Trolls and You

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Kerg3927:

CM156:

Worgen:
I would consider groups like the radical exclusionary feminists and peta to be left trolls. Although... I'm not certain the troll label really works since trolls know they are full of shit, they just do it to get reactions, I think both of those groups believe in the crap they do.

I wouldn't call TERFs trolls for just that reason: They 100% believe every single thing they say. Additionally, the things they say can be used to troll more orthodox feminists.

This is key. More often than not, it seems, when someone accuses another on the internet of being a troll, it's not really the case. It's just someone who disagrees with the accuser, and some people have a really hard time accepting the fact that someone honestly disagrees with them, especially if they spend most of their time on echo chamber sites where everyone sits around in a circle jerk of agreement. But if a person genuinely believes what they say, they are not a troll. A troll is doing what he does specifically to get a reaction, and he doesn't really believe everything he's saying. He's just saying things to press his victim's buttons and get him riled up.

You say this having just tried to write me off as a troll for disagreeing with you

Palindromemordnilap:

Kerg3927:

CM156:

I wouldn't call TERFs trolls for just that reason: They 100% believe every single thing they say. Additionally, the things they say can be used to troll more orthodox feminists.

This is key. More often than not, it seems, when someone accuses another on the internet of being a troll, it's not really the case. It's just someone who disagrees with the accuser, and some people have a really hard time accepting the fact that someone honestly disagrees with them, especially if they spend most of their time on echo chamber sites where everyone sits around in a circle jerk of agreement. But if a person genuinely believes what they say, they are not a troll. A troll is doing what he does specifically to get a reaction, and he doesn't really believe everything he's saying. He's just saying things to press his victim's buttons and get him riled up.

You say this having just tried to write me off as a troll for disagreeing with you

I call this, and you are all free to quote me, a Trolce of Nature.

My understanding is that a "troll" is simply someone out to ruffle feathers regardless of which side (and to which degree) of the party line they fall on. I think if anything, they're likely more often identified as "Right" because that's the side that typically harbors those least affected by minority issues (leaving that very broad for a reason.)

I have, however, in my listening to Flat Earth debates (yes, I'm still listening,) found a new term: a "Poe." I guess you can call it simply a different species of "Troll," but they're essentially people who'll argue a stance they don't believe just to see the opposing side lose their shit. I just listened to a debate between a Flat Earther and a guy who was very well-read in physics, astrophysics and astronomy, a 10 year Navy vet. After TWO HOURS during which the Flat Earther was clearly being willfully dismissive of the deluge of evidence and ignoring the proofs and facts of a globular Earth, he finally admitted he was a "Poe" and did it to be funny and waste the time of all involved. I don't get it, but yeah, these kinds of people exist.

Xprimentyl:
My understanding is that a ?troll? is simply someone out to ruffle feathers regardless of which side (and to which degree) of the party line they fall on. I think if anything, they?re likely more often identified as ?Right? because that?s the side that typically harbors those least affected by minority issues (leaving that very broad for a reason.)

I have, however, in my listening to Flat Earth debates (yes, I?m still listening,) found a new term: a ?Poe.? I guess you can call it simply a different species of ?Troll,? but they?re essentially people who?ll argue a stance they don?t believe just to see the opposing side lose their shit. I just listened to a debate between a Flat Earther and a guy who was very well-read in physics, astrophysics and astronomy, a 10 year Navy vet. After TWO HOURS during which the Flat Earther was clearly being willfully dismissive of the deluge of evidence and ignoring the proofs and facts of a globular Earth, he finally admitted he was a ?Poe? and did it to be funny and waste the time of all involved. I don?t get it, but yeah, these kinds of people exist.

"A Poe" does not apply in that context, and it's not exactly a distinct term to begin with. The term refers to Poe's Law, an adage about how without obvious signs of levity or mockery it is impossible to differentiate between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of that extremism.

