Jump to content

Trolling - Redux


Smallc

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

The problem lies in how to deal with their idiotic claims when they simply denounce all evidence as being produced by coerced media controlled by the Illuminati or something, or maybe aliens from Alpha Centauri, and insist that the real evidence can only be found on obscure web sites run by people who are clearly in desperate need of psychological treatment, or clearly government controlled propaganda from authoritarian states. They are largely immune to logic and reality, and treating their statements with 'respect' is virtually impossible, given the nature of those statements.  You cannot engage with these people constructively, so they just clutter up the web site. And some of them, left alone to spew, can influence others. We have one individual here who constantly cites 'Brother Nathaniel' who Wiki describes as  'an Orthodox Christian street preacher and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist'. He has lapped this stuff up, believes it and regurgitates it, like someone infected and passing on the infection. Should we simply ignore this stuff, because you cannot engage with factual information? Then you have the 911 conspiracy buffs, who again, get read by others and believed. I had to argue a person I know out of this crap not that long ago because they'd read it on the internet and it had sounded coherent and logical (given that it was lunatic lies and ignored context and evidence). 

Still, I recognize the danger of giving moderators the ability to restrict discussion based on what they 'the moderators' believe is a credible argument, especially given the possibility the moderators might not be anything like centrist people with a good grasp of what is or is not credible. Maybe we should have the ability to downvote certain topics, with a 75% majority required to exile a given discussion to a special forum on loony ideas.

Sounds like a difficult problem to solve. I know in some forums they have moderators assigned to different subsections of the forum, in which they are expected to read and keep up with the discussion. When a moderator that doesn't have time to read everything is notified of a problem, they might make unfair decisions. More moderators with specific assignments might help.

I agree too much moderator intervention can be a problem though. They should only intervene when the problem is serious. I see mods stepping in to announce that "things are getting off-topic", even though no one is making insults. This often happens late in a thread, after most people have given their opinion on the original post. If people are having an interesting meta-discussion, why shut it down? It only serves to annoy the posters, and little else. What's with the obsession that threads should be so highly organized? Better that mods should expend their energy where it is needed, violations of forum rules that offend posters to the extent they will leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't have to do anything civilly, the least of which is treating bullshit, crackpot sources as a legit foundation for an argument. If someone wants to believe in conspiracy nonsense, that's on them. You're not going to make me respect them or their mental deficiency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

 

 

I agree too much moderator intervention can be a problem though. They should only intervene when the problem is serious. I see mods stepping in to announce that "things are getting off-topic", even though no one is making insults. This often happens late in a thread, after most people have given their opinion on the original post. If people are having an interesting meta-discussion, why shut it down?

 

I've been on a few forums and MLW has sort of a "pet peeve" about getting off-topic, handled quite militantly. 

Other forums I've been on allow the one who started the thread to direct it, bring it back on topic if they choose to.  

I kind of like the free-flowing conversational nature of threads, it's more like real-life - no conversations between groups of people stay strictly on topic and a bit of humour can sometimes lighten the mood of a serious thread.  We used to call it "fluff".....and yes, sometimes there would be several pages of "fluff" to wade through before a thread got back on topic, but the "fluff" was still fun and interesting and served a purpose.

But I do think there is one person here who is deliberately abrasive and insulting on every thread.  I consider that trolling, more so than getting a bit off- topic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I've been on a few forums and MLW has sort of a "pet peeve" about getting off-topic, handled quite militantly. 

Other forums I've been on allow the one who started the thread to direct it, bring it back on topic if they choose to.  

I tend to agree. This is a relatively recent thing as they didn't used to bother about off-topic unless someone complained. Now it seems to be their number one goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

But I do think there is one person here who is deliberately abrasive and insulting on every thread.  I consider that trolling, more so than getting a bit off- topic.

 

Are you're talking about Altai?  If so, as an outsider's observation, you both address each other in a disrespectful way so it's not that she's a troll, but you two seem to have an underlying animosity toward each other.  

 

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BC_chick said:

Are you're talking about Altai?  If so, as an outsider's observation, you both address each other in a disrespectful way so it's not that she's a troll, but you two seem to have an underlying animosity toward each other.  

 

Not exactly.  

He/She/It is pretty disrespectful to everybody here.  I'm often surprised at the threats made.

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BC_chick said:

Are you're talking about Altai?  If so, as an outsider's observation, you both address each other in a disrespectful way so it's not that she's a troll, but you two seem to have an underlying animosity toward each other. 

