39
   

Trolls, or trolling behaviour ...how do we deal with these isues as an online community?

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:39 am
@msolga,
.... It would be good if you could explain that in a bit of detail.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:47 am
@msolga,
... by which I mean the arguments that we should be "learning" from, of course.
msolga
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:34 am
@msolga,
I have been waiting for ages for your response, Massagat, but I have a friend coming over for dinner, so I must attend to that now.

However I will leave my computer on, because I am really looking forward to what you have to say.

Perhaps you have been called out unexpectedly & I must wait till tomorrow for your reply?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 03:33 am
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:
Good word besserwisser. Hadn't heard (or seen) it used in quite a while.
There's a similar word in Latvian -- viszinis-- which, translated literally, means 'the all-knowing one.'
In English, to characterize someone as a "know-it-all" is scornful.





David
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:55 am
@msolga,
If you don't like trolls why do you try so hard to get them to talk to you?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:07 am
@Robert Gentel,
This person is a definitely troll? I wasn't sure as I haven't met her/him before.

I was interested in how a person visiting a thread for the first time was in any position to advise others who they should "learn" from.

It's sounds as though this might well be a waste of time then, correct?
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:25 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
if you were to follow my posting history you would see that I feel strongly about the importance of liberty for the individual. That is the basis for my objection to Olga and others who are determined to sedate a2k to death. A person who is not free to express unpopular opinions is not a free person.


couldn't agree more

not gonna stop me from calling you or anyone out if i think you're being a jerk, but you're right

i'm rather upset that ann coulter was shut down last night in ottawa, as much as she represents, for me anyway, the poster child for the need for retroactive abortion, the denying her of a forum just gives her more mystique and a chance to rail against her detractors

i'd rather that speech was free completely, when i used to hear daniel carver from the kkk on howard stern it helped reinforce my already clear opinion of the sort of ass that belonged to that type of group, listening to the rantings of the god hates fags folks on the ron & fez show, exposes their insanity

spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:36 am
The guy who identified the drinking water as the source of typhoid in London in the 19th century was considered a troll by the whole medical profession and the government establishment.

It's nothing but an all-purpose insult to throw into the teeth of anybody who shreds your arguments and those who agree with you. The intention is to get those who agree with you to get a claque up to bully the person into submission.

It's a mild form of witch-hunting and there's a suspicion that it wouldn't be so mild if the law allowed it not to be which was why the pillory was used in the 18th century to stone Mrs Needham to death.

The usage signifies to me a complete tosspot as does recourse to the Ignore function. Both have alienation, anomie, angst and isolation written in their DNA and my advice to those who are fond of the procedures is to stay out of pubs and anywhere else where grown-up people interact.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:44 am
@msolga,
Massagat, Massagato, Marion, Mortkat . . . this joker has had many names here. Usually, he is simply referred to as the Possum. He was a troll at Abuzz, and he's a troll here. He shows up and immediately goes looking for people whom he can vilify--he's more of a troll than anyone else we've ever had here.

By comparison, "Hawkeye" is rather mild. "Hawkeye" just wants to wrap himself in an illusory mantle of martyrdom in the cause of free speech. That's bullshit, of course, because no one here stops him from posting his drivel--but he benefits (in his own mind) by people disparaging what he posts, because he can then claim that his freedom is being curtailed, that his interest is always in free speech, and that he's a martyr to that "cause." That bullshit ignores that no one is obliged to listen to him, so that in fact his speech is free--it's just discounted by anyone familiar with his posts.

Massagat (or whatever other guise under which he will appear here) is a true, vicious troll. He only shows up to heap obloquy on other members, to sneer, to snarl and to delude himself that his understanding is superior to that of everyone else here. He is chiefly found in political threads, though, so he doesn't have the effect (usually) of disrupting threads on other topics.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:53 am
@djjd62,
Thinking about what you've said, djjd. I understand what you're saying.
Thing is, for me, it's often aggressive posting behaviour that I find much more a problem than the expression of arguments that I disagree with. What's your view of aggression toward others online? (In the eyes of the beholder?) What would be your view on, say, what appears to be the deliberate, systematic trashing of a thread? (It has happened.) I'm wondering how far you'd extend your argument on online "freedom of expression".

djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:58 am
@msolga,
it's funny, i'm certainly guilty of being aggressive against posters i don't like, but i try not to let it go to far as to wreck a thread, but i don't often think about as being part of the thread, just a post to post reply, i figure most folks just pass on by
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:03 am
@djjd62,
I think it's the extent of the aggression (some can be very personal & vicious) & also the extent of the disruption of a particular thread. What do you say if a thread is rendered virtually non-functional by aggressive online tactics by an individual poster, or a group of individuals? I'd really like to know what you think.

