"Internet Trolls Really are Horrible People"

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

What's wrong with aggressive language ?

 

It communicates intent but not language.

 

Which is why when someone speaks aggressively I listen more to their feelings than their words.

 

There is also passive aggressive as well. Words like 'fine' come across as sulking and withdrawing from arguments which are some strategies of the passive aggressive person. Similarly, the words 'fair enough' can be used when you agree partially and is not the same as 'okay'. To quote from Chambers: 'Expressing acceptance, though not necessarily full agreement'.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I wouldn't categorise it as a religious type dispute, personally. It's more a gestalt of two different arguments that are related to religious debates; a what is art? argument (eg the "knowing good trolling when you see it" vs "knowing art when you see it" I used earlier) and a matter of arguing definitions. Some people will insist that half a cow in formaldehyde is not art and that it is disgusting and offensive, some people will insist that not only is it art but it is great art, often at least partly because it does offend those people and achieves one of the things art should do, get a reaction. Some people will insist that trolling involves being 'bad', by its very definition, and anything troll like that is 'good' must be Something Else- parody, satire or whatever. Others will disagree. But without a central, accepted definition it is impossible to determine objectively that we are right and correct and the people arguing the reverse are over the event horizon of a wrongularity.

 

 

Considering the Leeroy Jenkins thread is a troll thread on the WoW forums and it's what I was alluding to, it would take a lot to argue that it was an inflammatory troll to upset people. It certainly isn't satire. I don't see the creation of the Leeroy Jenkins thread on the WoW forums as subjective as 'what is art'. It was a troll thread created to troll the forums. And it's entered pop culture because of it.

 

Was it inflammatory? Did it upset people? Did it disrupt the WoW forums? Was it a deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response? I would answer No to the first one. I couldn't say for the second question because people react differently and I wouldn't know everybody's response and reactions to the thread. And the last two questions, I would answer with a Yes in a good way.

[Mor]

One thing I've learnt from this thread is you can give an example of a good troll (thread), even to the point that it's entered pop culture. ... It's getting close to a religious debate (if it hasn't got there already) where some people choose not to accept evidence shown to them, accept that a good troll does exist with evidence shown and continue believing their own viewpoint that a good troll doesn't exist.

Religious debate eh? maybe. Since you are aware that there is a definition gap and that most of us define trolls differently then you, for the sake of the arguments let call them retards. So trying to show us the light with examples of few "good trolls" from your pop culture, which we don't consider as acts of retards and arguing that we don't see the light of the troll face god, giving credits to retards, indeed sound like a religious debate. (ETA: I don't suppose that my use of retards in this context is good/bad/ugly trolling?)

 

Other than that, some of you are arguing for freedom of speech and expression without being a retard, agreed. Some of you are arguing that it is too easy to accuse a person of trolling if they do not agree with you, agreed. That how post are perceived is subjective, agreed. ..

Edited February 24, 2014 by Mor

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

Religious debate eh? maybe. Since you are aware that there is a definition gap and that most of us define trolls differently then you, for the sake of the arguments let call them retards. So trying to show us the light with examples of few "good trolls" from your pop culture, which we don't consider as acts of retards and arguing that we don't see the light of the troll face god, giving credits to retards, indeed sound like a religious debate. (ETA: I don't suppose that my use of retards in this context is good trolling?)

 

Other than that, some of you are arguing for freedom of speech and express without being a retard, agreed. Some of you are arguing that it is too easy to accuse a person of trolling if they do not agree with you, agreed. That how post can be perceived is subjective, agreed. ..

 

 

No, for the sake of argument, I won't call them retards. Changing the definition of troll to retard to suit your viewpoint doesn't help your case. Your definition works against you, not for you. Also, clearly you don't know what I mean by religious debate. And it has nothing to do with religion.

