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

Yes.

Though, I stress that doing so is entirely my choice, in no way do I feel as if I can't participate in a discussion, just that I choose not to....for the most part, I happen to have a nonconfrontational personality.

Well (not knowing anything about the self-censored subjects at all), 2Packs, I'm really sorry to hear this.

I have a hunch the we're the poorer from not hearing what you could be saying here, but I do understand your reasons. Sigh.

I was referring to the fact
that what he says comes from the type of habitual mental operations
that result in supporting collectism as distinct
from its opposite.

The results r not just random chance.





David

I'm not clear about what you're actually saying there, David.

These are hawkeye's ideas.

There are probably millions of socialists out there who wouldn't agree with those ideas at all, in fact they might strongly object to them.

If someone is a collectivist, then I expect everything
that he says to spring from the mind of a collectivist,
and be flavored with collectivism n disfavor of Individualism,
the same way that if someone has an Italian accent,
then I expect that EVERYTHING that he says will be flavored with an Italian accent.


For that reason,
it has surprized me that I do not disagree with Hawkeye 's posts
more than I have. Its strange; almost oxymoronic.





David

As I have said before a strong collective requires strong individuals who choose to work together for the greater good. I continually bash the victim culture, the assault of free speech, the assault on masculinity, and talk about the masculine feminine dance BECAUSE getting this stuff right is the only way to fix what ails the collective. we need individuals to be fully formed and smart, anything that gets in the way of that is a problem as far as I am concerned.

The difference between me and david is that he assumes that these strong smart fully formed individuals will look primarily after themselves at the expense of others, and I say that they will sacrifice of themselves in order to make the human race better and the earth a better place to live. The bitch of it is that we agree on what needs to be done right now. We should be allies now and worry about our differences if we should live that long to come to the point where we part ways.

I have been deemed a troll because others choose not to believe me, they substitute their own ideas of what my motives are. I know me better then they know me so I don't care a great deal, but all of this energy wasted whacking the troll is annoying.

Well that's your view, David.
I've said what I think & don't have anything further to add.

I wish to address one of your long posts, hereinabove.
I need to get some rest first.

As a better man than I once said: "I shall return."





David

Seriously, hawkeye, why not start a thread where you can thoroughly discuss these issues with others who are interested?

I keep seeing bits & pieces of these "male bonding" arguments on various threads. Perhaps what annoys some people is that they appear to have little to do with the thread topic?

Well, since you're bringing it up, let me give you a counter-example. I myself left your whaling thread because I thought you were unreasonably restricting the ideas that could be discussed there. I didn't feel like contributing under such restrictive rules. For the record, this wasn't a big deal for me, and it was the only time where I've ever had this problem with you. But it does make the point that maybe the accusations of ideas being limited aren't as far-fetched as you think.

Fair enough, if that's what you think, Thomas.

I'll admit that that has been an extremely difficult thread to "keep on track". It has definitely been by far the hardest of all (the many) threads I've instigated here, to "oversee", for want of a better term. I've done my best, but possibly have been over-defensive at times. I don't know why exactly, but over a long history, over 2 long whales threads, it has been the target of various people "having a go" (as we say in Oz.). Sometimes in pretty destructive ways. It was once locked down after being trashed.
I'm sorry that you felt you couldn't participate for that reason, Thomas.

.... I might add, sometimes there were excellent reasons to feel defensive, though! It is a matter of trying to keep one's responses "appropriate" & obviously at times I haven't managed that as well as I would have liked to have done.

But in terms of the discussion we are having here, on this thread ...
I do believe that some of the arguments about restrictions of liberties, etc .. that have been put forward are a bit of a stretch. At the expense of acknowledging that sometimes it's actually the online behaviour of some of the most extreme "offending" posters which actually is the cause of offense, rather than some perceived limitation on their ideas ....

Because thay r all socialists,
thay all share a commonality of fundamental principles,
otherwise thay 'd not all be socialists
(which is not to deny that Stalin killed Trotsky).





David

I agree. Just because one has the right to be a moron, that doesn't mean it's the right thing.

(And by all means, don't feel bad about the whaling thread!)

When I think of trolling and 'trolling behaviors' my mind automatically goes to 'controlling' and 'controlling behaviors' moreso than open and honest expression, whether someone communicates something I believe or not in a way I'd communicate it myself or not.
In fact, I'd much rather have the openly stated, 'That's a bunch of crap,' reply toward something I write than the polite but insidious, 'We'll politely act like you don't exist and you didn't just say something and skip over that and go on to this...' move.
(That's why I'm not going to skip over your sexist 'males handle things openly and females don't like that' commentary Hawkeye - to this female that's a bunch of crap).

And maybe culturally I do have an automatic negative response to that sort of controlling and manipulative 'trolling' because I am American. I don't like to feel controlled, or feel that anyone has the right to try to control me or what I think or how I express myself- I am able to do that myself. And I automatically allow that other adults are able to do that for themselves as well.

