Trolling on the internet

[TerraPrime]

To continue on some of what other people like Min had touched on, I want to point out that the "don't get angry at then offensive words because if you do, they win" is actually setting up "head I win, tail you lose" situation for offensive material we are on the Internet. They either win by getting away by writing offensive crap and being insulting, or they win by getting you riled up. Seems like the type of analytics that the offending party will embrace, and not an actually useful framework to follow for the intended recipients of these insults.

[I know I know]

To continue on some of what other people like Min had touched on, I want to point out that the "don't get angry at then offensive words because if you do, they win" is actually setting up "head I win, tail you lose" situation for offensive material we are on the Internet. They either win by getting away by writing offensive crap and being insulting, or they win by getting you riled up. Seems like the type of analytics that the offending party will embrace, and not an actually useful framework to follow for the intended recipients of these insults.

I think you've basically got it right, actually. Maybe it's not a big deal if someone on the internet writes something that someone else on the internet finds offensive. Maybe it's exactly as important as you make it.

Remember when Lindelof tried to feud with GRRM, and GRRM killed it by just ignoring him? Feud never even got started, and Lindelof looked like a chimp.

Addressing their posts with calm argument seems to work, as it denies them the outraged responses but also forces them to either stop posting or respond.

Of course this only works if no one else feeds their desire for angry reaction.

That said, I think there is a danger here where someone's honest but contrary opinion is seen as "concern trolling" or just regular trolling.

Now we'll all lose our cool sometimes but I think this is a good strategy as it allows those with extreme contrary opinions to be engaged while those hunting for angry reactions either give up or end up looking foolish.

Exactly.

[DaarioKnowsBest]

Nobody likes my satire vs trolling comparison?

[fuseprime]

I agree with TerraPrime: The word Troll has been abused.

When I think of "trolling" I think of it as going off topic or trying to arouse emotions, but in a light-hearted demeanor. I think people who are offensive are, in fact, offensive. That's not trolling, that's being an a-hole.

Example: A thread discussing the Justice League and someone interjects that the Avengers are the better superhero squad because Marvel has a better universe and they keep going on about it regardless that it's a Justice League thread. Trolling

Example: A thread discussing the Justice League and someone interjects that the Avengers are the better superhero squad because Marvel doesn't have any (insert race, creed, religion, sexual orientation) and they keep going on about it regardless that it's a Justice League thread. Asshole

[Guest Raidne]

A friend of mine made a good case once for the all-purpose use of "Not. Appropriate." It has served me well throughout my non-Board existence.

[DreamSongs]

Generally, if its just said to be deliberately inflammatory and is untrue, I call it a troll.

Otherwise, its just someone being an ass.

[TerraPrime]

Maybe it's exactly as important as you make it.

Nope. Again, this is shifting the responsibility of being offended to the aggrieved group by saying that the recipients of the insult should exercise mental gymnastic to not be offended. That's assinine. One can certainly approach the offending party with a calm demeanor and try to engage them in a conversation despite being insulted, but that's hardly a reasonable default to be expected.

[karaddin]

I really can't see how even under the broadest definition threatening to rape or kill someone (perhaps including a map to where they live) can possibly be classed as trolling, or attempted to stuff under this "don't give them a reaction" umbrella of how we are supposed to react to trolling.

Even just claiming that steps past trolling into outright being offensive.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Maybe it's not a big deal if someone on the internet writes something that someone else on the internet finds offensive. Maybe it's exactly as important as you make it.

In a world of 7 billion people, someone, somewhere,at this very moment, is saying or writing something that would greatly offend someone in this forum. I've never really understood why someone would link something from somewhere else on the web that they know is offensive to others, post it in here, and then folks gather around and say "you're right -- this is very offensive." Eh? Okay, some random chucklehead somewhere is being offensive, which makes this day no different from any other.

[TerraPrime]

In a world of 7 billion people, someone, somewhere,at this very moment, is saying or writing something that would greatly offend someone in this forum. I've never really understood why someone would link something from somewhere else on the web that they know is offensive to others, post it in here, and then folks gather around and say "you're right -- this is very offensive." Eh? Okay, some random chucklehead somewhere is being offensive, which makes this day no different from any other.

In here, usually it goes beyond people nodding and saying, "oh yeah, it's offensive." Others tend to throw in their own life experience that either parallels the news items, or contradicts them. You'll get also apologists and defenders and excuse-makers, and you end up with anything ranging from a shouting match to actual discussion. Which is what the board is good for, right? To engender discussions?

I dare say, for instance, the recent postings from karadin, emberling, and Robin, had oepned up a lot of people's eyes to the issue of transgenderism, and many of those threads and topics were in reaction to something happening outside of this board (say, the Chelsea Manning news). I think that's a good thing.

So yeah, someone somewhere is saying something offensive. That shouldn't stop the rest of us from addressing issues that resonate with us. Is Thicke's song really all that sexist? Not entirely. But it was popular, and there's a general reaction from the public to the video, so it's a worthwhile topic to discuss and, perhaps, even get upset over. I don't see how this is anything different, categorically, from any other political discussions. I mean, Syria? How does it affect most of the users here in a direct way?

[karaddin]

Ironically FLOW is probably one of the best at what I'd consider the original and proper meaning of trolling in Gen Chat.