[Mor]

nm

Edited February 24, 2014 by Mor

[Hiro Protagonist]

In other news "Internet Retards Really are Horrible People" with a touch of machiavellianism, narcissim, psychopathy, and sadism

 

Thanks. Your comment seems to fit the below definition.

 

Trolling. :  A Troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,^[1] by posting inflammatory,^[2]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally^[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[

[Mor]

I thought that rephrasing the OP underscored nicely the point about who is changing the definitions and which point of view is generally accepted. In relation to my previous post and your reaction to it. So how about we compromise on a "good troll"   

 

Also considering your reaction you now might want to reread this post by alanschu to you, I thought it was a good post, but I guess that those things just fly by us until we get to experience them. Otherwise you'll have to go by 213374U advice to grown a "thicker skin".

Edited February 24, 2014 by Mor

[Hiro Protagonist]

I thought that rephrasing the OP underscored nicely the point about who is changing the definitions and which point of view is generally accepted. In relation to my previous post and your reaction to it. So how about we compromise on a "good troll" 

 

I don't see anyone changing the definitions except for you and others who will wrap up a good troll up as something other than a troll. Are you compromising on a good troll? Because I already posted a good troll with Leeroy Jenkins. At least one person in this thread has changed their stance that there can be good trolls.

 

Also considering your reaction you now might want to reread this post by alanschu to you, I thought it was a good post, but I guess that those things just fly by us until we get to experience them. Otherwise you'll have to go by 213374U advice to grown a "thicker skin".

 

I wasn't going to let you off so easily. Interesting that you now deleted what you said in your post. And I already responded to Alan's post. Perhaps you should read it? And no problem with me growing a thicker skin. I'm not easily offended as others, especially others who are easily offended in this very thread.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist

[alanschu]

I wouldn't categorise it as a religious type dispute, personally. It's more a gestalt of two different arguments that are related to religious debates; a what is art? argument (eg the "knowing good trolling when you see it" vs "knowing art when you see it" I used earlier) and a matter of arguing definitions. Some people will insist that half a cow in formaldehyde is not art and that it is disgusting and offensive, some people will insist that not only is it art but it is great art, often at least partly because it does offend those people and achieves one of the things art should do, get a reaction. Some people will insist that trolling involves being 'bad', by its very definition, and anything troll like that is 'good' must be Something Else- parody, satire or whatever. Others will disagree. But without a central, accepted definition it is impossible to determine objectively that we are right and correct and the people arguing the reverse are over the event horizon of a wrongularity.

 

There's a definition argument for sure. And to be obstinately defensive, I'm not the only source that uses my definition, so when assessing the article in the OP I think it's fair to try to assess what group of individuals they are referring to. And hat tip mad props to 213374allofus (in particular) as well as others in this thread for carrying on the discussion.

 

I'm also of the opinion that human beings are rather adept at defending themselves from cognitive dissonance. Here's an article that says trolls are bad human beings. But I'm someone that enjoys seeing some trolling from time to time... clearly I should do some mental gymnastics to insulate myself from this allegation! I mean... we've seen people take the article and conclude that it must mean that a single instance of "trolling" behaviour is enough to be branded with the label of "troll" as nebulously defined in the OP's link.

 

We get another that says "that's not trolling" even though there appears to be enough consensus that the name of the act literally contains the word "trolling" in it, while another tells me I have blinders on and just can't accept that there is good trolling. (A fabulous argument... "why can't you just believe for a moment that there is good trolling?" is as easily cast aside with the equally inconsequential "why can't you believe for a moment that there isn't good trolling?") I mean, I'm told that I should just have faith that good trolling exists.

 

 

People are good at lying to themselves (myself included. Those that wish to dismiss my statements can freely assume that I'm doing the same, if it makes them feel better!). If an act becomes vilified, they'll create justifications that there are exceptions, and it's the exceptions that they like that are the valid exceptions. The other things are definitely bad, or maybe even so bad that they aren't even part of the classification anymore. How many bullies actually believe that they are a bully? How many people like "good trolling" simply because it gives them a sense of schadenfreude? How many of us make exceptions and classify something as acceptable simply because we like it? (which is a pretty human thing to do and I'm not passing judgment on people for being imperfect human beings).