BTW I've never seen you be overtly aggressive toward anyone. Perhaps I've been on the wrong threads? Wink
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:14 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

I think it's the extent of the aggression (some can be very personal & vicious) & also the extent of the disruption of a particular thread. What do you say if a thread is rendered virtually non-functional by aggressive online tactics by an individual poster, or a group of individuals? I'd really like to know what you think.


i can see why some folks might give up on a thread that gets out of hand, but then they own some of that responsibility as well, they could try to rally and over take the usurpers, don't have to have them on ignore, just don't respond, move on with the topic amongst the folks who still want to respond

telling me to behave won't always work, ignoring me (either electronically or not) will (most of the time, i still respond to somebody i know has me on ignore, and they'd be surprised to see it's not all the ridicule they seem to think, but then they'll never know, unless they're checking under the bandaid and picking at the scab Wink )
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:15 am
I have had it with all you freekin communist Trolls on here! However, I have been informed by a reliable source that to put into print that I would like to kill y'all, would be a breach of the TOS and as such under the new regime could result in a severe disciplinary gift ; such as being given a 10 minute timeout.

Therefore in an effort to avoid such draconian scansion...May I say with a smile, no matter what the trinket, no such words will I write, but be assured I'll think it!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:22 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
if you were to follow my posting history you would see that
I feel strongly about the importance of liberty for the individual.
This is not a taunt:
among socialists, "liberty for the individual" typically has a low ranking in their hierarchy of values.
Thay focus their interest upon "the general well being" of the collective, with contempt for the individual.
Collectivism is deeply inherent in socialism; it goes to the essence.

R u a unique socialist, Hawkeye ?





David
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:33 am
@djjd62,
Quote:
i can see why some folks might give up on a thread that gets out of hand, but then they own some of that responsibility as well, they could try to rally and over take the usurpers, don't have to have them on ignore, just don't respond, move on with the topic amongst the folks who still want to respond


Hmmmm ... to be honest, I really don't think it's as straightforward or nearly as simple as that. But I'll be interested to hear input from others.
One thing I have noticed though, is that a number of the more aggressive & vicious "disrupters" tend not to be great arguers for their "position". Often they don't appear to have much of a "position" at all. Sometimes the disruptions are motivated by feelings of antipathy towards other posters, or an attempt to bully, or undermine a particular person, more than anything else. I don't see how that can be considered OK.

djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:34 am
@OmSigDAVID,
i'm a socially conservative neo-fascist libertarian
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
. . . with contempt for the individual.


The concept of the most good to the most people is, in fact, a utilitarian value first articulated by an English conservative, Jeremy Bentham. Leaving that aside, however, this claim about "contempt" is nothing more than evidence of your partisan-motivated bigotry. Believing in the most good for the most people does not automatically imply contempt for the individual. I would also note that you never make a distinction between freedom and license.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:36 am
@msolga,
Hawkeye wrote:
edit; if you were to follow my posting history you would see that I feel strongly
about the importance of liberty for the individual.
msolga wrote:
Particularly the rough n tough, ultra-masculine super-duper he man sort of individual's liberty! Smile
Indeed, you've said it & said it & said it, hawkeye.
HOW ?

What did he say that is so libertarian ??
This is not a rhetorical question;
I 'd really like to have this information
(but not so much that I 'd actually take the time to research n study his posting history; tedious).

Hawkeye has admitted to being a socialist.
That is very inconsistent with being enthusiastic about personal freedom,
which is the province of libertarians ( like ME ).





David
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:40 am
I'll probably have a few more things to say before this marathon of a discussion is finally over, but anyone else who wants to comment, please feel free.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

OBVIOUS TROLL - Question by Setanta
The Trolls Among Us - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice - Discussion by Thomas
Stop responding to trolls - Question by maxdancona
According to American Scientist... - Discussion by McGentrix
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 08:08:47