ceecee
Coolatta® Enjoyer
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 15,955
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 8w9
inb4 troll apologis--
oh. too late.
Of course this guy is the troll apologist.... was being spoken by my inner monologue as I read your post.
inb4 troll apologis--
oh. too late.
I try to avoid using the term altogether simply because I try not to presume the intention of another member, which is a mentality that is only reinforced whenever other members try and publicly speculate about my own motives/ intentions. So while personally I might think that the use of such terminology has become rather diluted/ obsolete, what we can do is identify unwelcome behavior and set rules against that behavior. For an example, if as a community we don't want threads about how "group of people X deserve an untimely demise" then we can make rules against creating those types of threads, and thus any formal reprimand against a member can be made independently of perceived "troll" status.How do you define troll?
inb4 troll apologis--
oh. too late.
If a guy creates a thread to discuss "fat, ugly women who need to be wiped off the planet" what exactly do you think he's doing - Algebra?
I feel that this fact only strengthens my earlier comment about how the fear/ hysteria around trolling seems to be a means of pseudo thought policing against unpopular opinions than anything else.
Still, I think it's interesting how I asked a question that no one could be bothered to answer: "as far the "dangers of trolling" are concerned, what is the worst effect that you've experienced as a result of a perceived troll?"
I was raised by a very broken (abusive) home. I was abused by just about every adult in my life. I can genuinely say that I did not ( and still not) understand what it is like to have a support system, loving or even caring, parents.
But I'm not a troll. I can take responsibility for my own actions and behavior. There is no excuse.
But you did use the word "troll" in your previous post. You invited others to comment using whatever definition they preferred. I asked you what is your definition. Are you going to provide one?I try to avoid using the term altogether simply because I try not to presume the intention of another member, which is a mentality that is only reinforced whenever other members try and publicly speculate about my own motives/ intentions.
Okay, fair enough... allow me to try and clarify. I try and avoid using the term altogether when describing another individual. In addition to this, in regards to my original post I was trying to gain a better understanding of what the OP had meant by "more dangerous than we originally thought", simply because without an original reference point this comment doesn't really mean anything to me. And while officially I don't believe my subjective definition for trolling would be necessary when making this inquiry, I still don't mind obliging your request.But you did use the word "troll" in your previous post. You invited others to comment using whatever definition they preferred. I asked you what is your definition. Are you going to provide one?
In tandem with previously stated definitions, I would loosely define trolling as voicing non-genuine beliefs in order to antagonize others. For an example, I think the last time I publicly accused an individual of being a troll was on another forum some ~5-6 years ago after I saw that they had threads such as "PSA to all men: penis size DOES actually matter" and "Teenagers under 18 shouldn't be allowed to have sex." Not only did these threads get quite the rise out of people, but at the same time I found it difficult to believe that the member in question (who to me came across as exceptionally intelligent) sincerely held some of these beliefs. As such I publicly voiced my skepticism in one of her threads, and in response she actually came up with a reply that I considered to be quite clever (and just my luck, she was permanently banned just as I was finishing up my response).
Exactly. I could have told you that I wasn't happy with my subjective definition for trolling, and that the definition itself would be painfully limiting when considering how difficult it is to ascertain intent/ motive of another user. I even tried to provide a specific example to illustrate the definition but even then I guess it wasn't very helpful.How do you determine if a belief is genuine? People believe all kinds of crazy stuff, and them voicing it might have nothing to do with trying to antagonize other people.
But you did use the word "troll" in your previous post. You invited others to comment using whatever definition they preferred. I asked you what is your definition. Are you going to provide one?
Just wanted to point out that I already provided a definition for troll and it did not in any way mention these terms. Either way, the main point I was trying to make before that was I felt that the term is largely diluted/ obsolete, and that my personal definition was not needed when making my original inquiry. As such, it's not clear to me how you're making the connection to my definition and other topics that you feel I've taken issue with.The problem is he is approaching defining trolling in the same way he approaches every topic he takes issue with. How trolling impacts him and him alone. And that projection is how he defines trolling. How trolling impacts anyone else or this forum is not really relevant. But I reckon his definition will include terms like thought police, fear mongering and typical left hysteria. Again, how trolling impacts or appears to one person is not an indication of what it actually is or does to anyone else.
Just wanted to point out that I already provided a definition for troll and it did not in any way mention these terms. Either way, the main point I was trying to make before that was I felt that the term is largely diluted/ obsolete/ and that my personal definition was not necessary when making my original inquiry. As such, it's not clear to me how you're making the connection to my definition and other topics that you feel I've taken issue with.