 

 

How many "good trolls" do so simply because they want some laughs? (and is that a bad thing?) How many targets really step back and go "whoa... good thing that happened... I have an enlightened view on life now?" It's easy for us to assume that, because it makes us feel better about ourselves. And it doesn't just happen here. Look at pretty much any controversial subject and you'll see people coming up with all sorts of explanations and rationalizations for "Why I am not a bad person" whether it be defending themselves for liking/disliking romances in an RPG, a pro-vaccinator and anti-vaccinator, or whether or not trolling has a good aspect of it.

 

 

You cited the Tali Sweat thread. Is the principle thing that you enjoyed about the thread the deep reflections that it made people have about how seriously they take content in a fictional universe? Or did the responses and reaction tend to make you laugh? Because at this point it's a philosophical debate, not anything that's really testable. Saying "well good trolling is like art" simply leaves it up to the observer. You'll say it's good trolling because there's an aspect of it that you derive some level of enjoyment/appreciation out of. I'm skeptical there's much reflection and learning that goes on because of a thread like that, but there's a lot of fingers being pointed, laughing, and bickering all around. And when we're just an observer looking on, we laugh because we're already at the point of going "wow, look how serious these people are taking it!" (I know I did) In this sense, are people actually learning anything, or are they just reaffirming where they are and feeling a sense of pleasure or superiority from it?

 

 

To be perfectly frank, I think most people will enjoy good trolling simply because as human beings we enjoy a degree of schadenfreude when people we otherwise disagree with for whatever reason get upstaged and made to look the fool. I'm sure it's happened in this very thread, whether explicitly stated or not. I'm okay acknowledging that there are probably situations where I will laugh at someone's misfortunes where I would not if the context, not the act itself, was changed.

 

 

We see the same justifications from people that get upset because they are banned from a particular forum, or because a comment thread was closed, and what have you. For a wide assortment of topics (Anita, the Duke porn star, trolls, etc. etc. etc.). I think there's a degree of self-delusion that is required to avoid cognitive dissonance when people cry out for losing their free speech in response to those types of actions when in reality it's simply "something I was enjoying in some capacity has been taken away from me." Perhaps we'd be better served acknowledging that sometimes we enjoy inappropriate things, and that in doing so doesn't make us horrible people (for a fun aside, I recommend following up on the Duke porn star for all sorts of examples of humans on both sides of a story putting up their walls while firing their cannons)

 

 

My biggest concern with trolling consequences is that early evidence points out that hostile discussion spaces may undermine one's ability to learn about the topic, while simultaneously having those same people overstate how much they actually do understand about the subject. And then you get into the same ol' internet pissing matches that fundamentally aren't useful because it's just become noise where people think they have to be louder and more extreme than the previous poster in order to be heard. Well thought out and well communicated views need not apply. And I definitely do dislike that.

Edited February 24, 2014 by alanschu

[Hiro Protagonist]

There's a definition argument for sure. And to be obstinately defensive, I'm not the only source that uses my definition, so when assessing the article in the OP I think it's fair to try to assess what group of individuals they are referring to.

 

Considering you haven't shown what definition you're using in this thread, it's a little disingenuous to cite a definition and not share it with the people in this thread.

 

We get another that says "that's not trolling" even though there appears to be enough consensus that the name of the act literally contains the word "trolling" in it, while another tells me I have blinders on and just can't accept that there is good trolling. (A fabulous argument... "why can't you just believe for a moment that there is good trolling?" is as easily cast aside with the equally inconsequential "why can't you believe for a moment that there isn't good trolling?") I mean, I'm told that I should just have faith that good trolling exists.

