Trolling on the internet

[Elder Sister]

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

So pointing out that a person is a racist/sexist/bigot = being an attention-seeking flamer?

ETA: Let me put it this way; I don't have to hold a sign and get my picture taken to point out some backwards, offensive attitudes.Staying silent on inequality and injustice is never a good thing. I don't have to be an ass about it, but I do need to call it out. And I can do it in a loving, kind way. I've had this done to me. I've done it with my husband...it can be done.

[Biglose]

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.

Well, lets put it like that. If you have a valid point, you mostly write a line like that:

It is racist/sexist to assume that ...... because .......

Namecalling on the other hand is mostly a sign of lacking an argument.

Mostly done like that: How can you say X, you are a racist/sexist. Or if you do not even have a point: You are a sexist/racist.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

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

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

I can't think of online examples but I can think of plenty of situations offline where I became aware of a situation where a person did something wrong to someone, and the offended parties response ended up balancing the scale because of how over the top it was.

[DanteGabriel]

Mostly done like that: How can you say X, you are a racist/sexist. Or if you do not even have a point: You are a sexist/racist.

Is there somewhere on this board where you have seen such statements?

[Sci-2]

I can't think of online examples but I can think of plenty of situations offline where I became aware of a situation where a person did something wrong to someone, and the offended parties response ended up balancing the scale because of how over the top it was.

I see that, but I Know I Know seems to be talking about how some strategies for dealing with trolls are bad.

Without dragging us into specifics covered in another thread, I don't get how varied responses to trolls makes oneself worth[y] of condemnation unless you are responding in a way that escalates offensiveness.

It just strikes me as something I've come across before, this idea that "The Internet" is some kind of natural, and possibly moral force that has behavioral taboos people should know better than to cross.

[Biglose]

@Sci-2

And there is something you do not get. An other perspective on the facts. Having an other perspective does not change facts. And thats excactly the problem with validating name calling. It occures if you can't deal with the facts.

One great example at the time are the olympian games in russia an how everybody proclaims the people enforcing the rules on neutrality as sexist/racist etc. without even spending a thought, why those rules exist.

Even if everybody in Europe, Australia, Canada and the USA agrees on one thing, we would still be only a minority considering the world population. So there is a good way of doing nothing short of incouraging a colonialist attitude. (I think things like that are thought of, if talking about becoming worse than the bad guys)

[Elder Sister]

This has turned into yet another argument for "Being a meanie to the bigot makes you a big stupidhead." No one is validating name calling.

There is a moderating team that will not allow personal insults, name calling, etc. However, if I show up in the feminist thread talking about how my wife needs to stay at home to raise the kiddos because I'm the man, I am going to get some grief. And deservedly so. What usually happens is someone expresses a bigoted/narrowminded viewpoint, and then they're all surprised when they get lambasted for it. And then they start whining and crying about how mean and pissy the board is.

That is pretty much the definition of a troll, imo.

[Penguin king]

I think the distinction between Trolling and "abuse" only matters if you think that trolling is something inherently harmless. The way I've always understood it, is that Trolling is posting something on the internet to encourage a negative reaction in other people. Trolling ranges from the relatively innocuous (eg. posting how Star Wars is better than Star Trek on a Star Trek forum) through the offensive (eg. making innopropriate comments on youtube videos) to the seriously unacceptable (eg. posting insults on a recently deceased teen's face book page).

Advice like "Don't feed the Trolls", or "Ignore them and they'll go away", might make people assume that the trolling is being brushed off as unimportant, and some people might feel that that approach is only appropriate to the relatively harmless forms of trolling. However, I'd argue that It's a pretty effective tactic no matter how offensive the troll is being.

Trolls thrive on attention, by arguing back you're only ever going to encourage more trolls to join the debate. They don't care about logic, and they don't have much in the way of empathy, so you're not going to pursuade them with appeals to reason or compassion. I know it's hard to do sometimes when someone is acting in a totally inappropriate way, but the majority of the time best cause of action really is to report it, ignore it and then move on with your life. If a particular individual is a target of the abuse then a public or private show of support can also be a good idea, other than that it's better to starve the fire of oxygen than to fan the flames.