For most intents and purposes, "a Poe" is someone who's taking the piss and who has been mistaken as being genuine.

Asita:

Xprimentyl:
My understanding is that a ?troll? is simply someone out to ruffle feathers regardless of which side (and to which degree) of the party line they fall on. I think if anything, they?re likely more often identified as ?Right? because that?s the side that typically harbors those least affected by minority issues (leaving that very broad for a reason.)

I have, however, in my listening to Flat Earth debates (yes, I?m still listening,) found a new term: a ?Poe.? I guess you can call it simply a different species of ?Troll,? but they?re essentially people who?ll argue a stance they don?t believe just to see the opposing side lose their shit. I just listened to a debate between a Flat Earther and a guy who was very well-read in physics, astrophysics and astronomy, a 10 year Navy vet. After TWO HOURS during which the Flat Earther was clearly being willfully dismissive of the deluge of evidence and ignoring the proofs and facts of a globular Earth, he finally admitted he was a ?Poe? and did it to be funny and waste the time of all involved. I don?t get it, but yeah, these kinds of people exist.

"A Poe" does not apply in that context, and it's not exactly a distinct term to begin with. The term refers to Poe's Law, an adage about how without obvious signs of levity or mockery it is impossible to differentiate between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of that extremism.

For most intents and purposes, "a Poe" is someone who's taking the piss and who has been mistaken as being genuine.

Hmm, didn't know about Poe's Law; thanks for that; explains a lot of my more awkward social interactions. But why would it not apply in the debate I listened to? The Flat Earth pretender was faking his conviction, and the intellectuals spent 2 hours trying to convince him of the fallacy of those conviction; in the end, they caled him a Poe and he agreed he'd set out to be a Poe; does the intent of a Poe factor it, i.e.: they've no intent to be taken seriously, but accidentally are?

Xprimentyl:

Asita:

Xprimentyl:
My understanding is that a ?troll? is simply someone out to ruffle feathers regardless of which side (and to which degree) of the party line they fall on. I think if anything, they?re likely more often identified as ?Right? because that?s the side that typically harbors those least affected by minority issues (leaving that very broad for a reason.)

I have, however, in my listening to Flat Earth debates (yes, I?m still listening,) found a new term: a ?Poe.? I guess you can call it simply a different species of ?Troll,? but they?re essentially people who?ll argue a stance they don?t believe just to see the opposing side lose their shit. I just listened to a debate between a Flat Earther and a guy who was very well-read in physics, astrophysics and astronomy, a 10 year Navy vet. After TWO HOURS during which the Flat Earther was clearly being willfully dismissive of the deluge of evidence and ignoring the proofs and facts of a globular Earth, he finally admitted he was a ?Poe? and did it to be funny and waste the time of all involved. I don?t get it, but yeah, these kinds of people exist.

"A Poe" does not apply in that context, and it's not exactly a distinct term to begin with. The term refers to Poe's Law, an adage about how without obvious signs of levity or mockery it is impossible to differentiate between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of that extremism.

For most intents and purposes, "a Poe" is someone who's taking the piss and who has been mistaken as being genuine.

Hmm, didn't know about Poe's Law; thanks for that; explains a lot of my more awkward social interactions. But why would it not apply in the debate I listened to? The Flat Earth pretender was faking his conviction, and the intellectuals spent 2 hours trying to convince him of the fallacy of those conviction; in the end, they caled him a Poe and he agreed he'd set out to be a Poe; does the intent of a Poe factor it, i.e.: they've no intent to be taken seriously, but accidentally are?

Pretty much, yes. In simplest terms, I suppose you might say that Poe's Law applies when someone's sarcasm has been mistaken for sincerity. A Troll, by contrast, fully intends to be perceived as a true believer. Based on what you describe, the speaker was straight up trolling and invoked the wrong term.

Palindromemordnilap:

Kerg3927:

CM156:

I wouldn't call TERFs trolls for just that reason: They 100% believe every single thing they say. Additionally, the things they say can be used to troll more orthodox feminists.