 

Where did anyone say "why can't you just believe for a moment that there is good trolling?"  I did a quick search through this thread and couldn't find who said that. Also, who has said you should have faith that good trolling exists? This reeks of a straw-man tactic.

 

Considering I've cited one example of a troll thread on the WoW forums, do you accept there is good trolling?

[BruceVC]

 

There's a definition argument for sure. And to be obstinately defensive, I'm not the only source that uses my definition, so when assessing the article in the OP I think it's fair to try to assess what group of individuals they are referring to.

 

Considering you haven't shown what definition you're using in this thread, it's a little disingenuous to cite a definition and not share it with the people in this thread.

 

We get another that says "that's not trolling" even though there appears to be enough consensus that the name of the act literally contains the word "trolling" in it, while another tells me I have blinders on and just can't accept that there is good trolling. (A fabulous argument... "why can't you just believe for a moment that there is good trolling?" is as easily cast aside with the equally inconsequential "why can't you believe for a moment that there isn't good trolling?") I mean, I'm told that I should just have faith that good trolling exists.

 

Where did anyone say "why can't you just believe for a moment that there is good trolling?"  I did a quick search through this thread and couldn't find who said that. Also, who has said you should have faith that good trolling exists? This reeks of a straw-man tactic.

 

Considering I've cited one example of a troll thread on the WoW forums, do you accept there is good trolling?

 

 

Hiro do you consider yourself a Troll? The reason I ask is because you seem very defensive around the characterisation of what a Troll means...its almost like you feel guilty about something......

[Zoraptor]

I don't have any real problem with people having different interpretations of what trolling is, despite the last line of my previous post. It is subjective in terms of trolling not having to be a deliberate attempt to elicit a reaction- if I posted my critique of Oblivion here it would be met by a muted reaction, some would agree, some would disagree, but it would be unlikely to get people upset; if I posted it at the Bethboards it would likely be regarded as trolling whatever my real reasons were. But it is also subjective in terms of not having an 'official' definition that can be referenced absolutely and objectively denotes what is trolling. That's why I rather like the comparison to art, while art does have a more or less set definition it is very much up to the individual as to what they personally consider art to be, and indeed art is very much defined by its context as well.

 

How many of us make exceptions and classify something as acceptable simply because we like it?

 

Everyone does that, of course, but I think that this in particular runs into the basic free speech argument. I don't have the right to tell people not to offend me and say only stuff I find acceptable, and because that's a reciprocal right they also don't have the right to demand that I not offend them and only say stuff they find acceptable. Considering the sort of stuff people as individuals and collectives find objectionable there'd be very little to talk about if that were not the case.

 

Take the hypothetical situation of there being someone who posts lots of stuff I find offensive. I'm not exactly sure what, since I struggle to think of anything I'd find actually offensive (edit: to clarify; as opposed to finding it something else instead such as stupid) that isn't actually illegal or bannable already, even somewhere like the codex. But anyway, it'd be tough noogies to me. I'd reserve the right to disagree, even strenuously disagree. What I wouldn't reserve is the right to tell them they cannot state their opinion simply because I don't like it.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

I don't have any real problem with people having different interpretations of what trolling is, despite the last line of my previous post. It is subjective in terms of trolling not having to be a deliberate attempt to elicit a reaction- if I posted my critique of Oblivion here it would be met by a muted reaction, some would agree, some would disagree, but it would be unlikely to get people upset; if I posted it at the Bethboards it would likely be regarded as trolling whatever my real reasons were. But it is also subjective in terms of not having an 'official' definition that can be referenced absolutely and objectively denotes what is trolling. That's why I rather like the comparison to art, while art does have a more or less set definition it is very much up to the individual as to what they personally consider art to be, and indeed art is very much defined by its context as well.

 

How many of us make exceptions and classify something as acceptable simply because we like it?

