THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT HERE . . .

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

FBM wrote:

I think I should get a quicker Ignore finger, too. They have nothing constructive to add and just revel in all the negativity they incite.

thumbing them down is more useful to the community - more work, but more useful

Yeah, I do that. I also thumb up people who are talking sense. But I've still put the worst of the trolls and yellers on Ignore. I'm not here to be constantly irritated.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Yeah, I do that. I also thumb up people who are talking sense

Every one says they do this, but come on! The facts don't lie.

Check any controversial thread. Personal insults get far more upthumbs than well thought out points. And there are cliques where groups of friends upthumb each other.

Certain people get upthumbed for the most banal comment where as other people get downthumbed for decent posts based solely on who they are. Thumbs would be a little more useful if they weren't anonymous. I would like to see the list of names of members who upthumb or downthumb a post.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Yeah, I do that. I also thumb up people who are talking sense.

yup. I probably thumb up more people I don't like than people I do - a well-debated point is always nice.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Not all personal insults are trolling. If someone calls bullshit on obvious bullshit trolling, I'm likely to give them a thumbs up. I won't lie about that. But that doesn't change the facticity of the statement I made that you're responding to: "Yeah, I do that. I also thumb up people who are talking sense."

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

You and FBM must be the only exemplars in thumbing behavior. There aren't very many people who unthumb well thought out posts outside of their cliques.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT HERE . . .

Based on the dissonance and shouting, the winner by a long chalk is this topic and what's more, I shall brook no argument.

0 Replies

@FBM,

I disagree. All personal insults are trolling. There is no reason to attack a person. You can attack an argument without making it personal. That way... just maybe... a reasonable discussion might occur (and you might even learn something).

Any personal attack (except maybe one in response to an initial personal attack) is trolling. It is unnecessary. The number of personal squabbles here diminish A2K as a community.

4 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

FBM wrote:
Yeah, I do that. I also thumb up people who are talking sense.

yup. I probably thumb up more people I don't like than people I do - a well-debated point is always nice.

For the most part, I try to stay away from letting liking or disliking individuals affect my posts. I try (not always successfully) to keep focused on strong/weak arguments. If I develop a strong dislike for a person, it's almost certainly because it's a troll or a yeller. For example, I strongly disagree with those who defend racism, but I don't dislike them as individuals and will agree with them on other issues, as long as they're not trolling or yelling.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The number of personal squabbles here diminish A2K as a community.

It is closer to cultural warfare.....

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I disagree. All personal insults are trolling. There is no reason to attack a person. You can attack an argument without making it personal. That way... just maybe... a reasonable discussion might occur (and you might even learn something).

Any personal attack (except maybe one in response to an initial personal attack) is trolling. It is unnecessary. The number of personal squabbles here diminish A2K as a community.

While I agree that personal insults are regrettable, I don't think doing it always qualifies as trolling. I think of trolling as prolonged badgering based on an agenda to accomplish nothing (or little) more than pissing people off.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

(and you might even learn something).

Like the difference between a cliche and a clique.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I would like to understand your definition of "bullshit trolling".

Is this simple a term for something you strongly disagree with?

Or are you using this term to make a judgement about someone's intention (i.e are you intuiting their internal state of mind).

If you can divine the intent of someone's post is to cause annoyance (rather than posting to express a point of view that differs from yours), then maybe you have a point... although even in this case I don't think personal insults are warranted. I also question whether someone can reliably intuit another poster's intent.

But if "bullshit trolling" simply implies that someone dares to express a view that you strongly disagree with... then I think the personal attacks are uncalled for and distracting from any reasonable discussion.

2 Replies

@Miss L Toad,

Quote:

Like the difference between a cliche and a clique.

That's water under the bridge Miss Toad.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Have I insulted you? Yet we clearly disagree on this issue.

I think everybody probably has a slightly different rubrics for considering someone to be a troll. Just for me, when someone consistently posts in a manner that reveals a certain delight in having elicited a strongly negative response from others, and does so over a long period of time, they make my troll list. I don't claim that this definition is anything more than a heuristic.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I would like to understand your definition of "bullshit trolling".

"Trolls" just repeat the same argument again and again.
Their posts make it clear they aren't bothering to listen to your counter-argument.
That's my definition.

Won't change their minds. Won't change the subject. Won't even change the content of their arguments.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Hmmm...

I am here for interesting discussion. That is why the personal attacks are what really cross the line for me. They make it very difficult to make logical points or to reach understanding. Every slightly controversial post devolves into a mud slinging contest (the facts back on this). It would be very nice for me to have a reasoned discussion with people I disagree with. This is nearly impossible because the ever escalating name-calling drowns it out.

I disagree with your point about eliciting a strongly negative response. Isn't this a prescription for group think.

In a public forum, people will strongly disagree. Ideally people could strongly disagree in a respectful way. I enjoy sharing ideas with people I disagree with. I want to hear their arguments. Sometimes I learn from them.

I have a negative response to something someone says... how is this their responsibility? In a public forum, they are going to express their opinions.

If posters in a public forum have to censor sincerely held beliefs because other posters might respond negatively... how is reasoned discussion possible?

Are you saying that no one should express an opinion that might offend you?

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

That is a fine definition. Although there is a danger that your judgement might be subjective.

I still don't think that justifies personal attacks. You should be open to the fact that you might be wrong. Even if you aren't wrong, you can attack the argument they are making... even saying that they aren't listening... without resorting to a personal attack.

Have you noticed that every thread recently that is the slightest bit controversial devolves into mud-slinging?

1 Reply

There certainly are a lot of people here without the guts to actually name names...and cite what they are pissing and moaning about.

FBM and Beth are two of these people. Setanta is also.

And at least two of those three use the "I am ignoring you" pretense to disguise the fact that they do not have the stomach for actual citation and debate.

Kinda fun watching that dog and pony show. And laughter is the best medicine for life.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The upthumbs are amusing (look at this page for example) but they aren't very consequential.

The personal attacks, vendettas and name calling are much more damaging to rational discussion on interesting or important topics.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I still don't think that justifies personal attacks.

I've discovered that in the case of the worst trolls, personal attacks don't do a shitload of good anyway.

1 Reply

THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT HERE . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know