In my experience, across the board on all forums I've participated in, the starker the contrast between my political beliefs and another person's the more likely they are to perceive me as a troll. To me this suggests that the term has more to do than "pseudo thought policing" (i.e. attacking anyone who agrees view X, because that thought isn't aloud) than anything else. And regardless of the legitimacy of this impression of mine, it still seems that I'm not the only one who has observed this trend or something similar. For an example, the last time we had a publicly posted troll list one member replied as follows:
"2 are just people who usually disagree with you. They might be a bit snarky, harsh in their language, but not any more than you."
Well, if you are going to use a word, you should know what you mean by it. If you are not using a standard definition (presuming there is one that is generally accepted), you should explain your definition, to avoid misunderstanding. Of course, I think some people don't bother to explain because they are depending on that misunderstanding to create drama, rile people up, or otherwise provide them with entertainment. This is not unrelated to the idea of trolling. Yes, the idea of "more dangerous than originally thought" begs the question of how dangerous did we/the OP think it was to begin with? One might also ask: what is danger? Will we extend that term to any form of risk or negative outcomes, or only harm to life, limb, and property?Okay, fair enough... allow me to try and clarify. I try and avoid using the term altogether when describing another individual. In addition to this, in regards to my original post I was trying to gain a better understanding of what the OP had meant by "more dangerous than we originally thought", simply because without an original reference point this comment doesn't really mean anything to me. And while officially I don't believe my subjective definition for trolling would be necessary when making this inquiry, I still don't mind obliging your request.
Not an unreasonable definition. It depends, though, on assessing not only intentions but authenticity: does the member actually believe what he/she is posting?In tandem with previously stated definitions, I would loosely define trolling as voicing non-genuine beliefs in order to antagonize others.
The danger I see, which I prefer to call negative consequences, is that certain posting styles which are often labelled "trolling" discourage posting by members who do not share the same posting style. Since I like to be exposed to a broad spectrum of opinions and experiences on whatever the topic is, I consider that a negative, something that makes the conversation less interesting and worthwhile than it could be. So, it has little to do with the content presented, and everything to do with the manner of presenting it. I suppose it's a bit like litter in the park.That said, whether people want to agree with my definition or not, I'm still curious as to how "dangerous" we're suppose to think that trolling actually is simply because all this "far worse than we previously thought" business strikes me as form of fear mongering, especially in the absence of a specific reference point or context.
It is quite possible to antagonize someone by voicing a genuine belief.How do you determine if a belief is genuine? People believe all kinds of crazy stuff, and them voicing it might have nothing to do with trying to antagonize other people.
Better, then, to reject the term and its definitions, and simply spell out what you mean.Exactly. I could have told you that I wasn't happy with my subjective definition for trolling, and that the definition itself would be painfully limiting when considering how difficult it is to ascertain intent/ motive of another user. I even tried to provide a specific example to illustrate the definition but even then I guess it wasn't very helpful.
I didn't see a self-focus in his definition, just the same reliance on things that are impossible to assess, like intention and sincerity. It is not that different from definitions others have mentioned, here and elsewhere. I do agree that definitions should be behavior focused, at least if they are to be used to impose penalites on a forum like this.The problem is he is approaching defining trolling in the same way he approaches every topic he takes issue with. How trolling impacts him and him alone. And that projection is how he defines trolling. How trolling impacts anyone else or this forum is not really relevant. But I reckon his definition will include terms like thought police, fear mongering and typical left hysteria. Again, how trolling impacts or appears to one person is not an indication of what it actually is or does to anyone else.
I wonder how much your personal biases are coloring your experience. You do know statistics show that more crime is committed by black people?In my experience, across the board on all forums I've participated in, the starker the contrast between my political beliefs and another person's the more likely they are to perceive me as a troll. To me this suggests that the term has more to do than "pseudo thought policing" (i.e. attacking anyone who agrees view X, because that thought isn't aloud) than anything else. And regardless of the legitimacy of this impression of mine, it still seems that I'm not the only one who has observed this trend or something similar to it. For an example, the last time we had a publicly posted troll list one member replied as follows:
"2 are just people who usually disagree with you. They might be a bit snarky, harsh in their language, but not any more than you."
It is quite possible to antagonize someone by voicing a genuine belief.
If you read the book, you will find trolls go on to commit crimes.In my opinion, trolling is sometimes as dangerous as the responses to it. If everyone just rolled their eyes and ignored it, trolls would probably eventually just get bored and stop. Well most of them probably. It's the reaction that fuels the trolls. Hence the phrase "Don't feed the trolls." Now, if we're talking about actual harassment as far as trolling goes. That's another game altogether. Bullying and harassing other people as harmful should be obvious. Of course, people are always going to give trolls recognition for some reason. It's just like people in real life who repeatedly fall into others' attempts to start needless drama over things that are, quite often, ridiculous like Christmas decorations and boots (though those are the dumbest things I've seen someone try to start drama over, or at least that's how I saw their intent)