkey, where did you get this? 4 = 2 + 2"
After hours of arguing, when they almost ended in a fight, the two decided to go to the lion, the king of the forest, to judge between them.
The wise old lion listened to them attentively, looked at them both, and then decided: "The donkey is right!"
The donkey returned to the forest with dancing steps, then the lion turned to the fox and said to him:
"And your punishment for this foolishness will be a year of exile from the forest!"
"What?" said the poor, shocked fox, "My Lord King, you know as well as I do that 4 = 2 + 2. So why do I deserve such a punishment?"
The lion looked at him for a long time and then said:
"You deserve the punishment not because you are wrong. You deserve it because you argue with a donkey!"
To consider or not to consider, that is the question
Is the lesson from this to avoid any reference?
I shared this dilemma in a Facebook post, and received an interesting response:
"These days it's important to argue with a donkey, maybe you'll change his mind and the minds of his friends. That's something..."
I repeated and insisted: "The point is, there's no point in arguing with a donkey. It won't help anyway."
And he answered:
"You're right if it's a one-on-one argument. In that case, there's really no point. But when it's on an internet platform... I think so."
In this case, your voice is equivalent to voicing a public opinion, like in the old town square… Many times people are exposed to different information and opinions and then they start to think and criticize their own opinion as a result. And this is where the small changes begin, in my opinion."
it has got something in it.
What do you think?
Why did you choose to present logic?
More than that, you yourself are a slanderer, a defiant, and a clear fundamentalist, only you wrap it in a long, lofty text and mistakenly think that it makes it easier to convey your arrogant and simplistic worldview.
To your question – there is a risk in arguing with a “donkey” in the city square. Opposite the argument that even those who are not yet a donkey will read the words and perhaps change their minds is the argument that the donkey’s words will also be read and adopted. And from this perspective – a risk-taker will argue and a conservative will abstain – my understanding is that there is no “school solution” to your question and no good way to go about it.
Calling a comment a poison machine or, calling the commenter a bot, is a form of minimization that exempts the subject and object of the comment from being relevant to the comment.
Don't respond to them like that. The left and their cousins want the war to stop in order to blame Netanyahu for losing the war, but now with Trump it's just beginning in Gaza.
Mr. Yoram Shalom and Happy Holidays. The responses are in accordance with the stinging articles among a large group, perhaps the largest in the nation, who have believed for 2 decades and countless election campaigns. Netanyahu is a rare leader and it's a shame that you don't understand how low we might have been if, after 7/10, in an imaginary scenario, there had been another leader in his place. The war would probably have stopped at an early stage. We wouldn't have entered Rafah. The enemy would have recognized the weakness and raised the price of the kidnapped, in my opinion, by liberating Israeli territories (unlike now, where they are supposedly ready to return everyone if the war stops). All of these achievements were achieved because of Netanyahu's insistence and under heavy international pressure at the time, not to mention the echo of left-wing protests in our media, which supposedly sided with the families of the kidnapped in order to exploit the opportunity for political needs. And we haven't even talked about the achievements of the war in Lebanon compared to Lapid's disgrace, who made an agreement with them at sea.
A good leader in a complex region like ours must know how to stand by his principles and not be generous and flatter the media and the international community. And even though it is very difficult to have hostages, we must not show weakness in front of our enemies because weakness may be interpreted by them as further attacks, in my opinion, even from additional borders, including from countries with which we have a peace agreement.
And you can always find failures in every person, every family, and certainly in every government. No one is perfect. But when the people see the alternatives, they know how to appreciate what they have and want it to remain.
And let's go back to the beginning: the writer of the article has the right to write as he wishes, but they are political all the time on the same record, without shame or substantive criticism. Why is it not legitimate in your opinion for the commenters to respond in the same political manner?
dear bird,
I understand that your perception of Netanyahu as a "rare leader" is authentic.
But why do you think that the things I write and carefully justify are not "substantive criticism," when everything you write is based on wishful thinking and hypotheses, without a shred of fact.
Netanyahu's "Hamas is an asset" policy is a strategic failure that has lasted throughout his years in office. Shin Bet chiefs warned, Lieberman resigned in protest, but Netanyahu continued until he almost forcibly brought October 7 upon us.
How can you not see that?
Netanyahu has practically no achievements. The achievements in this war are military, and some of them despite Netanyahu (the entry into Rafah, for example, was many months too late).
