Trolling on the internet

[MercenaryChef]

Scot, some could think you are a troll really. Some of your thoughts on the civil war, slavery and the south could be seen as trolling.... but you actually believe it, so how is that trolling?

Am I trolling right now?

Hmm. Makes you think.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MC,

My views on slavery are in keeping with most it needed to end. My views on secession are distinct from my views on slavery.

[MercenaryChef]

Scot, if I recall you were cool with just letting slavery peter out on its own and forego the war. Twenty or a hundred mire years of human ownership was acceptable to you. Those could be the thoughts and ideas of a troll.

And I again could be trolling now. Or I could be just making a point.

[Biglose]

Bignose,

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.

Making something personal is again an other ballpark from trolling. It is not "trolling" if I would send you a picture of your wife picking up your kids from school.

But sarcasm does not need to be trolling either. Nor does Ironie. And if somebodys argument consists of idle chatter with no real structure behind it, you may call that out. Yes, even if it could hurt somebody believing that.

[mankytoes]

To. You. Maybe.

It. Seems. So. Fucking. Self. Important.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MC,

I see your point.

[threadjack]Slavery did need to end. I just think looking at the British Empire's efforts it may have been possible to end it without force but that's easy to say at this point.[/threadjack]

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

One should first define trolling.

I'm sure there are different definition, but I've always associated "trolling" with fishing, where you let a line run in the water in the hopes that a fish will bite. Of course, that still leaves open in the internet context whether someone is "trolling" in the hopes of starting a serious discussion or making a serious point (as I think MC just did), or "trolling" just to upset people.

The former is legitimate, and sometimes a tool to get people to think outside of a box. The latter, IMHO, is something that generally is best ignored. There are some people who get genuinely upset by a stranger who is simply rude, which is different than being upset by a stranger who is implicitly threatening. I've personally never understood why the personal opinions about you of people who have no effect on your life should matter.

[Blisscraft]

Troll seems to be attached to an individual. What about a group of posters who get together and go after another for a difference of opinion. Is that "appropriate"? I notice this in the other threads most often. The same four or five posters begin to pick on a sole poster because they simply don't like the sole poster's opinion. Is this more analogous to bullying or is it trolling? I have no idea, but it too seems, "inappropriate."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Biglose,

Making something personal is again an other ballpark from trolling. It is not "trolling" if I would send you a picture of your wife picking up your kids from school.

But sarcasm does not need to be trolling either. Nor does Ironie. And if somebodys argument consists of idle chatter with no real structure behind it, you may call that out. Yes, even if it could hurt somebody believing that.

I get that. My point is that if the response is abusive or threatening, it's problematic.

[Elder Sister]

The word 'trolling' is right up there with the over-use of the word 'inappropriate'. It's become a catch-all. And that would be fine if it didn't serve the purpose (along with the word 'inappropriate') of watering down and rendering innocuous some truly vile, criminal behavior. That's the big problem I have with this word. I recently read an on-line article about a camp counselor who sexually molested a child. The behavior was described as 'inappropriate'. Uh, no, 'inappropriate' is using a toothpick at the dining table. Or telling an off-color joke to your boss's wife. Molesting a child is a crime, it's vile, and it's molestation. Call it what it is.

Playing stupid, nitpicking, deliberately misunderstanding someone...that's trollish. And yeah, it can be amusing, along the lines of Ken H. and his ilk. When the word is used to describe threatening behavior, sexual harrassment, bigoted, racist attitudes and the like, all it does is serve to minimize the behavior. And then we get statements like 'ignore it.', 'don't feed the troll.' (I hate this one. Seriously; so overused at this point.)

Also, there seems to be a trend here on the board where calling out unacceptable attitudes or behaviors is considered bullying. No, it isn't. If I come on the board and proclaim myself to be a white supremacist, anti-feminist, anti-LGBT, I need to be prepared for some fallout. This is 2013, not 1950, and if a person is not willing to consider equality for all, they need to expect to get some grief.