This is key. More often than not, it seems, when someone accuses another on the internet of being a troll, it's not really the case. It's just someone who disagrees with the accuser, and some people have a really hard time accepting the fact that someone honestly disagrees with them, especially if they spend most of their time on echo chamber sites where everyone sits around in a circle jerk of agreement. But if a person genuinely believes what they say, they are not a troll. A troll is doing what he does specifically to get a reaction, and he doesn't really believe everything he's saying. He's just saying things to press his victim's buttons and get him riled up.

You say this having just tried to write me off as a troll for disagreeing with you

Nope, that's not what I did. In fact, I didn't mention you at all. But you do a good job of making my point by using the straw man tactic here, which is probably the main weapon in a troll's arsenal.

Assuming for the moment that I was referring to you, I didn't say anything about disagreement in that post. But you are now willfully and falsely rephrasing my argument and saying that I did, because it makes for a much easier target for you to attack. It also gets under the skin of the victim, which is the troll's main goal after all, to annoy people.

CM156:
I wouldn't call TERFs trolls for just that reason: They 100% believe every single thing they say. Additionally, the things they say can be used to troll more orthodox feminists.

As someone who has observed a lot of TERFs and cut ties with a few I knew personally, I have to disagree.

Very few actually believe every single thing they say. There are a tiny core who do and who are mostly academic devotees of particular trans-exclusionary second wave authors, but most have no real understanding of the implications or real meaning of their own position, and some are sock puppet accounts run by right wing anti-LGBT activists with stock photos of women as profile pictures (and a few probably are trolls).

One person I cut ties with, for example, was an older lesbian woman who insisted she was a trans ally and who even claimed to go to to protests in support of trans rights, and who claimed her only issue was with protecting women's rights. But she would also share material from hardcore academic TERFs which used terms like "autogynophilia" unironically. She had absolutely no idea what the arguments she was using actually meant or what the implications of them were.

TERFs run a whole range of positions from highly knowledgable and motivated down to confused and ignorant. Many are just second wave feminists who associate trans-inclusivity with third wave feminism and don't like it because sounds "divisive". Many are just middle class mums who have never been involved in feminist activism but who see themselves as "empowered" and, because they have no contact with feminist activism they think TERFs are progressive and "pro-women" and the kind of thing an empowered woman like them would support.

TERF arguments are generally not very good. For a person to actually believe them isn't as easy as you might think.

Kerg3927:
Nope, that's not what I did. In fact, I didn't mention you at all. But you do a good job of making my point by using the straw man tactic here, which is probably the main weapon in a troll's arsenal.

Ah, going for the "I wasn't actually touching you!" tactic are we? You haven't exactly had many arguments that fit your own qualification of "lasted for weeks" so its pretty easy to narrow down the list of candidates. Really its only going to be me or phoenixmgs who fit. But to prove it's me? Why if only I had a post from the past of you making the exact same accusations against me that you did here oh wait. You recognise the dishonesty in what you're doing here right?

Kerg3927:
Assuming for the moment that I was referring to you, I didn't say anything about disagreement in that post.

So you were being trolled by someone relentlessly agreeing with you were you? You went back and forth for weeks with a mysterious anonymous person who just wouldn't stop maliciously telling you you were right? You're really trying to put that forward as an argument?

Kerg3927:
But you are now willfully and falsely rephrasing my argument and saying that I did, because it makes for a much easier target for you to attack. It also gets under the skin of the victim, which is the troll's main goal after all, to annoy people.

No, not rephrasing anything you say dude. See above, you can't really troll someone by agreeing with them.