[Sci-2]

@Sci-2

And there is something you do not get. An other perspective on the facts. Having an other perspective does not change facts. And thats excactly the problem with validating name calling. It occures if you can't deal with the facts.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post?

I'd actually agree that five to six long, angry posts from people telling one person how horrible they are for holding their beliefs is detrimental to dialogue.

I'd also agree that trying to shame someone for holding beliefs outside those accepted by the group is also bad.

So I think we're more on the same page than not?

One great example at the time are the olympian games in russia an how everybody proclaims the people enforcing the rules on neutrality as sexist/racist etc. without even spending a thought, why those rules exist.

Even if everybody in Europe, Australia, Canada and the USA agrees on one thing, we would still be only a minority considering the world population. So there is a good way of doing nothing short of incouraging a colonialist attitude. (I think things like that are thought of, if talking about becoming worse than the bad guys)

I don't think asking countries to abide by a standard for human rights is colonialism. You could make an argument if the demand was for gay marriage to be recognized, but the case with Russia has to do with arrests and lack of police protection encouraging more violence.

[I know I know]

I think the distinction between Trolling and "abuse" only matters if you think that trolling is something inherently harmless. The way I've always understood it, is that Trolling is posting something on the internet to encourage a negative reaction in other people. Trolling ranges from the relatively innocuous (eg. posting how Star Wars is better than Star Trek on a Star Trek forum) through the offensive (eg. making innopropriate comments on youtube videos) to the seriously unacceptable (eg. posting insults on a recently deceased teen's face book page).

Advice like "Don't feed the Trolls", or "Ignore them and they'll go away", might make people assume that the trolling is being brushed off as unimportant, and some people might feel that that approach is only appropriate to the relatively harmless forms of trolling. However, I'd argue that It's a pretty effective tactic no matter how offensive the troll is being.

Trolls thrive on attention, by arguing back you're only ever going to encourage more trolls to join the debate. They don't care about logic, and they don't have much in the way of empathy, so you're not going to pursuade them with appeals to reason or compassion. I know it's hard to do sometimes when someone is acting in a totally inappropriate way, but the majority of the time best cause of action really is to report it, ignore it and then move on with your life. If a particular individual is a target of the abuse then a public or private show of support can also be a good idea, other than that it's better to starve the fire of oxygen than to fan the flames.

Well said, exactly.

In order of preference:

kill the meme with content-moderation >

kill the meme with the power of ignore >

feed the meme by acting like exactly the kind of self-important, victimhood-claiming, femininity-disdaining, rules-not-reading, facts-not-googling, humor-not-getting, entitled, self-promoting person the trolls proclaim "feminists" to be

[DanteGabriel]

feed the meme by acting like exactly the kind of self-important, victimhood-claiming, femininity-disdaining, rules-not-reading, facts-not-googling, humor-not-getting, entitled, self-promoting person the trolls proclaim "feminists" to be

It's hard to miss the editorial slant in your ostensibly advice-offering posts.

[Biglose]

@Sci-2

I don't think asking countries to abide by a standard for human rights is colonialism. You could make an argument if the demand was for gay marriage to be recognized, but the case with Russia has to do with arrests and lack of police protection encouraging more violence.

Asking, no. Trying to force them, yes. Espacially if you do not go for the universial definition.

Not to mention it can backfire...(Thats why I brought the olympia example)

[Sci-2]

It's hard to miss the editorial slant in your ostensibly advice-offering posts.

Yeah, I think at this point he's more invested in the anti-feminist photo than the victim is.

Admittedly it's sort of on-topic as this thread's OP does seem inspired by that particular incident so the mods can move my response if they choose:

feed the meme by acting like exactly the kind of self-important, victimhood-claiming, femininity-disdaining, rules-not-reading, facts-not-googling, humor-not-getting, entitled, self-promoting person the trolls proclaim "feminists" to be

Still seems like victim blaming to me. Why shouldn't the victim call out her trolls in a public manner to advance the idea that feminist appearance has nothing to do with their [feminist] arguments? If anything, she probably knew this would lead to more hate mail about her appearance - if not rape threats - so again I commend her for taking a stand.

I think her turning the tables will help give confidence to other women who will face ridicule about their appearance when advocating feminist positions.