Seriously. If a redneck from North Mississippi can understand this, what is the problem? Come on.

[MinDonner]

*applauds ES*

[Sci-2]

eta:

*applauds ES*

+1

Scot, some could think you are a troll really. Some of your thoughts on the civil war, slavery and the south could be seen as trolling.... but you actually believe it, so how is that trolling?

Am I trolling right now?

Hmm. Makes you think.

This is a really good point.

There are a lot of opinions that come off as trolling - heck I think a few of my genuine beliefs and interests seem trollish to many.

Which is why I think either ignoring trolls or seriously engaging them is best. It's the only way I can think of to engage people whose views differ radically form [from] that of the majority.

And while I do lose my cool as much as anyone else, especially when confronted with a topic that hits personally, I find myself regretting angry outbursts as they often (always?) sink the conversation.

[Biglose]

Also, there seems to be a trend here on the board where calling out unacceptable attitudes or behaviors is considered bullying. No, it isn't. If I come on the board and proclaim myself to be a white supremacist, anti-feminist, anti-LGBT, I need to be prepared for some fallout. This is 2013, not 1950, and if a person is not willing to consider equality for all, they need to expect to get some grief.

I get where you are coming from, but I do not think it is a worable definition.

If we get in details, most people on the board would not even agree what equality means.

You can have two sides at each others throats both calling the other side nazis. A good example for this is any thing about the middle east, espacially israel and palestine. What you gonna do? Who is wrong?

And you the idea that you should stand up for equality, ah well. Ever heard of cultural relativity. Yeah, I personally do not agree with those guys and girls, but they have an right to their opinon the same as I do. So if somebody says to me we should for example except the treatment of gays/lesbians in russia or saudi-arabia, because peace is more important than gender equality and human rights, well I might not agree but I think this person is entitled to their opinion. And for specific situation they might even be right.

On the internet and even in real life, the person crying racist or sexist is mostly one themself. It is often a sign that they do not really have an argument left. So thats not really behavior I would like to encourage.

[Salad_fevre]

This moratorium on threats of violence, has anybody not wished harm upon someone who has caused you issues.

Suppose every morning 5am you are on a main road driving to work when you hit the same light. Now this light is special, the T street only represents about a dozen houses, tops. So there is rarely a use for this light. Nonetheless, someone gave this rarely used cross-street preference.

The light takes a full 2 minutes to change every time. Oh, bonus, it goes right back to red after green, so if you are in s short line, you might not make it through. Here you express anger and a desire that the engineer or programmer etc. Recieves a face punch.

What is that?

[DanteGabriel]

I wish violence on people all the time. But I think one of the perks of human intelligence is being able to keep those nasty thoughts to one's self instead of voicing them or acting upon them.

All the rest of that was word salad.

[Elder Sister]

I get where you are coming from, but I do not think it is a worable definition.If we get in details, most people on the board would not even agree what equality means.You can have two sides at each others throats both calling the other side nazis. A good example for this is any thing about the middle east, espacially israel and palestine. What you gonna do? Who is wrong?And you the idea that you should stand up for equality, ah well. Ever heard of cultural relativity. Yeah, I personally do not agree with those guys and girls, but they have an right to their opinon the same as I do. So if somebody says to me we should for example except the treatment of gays/lesbians in russia or saudi-arabia, because peace is more important than gender equality and human rights, well I might not agree but I think this person is entitled to their opinion. And for specific situation they might even be right.On the internet and even in real life, the person crying racist or sexist is mostly one themself. It is often a sign that they do not really have an argument left. So thats not really behavior I would like to encourage.

