Why Doesn't Arvind Kejriwal Block Twitter Trollers?

A question often posed by the public and discussed in social media circles is why, when confronted with relentless trolling and cyber-attacks, does Arvind Kejriwal refrain from taking action? The answer lies not in indifference or incapability, but in a profound understanding of the nature of the internet and public dissent. Anyone who enters public life, especially through platforms like Twitter, must be prepared to face harassment, ridicule, and criticism, often from anonymous assailants or organized cyber armies.

Understanding the Context

Trolling, in the digital age, is a persistent and often insidious problem. do more than just insult; they seek to intimidate, provoke, and disrupt. They know that by persistently attacking public figures, they can create chaos and undermine trust in democracy. These acts of harassment are not isolated; they are part of a broader pattern of behavior designed to unsettle and silence those in public office.

Kejriwal's Approach: A Lesson in Nobility

What distinguishes Arvind Kejriwal is his response. Unlike many of his contemporaries who might choose to respond in kind or even seek legal action, Kejriwal has adopted a more strategic and noble approach. Instead of blocking or retaliating, he chooses to ignore. This is not simply a matter of avoiding confrontation; it is a calculated decision aimed at dismantling the very machinery of online harassment.

The reasoning behind this approach is potent. As he succinctly puts it:

"

If you block a troller... a troll will emerge from every household.

This statement encapsulates a powerful strategy for combating trolling. By not engaging, Kejriwal reveals the ugly truth about the internet: trolling is a symptom of a diseased society, but also a product of a very specific weakness in the attacker. If a troll is blocked, the narrative shifts from one of mutual combat to one where new trolls are empowered to spread the same discord, creating a cycle that is more destructive than any single confrontation.

Consequences and Philosophical Underpinnings

Kejriwal’s approach is both a practical strategy and a statement of values. On the practical level, it is a method to minimize the amplification of negative behavior. Every time a troll is blocked, the noise-to-signal ratio in cyberspace increases, making it easier for legitimate criticism and important discussions to be drowned out. By ignoring, Kejriwal effectively reduces the volume of noise, allowing the discourse to focus on substance.

Philosophically, this approach embodies a form of inaction that is deeply virtuous. Inaction, when chosen wisely, can be a powerful form of resistance. By refusing to conform to the trolls' desired narrative, Kejriwal asserts a moral high ground. He shows that true leaders do not need to engage in petty squabbles; they stand firm, allowing the truth to emerge naturally.

Moreover, Kejriwal’s approach highlights the accountability of public figures. If a leader can handle the harshest criticism without retaliating, it sends a strong message to others. If a public figure who claims to uphold high standards of governance and humanity can ignore baseless attacks, then the expectation is there for everyone to adhere to similar principles. This sets a precedent that challenges the very nature of online hostility and promotes a more respectful and constructive dialogue.

The Nobility of Not Blocking

The decision not to block is a testament to Kejriwal’s character and his vision for a better society. He is not just a politician; he is a symbol of resistance and resilience. By choosing not to block trollers, he is rejecting a culture of retaliation and embracing a culture of dialogue. This is not just a tactical choice; it is a moral stand.

Kejriwal's approach is not just a personal choice but a philosophy that can be applied to other areas. It teaches us that sometimes, the best response to attack is silence. This is a profound lesson in the ethical conduct of public life and the use of technology to create a more inclusive society.

As the world continues to grapple with the challenges posed by the internet and social media, Kejriwal’s approach offers a unique and powerful model. By standing firm and not engaging, he has transformed the typical reaction to trolling into a discourse about true leadership and moral courage.

In conclusion, the wisdom of Arvind Kejriwal lies in his ability to understand and strategically respond to the challenges of public life in the digital age. His refusal to block trollers is not an act of weakness but a powerful expression of nobility and moral strength.