How will Trump handle losing the election?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

On Able2Know, as on many internet sites, the people who are called "trolls" are people who disagree with the group-think of the forum in question. They are called "trolls" even if they are completely on topic. Challenging an ideological narrative with reason or facts is enough to make you a troll.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Izzy and Glitterbag.

Well, if you have an example I'd like to see it. Maybe Izzy and/or Glitterbag are using the word incorrectly. That doesn't change the meaning of what an internet troll is, and your definition, while it may make you feel better/superior, does not fit with the actual meaning.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Your definition of the word "troll" is an poorly sourced sentence that you lifted from an wikipedia article. This is not a very good source for a word definition. But anyway, from the same source.

Quote:

Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.

As noted in an OS News article titled "Why People Troll and How to Stop Them" (25 January 2012), "The traditional definition of trolling includes intent. That is, trolls purposely disrupt forums. This definition is too narrow. Whether someone intends to disrupt a thread or not, the results are the same if they do."[6][7] Others have addressed the same issue, e.g., Claire Hardaker, in her Ph.D. thesis[7] "Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions",[8] and Dr. Phil.[citation needed] Popular recognition of the existence (and prevalence) of non-deliberate, "accidental trolls", has been documented widely, in sources as diverse as Nicole Sullivan's keynote speech at the 2012 Fluent Conference, titled "Don't Feed the Trolls"[9] Gizmodo,[10] online opinions on the subject written by Silicon Valley executives[11] and comics.[12]

The people called "trolls" in this forum are people who challenge the ideological narrative of the most popular group. They are called trolls even when they are using facts and reason to ask legitimate questions.

Personal attacks and abusive behavior from Izzy, Glitterbag et. al. are not considered the behavior of a troll even when it unprovoked and completely irrelevant.

The definition of a word should match its popular usage. Otherwise the definition (as is this wikipedia definition) is meaningless.

2 Replies

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Maybe Izzy and/or Glitterbag are using the word incorrectly.

I may be wrong, but I don't think I've ever used the word troll. I don't particularly think of Max as a troll, I just think he's a dick.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Your definition of the word "troll" is an poorly sourced sentence that you lifted from an wikipedia article. This is not a very good source for a word definition. But anyway, from the same source.

Quote:
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.

As noted in an OS News article titled "Why People Troll and How to Stop Them" (25 January 2012), "The traditional definition of trolling includes intent. That is, trolls purposely disrupt forums. This definition is too narrow. Whether someone intends to disrupt a thread or not, the results are the same if they do."[6][7] Others have addressed the same issue, e.g., Claire Hardaker, in her Ph.D. thesis[7] "Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions",[8] and Dr. Phil.[citation needed] Popular recognition of the existence (and prevalence) of non-deliberate, "accidental trolls", has been documented widely, in sources as diverse as Nicole Sullivan's keynote speech at the 2012 Fluent Conference, titled "Don't Feed the Trolls"[9] Gizmodo,[10] online opinions on the subject written by Silicon Valley executives[11] and comics.[12]

The people called "trolls" in this forum are people who challenge the ideological narrative of the most popular group. They are called trolls even when they are using facts and reason to ask legitimate questions.

Personal attacks and abusive behavior from Izzy, Glitterbag et. al. are not considered the behavior of a troll even when it unprovoked and completely irrelevant.

The definition of a word should match its popular usage. Otherwise the definition (as is this wikipedia definition) is meaningless.

You've used the word troll much more than I have max; in fact I rarely see anyone here use it at all.

I definitely do not see how the part I bolded applies to this forum. I don't think I've ever seen that.

Maybe you have examples....

0 Replies

Max for a long time would trash any thread I started about women. He has some serious issues about women. In one thread, I urged people posting there not to feed the trolls. This idiotic definition of his is his response to assuming that I was referring to him. He also went on the offensive--he has appointed himself the site expert on male-female relations--he will automatically troll any such thread, and whine about it if he is challenged for his loony and idiosyncratic definitions, upon which he attempts to insist. The best thing to do is to ignore him, i certainly do.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Maybe Izzy and/or Glitterbag are using the word incorrectly.