[Castel]

One thing that bugs me is the "you're letting the trolls win!" position, which seems to be rolled out regardless of what people do in response. Ignore them so they carry on? Feed them with attention so they feel validated? What, from a troll's point of view, constitutes "losing"? Other than the Almighty Banhammer, that is? Is that the only answer?

Can I ask my own question? Does it matter if the trolls "win"? Take the thread that spawned this did the troll win in the anti-feminist meme contest and how damaging is it really? The feminist got her message out. The troll got the giggles he wanted. Did anyone "win" Who won?

And that's in the anonymous jungle that is the wider internet. On message boards like this where you have a fixed persona...I don't know. I suppose Sci's strategy works fine?

edited (twice) for clarity.

[Honey Badger]

Remember when Lindelof tried to feud with GRRM, and GRRM killed it by just ignoring him? Feud never even got started, and Lindelof looked like a chimp.

I don't remember that being a thing. I just read it from George's perspective and didn't know Lindelof heard about it. Oh well, in that case I don't think GRRM was saying anything mean spirited. He was right in that Lindelof/Abrams pulled a Lost and fucked up the ending.

[MinDonner]

Can I ask my own question? Does it matter if the trolls "win"? Take the thread that spawned this did the troll win in the anti-feminist meme contest and how damaging is it really? The feminist got her message out. The troll got the giggles he wanted. Did anyone "win" Who won?

And that's in the anonymous jungle that is the wider internet. On message boards like this where you have a fixed persona...I don't know. I suppose Sci's strategy works fine?

edited (twice) for clarity.

That was sort of my point, though I could have phrased it better: whatever you do, the trolls will claim it as a "win", so it's pointless to use that as a yardstick of how to respond to them. In real life, there are plenty of ways to express disapproval (silently or otherwise) while not letting some nearby random idiot take over your conversation, but it's that much harder online... gotta dash to work now so finishing in a rush, but I guess I'm trying to say that we need ways of troll-handling that focus on minimising their disruption and their effect on US, rather than whether they will think they've "won" or not. Or something.

[I know I know]

I don't remember that being a thing. I just read it from George's perspective and didn't know Lindelof heard about it. Oh well, in that case I don't think GRRM was saying anything mean spirited. He was right in that Lindelof/Abrams pulled a Lost and fucked up the ending.

Pretty much, yeah. Lindelof got all "offended" that GRRM wrote some snarky, smartassy criticism of LOST. Fair enough. But Lindelof then went into I DEMAND THAT YOU RECOGNIZE MY FEELINGS mode, wrote a slew of tweets demanding that George meet him on the field of honor for recompense, criticizing Georges home page web design, and so on. Very immature stuff. So George ignored him. When asked about it later, George said that he didn't care, and he stuck to his guns on the statements to which Lindelof took umbrage. Lindelof, of course, looked pretty lame - particularly because Georges criticism of LOST, though mean, also had something to it.

Nope. Again, this is shifting the responsibility of being offended to the aggrieved group by saying that the recipients of the insult should exercise mental gymnastic to not be offended.

Not so much "not be offended", so much as "not act badly upon feeling offended". IE:

Do nothing:

0

Post a mean GIF:

-10

React to GIF in a douchy way:

-80

So yeah, if you do get offended, there is a responsibility being "shifted" onto you (or rather, which you had all along, though maybe you didn't know about it) to handle your feelings with proportionality. The "victim" can totally become the bad guy and get blamed, if he or she channels the indignation into bad behavior.

[litechick]

I have sometimes pondered the symbiotic relationship between the troll and those aggrieved. It's easy and so satisfying to call out someone with offensive views. Imagine the moral fortitude it takes to say "Slavery is wrong!" or "The Nazis were the worst political party EVER!" "No more war!" "Won't someone please think of the children?"

I guess for some people, battling a troll makes them feel so righteous. They can imagine that they have courage and wrap themselves in that warm feeling. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't know.

That's why I call it symbiosis--the troll gets the reaction he/she wants and the righteous get to feel righteous. We all choose our battles and I do not neglect to be grateful when someone else fights the fight that needs fighting. Our definitions of which battles need to be fought will differ and may even change with our particular mood at the time.

In short: Trolls = meh.

[mankytoes]

A friend of mine made a good case once for the all-purpose use of "Not. Appropriate." It has served me well throughout my non-Board existence.

But pointless full stops are more aggravating than trolling...

"Troll" seems to have replaced "wind up merchant". Trolling is fun ig done right, anyway.

[Tears of Lys]

But pointless full stops are more aggravating than trolling...

"Troll" seems to have replaced "wind up merchant". Trolling is fun ig done right, anyway.

To. You. Maybe.

[Biglose]

One should first define trolling.

Trolling is not about getting offensive. It is one way. The basis of trolling is to get off-topic.

For example: You talk about social politics and for whatever reason on one picture posted to show a certain aspekt, there is a dog. Lets say the dog looks great.

Now a troll would go on about how he/she cares about the fur of his/her dog and what she uses for it.

And if somebody goes about: "This thread is about X" then the troll might go PETA on you and argue, that you hate dogs.

On the other hand, you can't demand to be immune to different opinions. If you do silly stuff or make a silly argument people are allowed to respond to it, even critically. Even if this would hurt your feelings.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Biglose,

No one has said otherwise. The point is that "trolling" that is abuse or threats in disguise is still abuse or threats. Intent cannot be garnered from an internet post. As such malevolent intent should be presumed.

It's not okay to threaten to beat, rape, or kill someone as a joke or in responce to an aregument you deem invalid.