[Elder Sister]

Exactly. This whole business of 'ignore the troll', 'take the high road', etc. is for the birds.Change is coming whether these people embrace it or not. No, I'm not going to be an ass any more than I can help it, but a troll who shows up in a thread and starts acting an ass to my friends is going to hear what I think about it. Does that make me an attention seeking flamer? Or does it just mean that I'm going to politely call you out when you're being objectionable?I don't really care, to be honest.ETA: I'm NOT talking about name-calling, or abuse. I'm talking about pointing out objectionable behavior.

[Penguin king]

Exactly. This whole business of 'ignore the troll', 'take the high road', etc. is for the birds.Change is coming whether these people embrace it or not. No, I'm not going to be an ass any more than I can help it, but a troll who shows up in a thread and starts acting an ass to my friends is going to hear what I think about it. Does that make me an attention seeking flamer? Or does it just mean that I'm going to politely call you out when you're being objectionable?I don't really care, to be honest.ETA: I'm NOT talking about name-calling, or abuse. I'm talking about pointing out objectionable behavior.

There's nothing inherently wrong with calling them out. It just depends what you want to achieve. If you want the Troll to go away then i maintain that report and ignore is the best policy. If you want to get into a protracted debate, enjoy the cut and thrust of internet banter, or just want to feel like you're "doing something" then argue away.

You won't change their mind, or convert them to your cause because they usually don't believe what they're saying anyway. If there's anyone sitting on the fence you might win them over if you keep a level head, but most trolls are so outragous that it's usually pretty clear to any right thinking person that they're talking a load of balls to begin with. Eventually they'll get bored and go away, so i guess it doesn't make all that much difference in the long run

[I know I know]

Still seems like victim blaming to me. Why shouldn't the victim call out her trolls in a public manner to advance the idea that feminist appearance has nothing to do with their [feminist] arguments? If anything, she probably knew this would lead to more hate mail about her appearance - if not rape threats - so again I commend her for taking a stand.

I think her turning the tables will help give confidence to other women who will face ridicule about their appearance when advocating feminist positions.

If your goal is to have a debate between people who won't be persuaded by one another, and "make your point" about the other side before the audience of the internet, well, why not. It's the internet. You even get to claim that you're right, and that you won, and that you're the watcher on the wall, etc.

But if your goal is to have an effect outside of yourself, it's worthwhile to be strategic, and think. You're feeding the meme, and sometimes doing it in a way that makes whatever "side" you label yourself with look bad, if you misbehave. Even if you were the one who was originally wronged, as in the case of the chubby feminist, you can still misbehave 8x worse, and make feminism look stupid, by being a negative stereotype of a feminist in front of 100k people.

If, on the other hand, you genuinely want to kill the meme, GRRMs path is the smart one. Of course, GRRM probably operates with more self-esteem reserves than a chubby young blogger, so it's easier for him.

[Elder Sister]

Ignoring trolls does not work. What works is a strong moderating team that doesn't tolerate abusive/trollish behavior, and a community that does not tolerate it.

If ignoring trolls worked, Reddit would be a lovely, harmonious place. All gamers would feel safe on their various sites, and women and minorities would be able to feel free to identify themselves as such.

Let's be clear; I don't necessarily think arguing with a rattlesnake is effective, but neither is ignoring it.

[I know I know]

Ignoring trolls does not work. What works is a strong moderating team that doesn't tolerate abusive/trollish behavior, and a community that does not tolerate it.

If ignoring trolls worked, Reddit would be a lovely, harmonious place. All gamers would feel safe on their various sites, and women and minorities would be able to feel free to identify themselves as such.

Let's be clear; I don't necessarily think arguing with a rattlesnake is effective, but neither is ignoring it.

On a forum you control (like this one), sure. Hence:

kill the meme with content-moderation >

On Facebook and (as you say) Reddit, no. The chubby feminist meme hit Facebook and Reddit. Whence she herself uploaded it, OK'ing all the "we own you now" terms.

And then indignantly tried to compel Facebook to remove all copies, accusing the internet of "stealing" the pic, while meme-seeding herself and her blog all over the tubes. This is not the way to comport.

[polishgenius]

I know I know, why do you hate women?

[I know I know]

I know I know, why do you hate women?

YOU TAKE THAT BACK, I DEMAND SATISFACTION