I may be wrong, but I don't think I've ever used the word troll. I don't particularly think of Max as a troll, I just think he's a dick.

lol

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The people called "trolls" in this forum are people who challenge the ideological narrative of the most popular group. They are called trolls even when they are using facts and reason to ask legitimate questions.

maxdancona wrote:

As a self-proclaimed troll...

This has to be one of the most masturbatory, self-aggrandizing things said in a while.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Hmmmm, I don't think I've called anyone a troll. But I am please to see Max is using one of my most favorite sentences as his tag line. I actually remember writing that line and chuckling.

1 Reply

Call me "dick" call me "troll" call me "masturbatory" it is all the same to me. The goal of any of these names is to shut down any dissent or questioning of the ideological narrative. It doesn't work with me. I enjoy pushing back on the group think here too much, and when Izzy, Glitterbag, Setanta et all make personal attacks, it feels like I am accomplishing something.

I do like the word troll. Socrates and Jefferson and Alice Paul (all heroes of mine) were trolls in their time.

I don't mind the word "dick" either though.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The best thing to do is to ignore him, i certainly do.

That is funny. Setanta has never been able to ignore me. He pretends to not respond to me by addressing his personal attacks to other people, but he is never able to refrain from responding.

I have an image of him red-face with self-righteous indignation huddled over the keyboard shocked that anyone would question his political rectitude. It makes me happy just to imagine.

I don't know who he thinks he is kidding. But, he has never been able to ignore me.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Max is happy, he can do his injured soldier routine and act all hard done by. He loves it.

1 Reply

The point of this little tangent is intellectual honesty.

Calling someone a troll, even based on past perceived slights, is an ad hominem attack that makes the discussion here about personalities, rather than about ideas and facts. This tangent started with a list of people that the in-crowd believes are trolls. I am just pointing out that the only common thread between people on the "list of trolls" is that they hold the wrong opinions.

I have adopted the word "troll" because in common usage it is used to refer to anyone who dissents from the popular opinion or questions commonly held beliefs (in any given community).

In a public discussion thread such as this, questioning the most common beliefs is a good thing. That is why I object to such personal attacks.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Yes, Izzy. I do love it. Challenging group think and standing up to bullying behavior is something I particularly enjoy. Of course I wouldn't mind a rational discussion without the personal attacks (if it were possible), but this is good too.

I should thank you and Setanta for making me so happy.

0 Replies

We are going to see a LOT of this one up the road.

Erick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson
On Nov 8, Clinton's claims of a mandate will fly in the face of reality. She only won by not being Trump.
5:41 AM - 19 Oct 2016

3 Replies

@blatham,

Thank you for turning the conversation back to the upcoming election.

1 Reply

@blatham,

I don't lend much credence to journalists and other unqualified pundits--but the statement that Clinton will only win by not being Trump has a lot of truth in it.

1 Reply

@snood,

That's the key, repetition!

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

We are going to see a LOT of this one up the road.

Erick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson
On Nov 8, Clinton's claims of a mandate will fly in the face of reality. She only won by not being Trump.
5:41 AM - 19 Oct 2016

I think that there are a few things that will counter that claim.

1) Clinton is running as a continuation of Obama's policies. These are policies that voters have chosen the past two elections. Add to this the continuing demographic changes.

2) The Republicans have a problem claiming any sort of mandate themselves. They are backed up against a wall. They have earned the image of a party of obstructionism. Digging in their heals against Hillary after 8 years of obstruction is going to continue the political hurt for themselves.

3) The Democrats are likely to take the Senate. Even a Democratic House is now a possibility.

4) Hillary has fully outlined her policies. Hopefully Clinton will spend tonight's debate and the final three weeks to drive her policy vision home.

I don't think this is going to fly. I think you are going to see a section of the Republican party wanting to be reasonable and work with a Hillary Clinton administration. The question is how self-destructive the other part of the GOP will be.

Either way, Hillary Clinton comes into office with a great deal of political capital.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

Did anyone see John Oliver? I had no opinion of Stein, but I assumed she'd be a competent politician like Caroline Lucas. She's not, she's a bloody idiot like Johnson. The lion guy is easily the best 3rd party candidate.

1 Reply

How will Trump handle losing the election?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know