See whats happened here Kerg is that way back when I disagreed with your "people shouldn't be allowed to like Dark Souls differently to me!" argument and had no problem telling you that. Rather than accept that you might have a terrible opinion you've decided to write me off as a troll. Which is funny because it means that you're misrepresenting me because you don't like being disagreed with, then coming into this topic and complaining about people not being able to handle being disagreed with and how people who do are misrepresenting you. Its several layers of hypocrisy there

Palindromemordnilap:

Kerg3927:
Nope, that's not what I did. In fact, I didn't mention you at all. But you do a good job of making my point by using the straw man tactic here, which is probably the main weapon in a troll's arsenal.

Ah, going for the "I wasn't actually touching you!" tactic are we? You haven't exactly had many arguments that fit your own qualification of "lasted for weeks" so its pretty easy to narrow down the list of candidates. Really its only going to be me or phoenixmgs who fit. But to prove it's me? Why if only I had a post from the past of you making the exact same accusations against me that you did here oh wait. You recognise the dishonesty in what you're doing here right?

Kerg3927:
Assuming for the moment that I was referring to you, I didn't say anything about disagreement in that post.

So you were being trolled by someone relentlessly agreeing with you were you? You went back and forth for weeks with a mysterious anonymous person who just wouldn't stop maliciously telling you you were right? You're really trying to put that forward as an argument?

Kerg3927:
But you are now willfully and falsely rephrasing my argument and saying that I did, because it makes for a much easier target for you to attack. It also gets under the skin of the victim, which is the troll's main goal after all, to annoy people.

No, not rephrasing anything you say dude. See above, you can't really troll someone by agreeing with them.

See whats happened here Kerg is that way back when I disagreed with your "people shouldn't be allowed to like Dark Souls differently to me!" argument and had no problem telling you that. Rather than accept that you might have a terrible opinion you've decided to write me off as a troll. Which is funny because it means that you're misrepresenting me because you don't like being disagreed with, then coming into this topic and complaining about people not being able to handle being disagreed with and how people who do are misrepresenting you. Its several layers of hypocrisy there

Nothing dishonest about it. But speaking of dishonesty, I didn't name you precisely because I didn't want my honest opinion of your shitty, dishonest tactics to be viewed as a personal attack. If you notice, in the post you linked, right afterward a mod posted a warning. I'm not going to let you bait me into a personal attack which might lead to a ban, which I know you'd love to do.

And on that note, it's time to go back to ignoring you. It's a waste of time to argue with a dishonest person.

Kerg3927:
Nothing dishonest about it. But speaking of dishonesty, I didn't name you precisely because I didn't want my honest opinion of your shitty, dishonest tactics to be viewed as a personal attack. If you notice, in the post you linked, right afterward a mod posted a warning. I'm not going to let you bait me into a personal attack which might lead to a ban, which I know you'd love to do.

And on that note, it's time to go back to ignoring you. It's a waste of time to argue with a dishonest person.

So after trying to insist you weren't referring to me and that was totally a misrepresentation you admit you were referring to me...and somehow I'm the dishonest one? Apply your own rules to yourself Kerg

Palindromemordnilap:

Kerg3927:
Nothing dishonest about it. But speaking of dishonesty, I didn't name you precisely because I didn't want my honest opinion of your shitty, dishonest tactics to be viewed as a personal attack. If you notice, in the post you linked, right afterward a mod posted a warning. I'm not going to let you bait me into a personal attack which might lead to a ban, which I know you'd love to do.

And on that note, it's time to go back to ignoring you. It's a waste of time to argue with a dishonest person.

So after trying to insist you weren't referring to me and that was totally a misrepresentation you admit you were referring to me...and somehow I'm the dishonest one? Apply your own rules to yourself Kerg

Thanks for providing an excellent exhibit in support of the topic of this thread. Your contribution has been invaluable.

Kerg3927:

Palindromemordnilap:

Kerg3927:
Nothing dishonest about it. But speaking of dishonesty, I didn't name you precisely because I didn't want my honest opinion of your shitty, dishonest tactics to be viewed as a personal attack. If you notice, in the post you linked, right afterward a mod posted a warning. I'm not going to let you bait me into a personal attack which might lead to a ban, which I know you'd love to do.