Regarding what I underlined above: Uh, no. They might just actually be identifying a racist or sexist. And the rest of your musings are simply that. Certainly, we can argue about the greater good and how to bring about universal peace and harmony. But if you don't believe that all men (and women) are created equal, we are never going to be able to begin a dialogue, much less reach common ground. I'm saying this: There are simple truths (universally acknowledged). If a person does not agree that racism, sexism and bigotry are wrong, and that equality for all is right, that person is wrong. And there is no reason for me to tolerate their intolerance. (I like that. Don't tolerate intolerance. :) )I think a lot of it is simply timing. In 1970, there was still a lack of acceptance for desegregation and civil rights. Today, no intelligent person would even consider such a thing.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If we get in details, most people on the board would not even agree what equality means.

I think "most people on the board" probably would, but you do raise a valid point that there is legitimate disagremeent on the meaning of "equality", and those disagreements can sometimes lead one POV to label the other as racist/sexist, etc.

On the internet and even in real life, the person crying racist or sexist is mostly one themself. It is often a sign that they do not really have an argument left. So thats not really behavior I would like to encourage.

Look, sometimes, that is true. I disagree with a lot of people here on a lot of those issues. But other times it is very clearly not true, and the target really is someone that that the vast majority of people would agree is a racist/sexist/homophobe, whatever. Making the kind of generalization you just made makes it sound as if you don't believe there really are racists, etc.. And I suspect quite strongly that you do believe there are racists, etc., so you might want to consider how an overly broad generalization can lead to people (perhaps) misjudging you.

[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.

Exactly. No one heard about Lindelofs attempts to grab attention for himself, because GRRM squashed them with the power of attention-starvation.

If I come on the board and proclaim myself to be a white supremacist, anti-feminist, anti-LGBT, I need to be prepared for some fallout.

They need to be prepared for fallout. You need to be prepared that your "fallout" generally gives them meme-power, and that you're feeding off one another. That's how it works.

In 99% of cases, no one declares themselves a troll, or a white supremacist, or a misogynist. What happens is that someone disagrees with Ser Scot on slavery, or with the bullies who made fun of the chubby attention-feminist, and then decide that x is a white supremacist or misogynist or whatever, and needs some "fallout". The people shoveling their attention into the maw of the meme even feel that this is somehow a moral act, in the sense of protecting a child from a bear.

Of course, in reality, Scott probably isn't a white supremacist, and the people making fun of the attention-feminist are probably not misogynists. But that doesn't effect the dynamic of "fallout" feeding the meme. Fallout is attention. Fallout is feed.

Sometimes, fallout is the right thing to do. Sometimes, fallout is dumb, delusional, self-pleasuring, and counterproductive. Sometimes, the victim loses the moral highground with their response.

The "fallout" around the attention-feminist predictably didn't accomplish reduction of the meme. Dramatically the converse. The attention-feminist fed the meme with her combination of self-promotion and willful ignorance of Facebook, the law, etc. The meme grew. The attention-feminist actively invited thousands of comments, encouraged exponential dissemination. The meme got more attention, and became increasingly distributed, far more than it otherwise would be. That's the internet. I'll give her that she probably felt better about herself after a bunch of nice people said nice things to her, that's how the internet also works (echo chambers networks). That's great. But the meme also grew exponentially larger than it would be if the attention-feminist hadn't gone down the particular path that she did. And while she started out as a victim of a mild prank, she ended up making her side look pretty bad, much worse than the GIF bullies.

Fallouting the badguys doesn't always make you the goodguy. If you do it wrong, sometimes you're Don Quixote. Sometimes you're making things a lot worse. Sometimes, you're worse than the badguys, and no longer the victim.

[Sci-2]

Sometimes, the victim loses the moral highground with their response.

I don't really get this. Unless the victim throws out some horribly offensive response, how does this make sense.

The "fallout" around the attention-feminist predictably didn't accomplish a combating of the meme. Dramatically the converse. The attention-feminist fed the meme with her combination of self-promotion and willful ignorance. The meme grew.

Yeah, I see all this from a very different perspective. I guess I'll reply more about this in the appropriate thread later.

[Biglose]

@Elder Sister

Again, we do not live in a world anymore where somebody says I am a racial supremacist, nobody is saying "I am an anti semitic".