I treat people online exactly as I do in real life. I don't toady to anyone - if I don't agree with them I say, 'I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that' or if I don't want to talk about it anymore I say, 'I'm done - I have nothing else to say,' if I think it's funny - I laugh...


It's important in my culture too - at least where and when I was raised. That's why I don't deal in the underhanded exclusionary tactics of voting someone down anonymously because of who they are rather than because of what they say. I don't have any taste for exclusionary tactics at all. I agree with Hawkeye there - the more open and diverse the conversation and population, the more interesting it is to me.

Thomas, surely u see the value
of expressing yourself with precision. It is questionable that any moron
woud be ABLE to post here, and surely morons have no interest
in anything that is intellectually demanding. It is not at all likely
that any moron has ever posted here.

I venture to surmise that even JTT is probably not a moron
however disorganized his thinking may be.





David

The problem with this ssential belief is that many times a participant carries it into a thread that , by its stated purpose,should provide no opportunity to exude testosterone. Thre are many topics that an author wishes to have a technical discussion about a topic. The usual run of threads is that , depending on the immediate interest, some person, with hormonal based opinions jumps in and adds nothing except vitriol and some whacky beliefs that, jut because theyve said it, it must be correct. Then, if the person is criticized (usually politely at the outset), the poster will fly off the handle and, still dead wrong, start hurling epithet in place of evidence.

I know that in my discussion about "Overfishing"I drew in a couple of that kind and , whhile I actually love the insane give and take, I begin to wonder whether , for the good of the overall thread,I shouldnt just put the seriously mental offenders on ignore. When a poster , obviously uninformed by several basic standards of measurement, will become belligerently and openly hostile to anyone who attempts to correct them. Is it the poor medium which only allows a "first draft" method of communication? or are the readers of the belligerent posts interpreting the poster incorrectly.
I know in the case of IONUS, he was as technically deficient as could be and I dont think anyone would deny it. Yet he was quickly and openly hostile and was totally involved in homespun invective in a vain hope that he could use testosterone to carry his argument. All it did was to ahut off any continued interest in that thread, because I did the inexcusable by engaging IONUS with an equal amount of vitriol. (Rule one in debating the Phillistines is NOT to act like a Philistine)
Until last year,We used to have a poster named real life who, although "uninformed" by any scientific standard, was really correct in preaching his worldview. MAny folks got really pissed at him for his SUnday SChool methods. I thought that, with his frame of reference, he did an excellent job of pressing his beliefs and his worldview. AND, he did it in an unsettlingly polite manner.
I think that a good opponent poster is one who is visibly unflapped and remains totally polite , even in their rebuttals of anothers insults. In my mind, there are only 3 people on the entire board who are able to maintain disturbing politeness while being yelled at, and they are Msolga Joe Nation and Dave.The rest of us have shown that we have buttons that are pusheable and , some of our buttons are very close -in and next to our enter button.

There are actually very few trolls. Spendi and Oolongteasup come closest because they merely post something (often clever)that contains a simple appeal to the audience that says "Hey, notice me, IM HERE TOO".
Those kinds of trolls are harmless and easily absorbed into a discussion. On the occasions that one of them actually makes sense or is engaging the topic (no matter how often one claims that all his posts are on topic), he is actually answered as if all his posts were constructive and relevant. I find that (after 5 years) , that whenever spendi tries to derail a thread, the best thing to do is just go afield and let the thread come back on its own. If I were to hop in and comment or criticize, I would become the focus of , say, spendis comments for as many posts as I could last.
ASo, the art of polite unflapped rebuttal, and judicious application of"ignore" are learned skills in this board.

Ive learned that ,by engaging a defiantly ignorant poster who resorts to insult over evidence, all Im actually doing, by becoming equally insulting, is to scare off anyone else who wants to join in the conversation. SO, instead of showing the insulting poster the error of his ways, all I do is kill my own threads by becoming equally insulting, and who wants to be part of that?.

I dont mean to make this about me but , since the only experience I can peddle is from personal encounters, Id use it as my own "teaching moment"

Ah. But can you understand at all, Aidan, that a person can reach a point where they've had more than enough dialogue with someone who's causing constant problems through very nasty behaviour?

I have been accused here of being "too nice" to certain "trolls". Of putting up with them for far too long, when any "sensible" person would have put them on "ignore" long ago.

And that may be quite correct, for all I know. What I do know is, after being a damn sight more tolerant & civil to particular posters (than most people have been, by a very long shot) I have reached the point where I've had a gutful of dealing with their destructive antics. Put simply, I don't want to deal with them any more. Because my perception is they can't or won't be any different. And, to me, in such circumstances, a thumbs down or an "ignore" is a perfectly reasonable response.

Mny who claim "underhanded exclusionary tactics" dont start many threads. SOME have never started and maintained a thread. Its easy when your entire participatory world is based upon your posts and how the author responds to you.