In the political-strategic channel, where he is supposed to bring achievements, everything he touches is failure.
The reason the war in Gaza has dragged on for too long, without achieving its goals, is that it has deliberately avoided planning for the day after.
I could go on, and I haven't said anything yet about the draft evasion law, the abandonment of reservists and displaced persons, the abandonment of the North and the South, the scandalous budget, the encouragement of the anti-Zionist sector (which laughs all the way to the bank), the destruction of statehood, division, division, and more.
I'm sure I won't convince you – it's almost impossible to convince members of a cult that their guru is a false prophet.
So why am I responding to you at all? My article is designed precisely to explain why.
It's true that we don't have to agree that the left's agenda is fundamentally defeatist and capitulatory, and believes in dialogue, agreements, and surrender with those who don't deserve to be talked to at all.
All the other clichés about the abandonment of the North and the South are written as if you are sitting in Switzerland and pretending that the wars were not imposed on us, and if Lapid or Tibi were in the government, would things be better here?
The dodgers are just an excuse for the left's aversion to religion. After all, the left and the scare channels do not respect the members of religious Zionism, thanks to whom and thanks to their demographic power the IDF exists. They are mentioned mainly in negative references. See the value of their leaders who are not legitimate in your eyes. In addition, you ignore and are afraid to criticize voters from other sectors and their elected representatives, most of whom do not enlist and it is doubtful at all what victory and side they hope for in Israel's war against the Palestinians. In contrast, the few who do enlist with them are praised by the left even before examining their motivation and whether this (perhaps) is related to real estate and land benefits for construction?
By the way, I'm not Haredi, it's a fact that I respond on Shabbat and holidays, but I sometimes wish for those leftists that their children would repent and become avrechims and receive about 800 shekels a month(!) and then we'll see them "laughing all the way to the bank," as you say.
By the way, I'm just curious to know if all the tens of thousands of Haredim were to enlist in the army or just for national service and insist in the court that they also be defined as a minority and receive the land benefits that some of the other minorities receive in land or the equivalent in money, within a few months they would economically collapse Israel? The economic considerations of the leftists are ridiculous and are also fundamentally tainted with economic ignorance.
So yes, we won't be able to agree on almost any issue because according to you, we are a cult and you are the elite, and each side may hold different opinions, which is also fine.
UNESCO's "Rhinoceros" tells the story of a quiet town where people gradually begin to turn into rhinos. The main character struggles to maintain her humanity and not "turn into a rhino."
This is a harsh and blunt allegory about the rise of fascism in 20th-century Europe.
Bibiism, which relies on fascist movements and the worship of the leader and attacks the media and all state institutions in the State of Israel, is the perfect example of hypocrisy.
A bibist who doesn't understand this just demonstrates how far arrogance can go.
Excellent article, as usual Yoram.
One note about the usefulness of arguing with a donkey in the virtual town square: This argument creates traffic for the donkey's arguments and increases the spread of toxic nonsense, while also spreading counterarguments. Therefore, the usefulness of responding is questionable. Personally, I tend to hold back, not respond, and block the donkeys, asses, and all sorts of poison-mongers.
Read Ionesco's "Rhinoceros" and you will find the psychology and sociology of the Kaplan camp, the realists, and your ilk.
Enough with the verbal violence.
Why not use respectful discourse?
It is possible, and probably quite a few people, think that the head of the Shin Bet and the Yomash screwed up, but in a state of law, citizens have the maximum right only to demonstrate legally and demand their dismissal/prosecution, and in any case, it is not in our hands as citizens, but only in the hands of the law enforcement authorities.
The first part of the article is funny: "A process that begins with choosing a topic..." Tell us that it really won't end up criticizing Netanyahu or the Haredim in the articles?
Why is there a feeling that authors of generalizing and defiant articles pretend to be surprised to receive similar responses?
Yes, it's true that Rehm and the government also deserve criticism more than once, but when it comes to security and strategic issues, the public is sufficiently vigilant to understand whether this is a more right-wing approach or again from the ridiculous left that has been addicted to silence and benefits for our enemies for years.
And sometimes the responses are humorous because what are the critics of Netanyahu and the right really proposing? After all, on Election Day, you have to choose a person/party, and it's nice and good to criticize, but you also offer a solution, and then somehow in their polls you see that the only one who can defeat Netanyahu and the right is himself a religious Zionist disguised as a leftist.
So who are we really working for?
.