I haven't decided if she's trolling or is actually gullible enough to believe every word her government says. In either event I've discovered there is no profit in engagement. Her/it's mind is utterly closed to all argument, and I get suspended when I get 'less respectful'.

There's one from China with a similar propaganda zeal (China is the world's freest country, has more free press than the west, has more respect for human rights, is the most wonderful nation on earth, etc, and all who say otherwise are merely parroting dishonest western media), and I've ignored him for years.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Not exactly.  

He/She/It is pretty disrespectful to everybody here.  I'm often surprised at the threats made.

She hasn't been to me. Then again I don't spend a lot of time talking down to her because of her religion.

Likewise a lot of people you probably consider sweet as pie aren't very nice with me and I don't think highly of them either.

That's pretty much the point I'm making - just because we bicker with some people more than others doesn't make them a troll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

I haven't decided if she's trolling or is actually gullible enough to believe every word her government says. In either event I've discovered there is no profit in engagement. Her/it's mind is utterly closed to all argument, and I get suspended when I get 'less respectful'.

I don't defend her views, I'm just sharing my observation that she's only rude with the people who are rude with her. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BC_chick said:

That's pretty much the point I'm making - just because we bicker with some people more than others doesn't make them a troll. 

I never said she was a troll because she bickers.  It's a discussion board - there's going to be bickering.  

When I see posts threatening to unleash the full fury of the Turkish navy in every thread, demanding Canadians get out of Canada, disrespect and vitriol for anyone who disagrees with them....then I'm saying that is trolling, obviously trying to provoke reactions.

After a few encounters, I'm with Argus.  There is no reasonable discussion possible with that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

She hasn't been to me. Then again I don't spend a lot of time talking down to her because of her religion.

No one is talking down to her because of her religion. What annoys people is her being a mouthpiece for the authoritarian Turkish state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

No one is talking down to her because of her religion. What annoys people is her being a mouthpiece for the authoritarian Turkish state.

 

Lots do talk down to her because of her religion.  People even tried shutting her down for posting Turkish music. 

I know she says a lot of things I don't agree with but instead of antagonizing her as many of you do, I move along instead of picking fights with a teenager.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

 

Lots do talk down to her because of her religion.  People even tried shutting her down for posting Turkish music. 

I know she says a lot of things I don't agree with but instead of antagonizing her as many of you do, I move along instead of picking fights with a teenager. 

Isn't that what I said I had done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Argus said:

Isn't that what I said I had done?

Good for you.  TBH I've never seen you be rude to her, but I asked Goddess about her cryptic post about 'trolls' and wondered if she was talking about altai because between those two it's definitely a two-way street.  

If altai is rude to her is because Goddess dishes it out herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like young people, because they are not as jaded yet as the rest of us. Yes, they can have a naive view of things, not being the learned professors that you people purport to be, and that's ok by me. Because everyone is on a path, and who they are now is not who they will be. They deserve to be engaged and accepted, within reasonable limits of course, not put down just because they're "different".
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

 Because everyone is on a path, and who they are now is not who they will be. They deserve to be engaged and accepted, within reasonable limits of course, not put down just because they're "different".

By 'different' do you mean 'has preposterous and idiotic views'? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, cybercoma said:

Coincidentally, that's the excuse Argus uses too.

That's it exactly.  Argus attacks posters that disagree with him and often attaches negative adjectives to his replies while attacking same posters.  He is certainly not the only one.  I have matured in my replies and have exercised discipline in my responses but clearly, there are insulting remarks posted to thoughts that disagree with the author.  I don't understand why posters have to reduce themselves to attacking posters instead of the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

This is my point.  Argus gets to decide that views that are against his are preposterous and idiotic.

You don't find forcing all non-aboriginals to leave Canada and go to "Europe" is preposterous and idiotic?

When are you leaving?

Are you hitching a ride on the Turkish navy ships or finding your own way there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestCoastRunner said:

That's it exactly.  Argus attacks posters that disagree with him and often attaches negative adjectives to his replies while attacking same posters.  He is certainly not the only one.  I have matured in my replies and have exercised discipline in my responses but clearly, there are insulting remarks posted to thoughts that disagree with the author.  I don't understand why posters have to reduce themselves to attacking posters instead of the argument.

Meanwhile here you are, you and cybercoma, attacking Argus when he wasn't talking to you.

 

22 hours ago, cybercoma said:

Coincidentally, that's the excuse Argus uses too.

Gee I wonder why a person might get excited. See "Drive-by trolling: Redux."

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,745
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    historyradio.org
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User went up a rank
      Experienced
    • exPS went up a rank
      Contributor
    • DUI_Offender earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...