And on that note, it's time to go back to ignoring you. It's a waste of time to argue with a dishonest person.

So after trying to insist you weren't referring to me and that was totally a misrepresentation you admit you were referring to me...and somehow I'm the dishonest one? Apply your own rules to yourself Kerg

Thanks for providing an excellent exhibit in support of the topic of this thread. Your contribution has been invaluable.

You're still trying to write me off as a troll...but what have I done? What of my actions is trolling? You keep insisting that I'm strawmanning but, no, you admitted I caught you out doing exactly what I was claiming you were doing. If anything the only one strawmanning is you, trying to insist I'm a troll because you don't like me disagreeing with you

The best way to combat a troll is to ignore them, although it can admittedly be tough to do. I think most of them are very lonely, bored individuals who are just looking for a way to entertain themselves at someone else's expense. But just like a vampire fears sunlight, a troll fears being ignored more than anything else.

A good way to test this is try to break off the argument by agreeing to disagree or by acknowledging that the debate is a waste of time. The troll will typically respond with sad, desperate attempts to bait you back into the argument because, above all else, he doesn't want the argument to end as that would rob him of the attention and entertainment he craves.

Ignoring problems doesn't fix problems.

Kerg3927:
The best way to combat a troll is to ignore them, although it can admittedly be tough to do. I think most of them are very lonely, bored individuals who are just looking for a way to entertain themselves at someone else's expense. But just like a vampire fears sunlight, a troll fears being ignored more than anything else.

A good way to test this is try to break off the argument by agreeing to disagree or by acknowledging that the debate is a waste of time. The troll will typically respond with sad, desperate attempts to bait you back into the argument because, above all else, he doesn't want the argument to end as that would rob him of the attention and entertainment he craves.

Kerg, dude, buddy, who do you think you're fooling here? Do you think anyone reading this is going to see this post and think "Yes, this was a completely unconnected post" or do you think they're going to see it for the passive aggressive attack it is? I mean, you're launching jibes at me to get me to respond while simultaneously talking about baiting, that's almost hilariously obvious.
See, its you doing stuff like this thats why I find myself arguing against you, Kerg. It's not that I'm trolling you, despite what you clearly need to believe. It's not solely that I disagree with you, though clearly I do. Its because your methodology is so utterly in bad faith. Let's get a list going shall we? After claiming to know the difference between trolling and disgreeing you label me a troll because I disagreed with you. You claim I'm misrepresenting you but were forced to admit that was a lie so you were in fact misrepresenting me. You say a troll doesn't want an argument to end but you kept responding after saying you'd ignore me. You say trolls will bait you while attacking me to get me to respond. Face it dude, the only one fitting your own qualifications for a troll is you. Something for you to think on, you know?

Saelune:
Ignoring problems doesn't fix problems.

I disagree in this instance. When someone is repeatedly lying and misrepresenting what is being said, it is impossible to accomplish anything by continuing the discussion. It serves absolutely no purpose except to entertain and feed the troll. Thus the phrase "stop feeding the troll."

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=feeding%20the%20trolls

Kerg3927:

Saelune:
Ignoring problems doesn't fix problems.

I disagree in this instance. When someone is repeatedly lying and misrepresenting what is being said, it is impossible to accomplish anything by continuing the discussion. It serves absolutely no purpose except to entertain and feed the troll. Thus the phrase "stop feeding the troll."

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=feeding%20the%20trolls

Well, I think the problem is that this site doesn't punish trolls, but punishes people who point out trolls.

But I also think writing people off you disagree with as trolls is ignoring the problem too. Of all the people I vehemently oppose, only one I think is actually just a troll.

Trolls are people who shit up threads for the fun of it. They aren't on one side or the other, they are just in the thread to shit it up for their own amusement.

Saelune:
Ignoring problems doesn't fix problems.

It would if the ignore feature actually worked on here.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here