 

Everyone does that, of course, but I think that this in particular runs into the basic free speech argument. I don't have the right to tell people not to offend me and say only stuff I find acceptable, and because that's a reciprocal right they also don't have the right to demand that I not offend them and only say stuff they find acceptable. Considering the sort of stuff people as individuals and collectives find objectionable there'd be very little to talk about if that were not the case.

 

Take the hypothetical situation of there being someone who posts lots of stuff I find offensive. I'm not exactly sure what, since I struggle to think of anything I'd find actually offensive that isn't actually illegal or bannable already, even somewhere like the codex. But anyway, it'd be tough noogies to me. I'd reserve the right to disagree, even strenuously disagree. What I wouldn't reserve is the right to tell them they cannot state their opinion simply because I don't like it.

 

Zor do you consider yourself a Troll?

[Hiro Protagonist]

Hiro do you consider yourself a Troll? The reason I ask is because you seem very defensive around the characterisation of what a Troll means...its almost like you feel guilty about something......

 

I don't see how I'm being defensive about the characterisation of what a Troll means. And I'm certainly not feeling guilty about something. I'm simply taking an objective view of what a troll is and can do. I'm of the view that you can have both good and bad trolls. That a troll can create a good troll thread on a forum. 

 

Do you have a problem with someone having an objective view of what a troll is? Because that's what I'm trying to do. You seem to be taking issue with this objective stance I'm taking and wrapping it up as being an apologist for trolls in general and feeling guilty about something.

[BruceVC]

Not for adults dealing with other adults, so long as house rules are obeyed.

 

Edit: I'm a little bored of my own avatar now however so i will retire from the discussion, adieu.

Nonek thanks for responding to all my questions, I can appreciate the fact that it must have been a little annoying but I sometimes think its a better way to get to a final point so you understand the context of where someone is coming from.

 

In South Africa there is a racist word to describe black people that begins with the letter "K" ( I don't need to say the word). This word is completely unacceptable to use and people in the public limelight who have used the word have been fired, that's how serious it is. This word is derogatory and very offensive and hurtful  to black people and others as it represents the days of Apartheid where black people were marginalised and discriminated against. But its just a word and yet that single word symbolizes something much more. Do you think the millions of black people in South Africa need to have thicker skin around what this word represents for them?

 

So the usage of that word is never acceptable under any circumstances because of our history. Now you have admitted that there are certain words on certain forums that should not be used and I have given you an example of another word that should never be used. Its that same logic that highlights the point that just because its the Internet and a forum discussion it doesn't mean that there should be no responsibility on people to not use those words or say certain things.

 

Its starts with you and how you say things and it starts with you and what you are prepared to accept when you engage in discussion

 

On RPGCodex around the post that "PoE wouldn' have Romance " I read some of the comments. Some people made comments like " well if they have Romance then I want the option to be able to rape someone". Of course they were being sarcastic but the fact that they are so indifferent about a serious problem that faces society tells me that some of the members really think that this type of humour is acceptable and the worst part of it is that the website and the moderators seem fine with this type of debate

 

All I ask is that people have some empathy around bigotry and discrimination. Its real and does upset and impact thousand of people on a daily basis. And we also need to realize that there are certain boundaries that on public forum that we should never cross. Even if you feel if doesn't effect you personally that doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue for others

[BruceVC]

 

Hiro do you consider yourself a Troll? The reason I ask is because you seem very defensive around the characterisation of what a Troll means...its almost like you feel guilty about something......

 

I don't see how I'm being defensive about the characterisation of what a Troll means. And I'm certainly not feeling guilty about something. I'm simply taking an objective view of what a troll is and can do. I'm of the view that you can have both good and bad trolls. That a troll can create a good troll thread on a forum. 

 

Do you have a problem with someone having an objective view of what a troll is? Because that's what I'm trying to do. You seem to be taking issue with this objective stance I'm taking and wrapping it up as being an apologist for trolls in general and feeling guilty about something.

 

 

Okay thanks for explaining. No I don't have an issue with an objective view of a Troll, there are many sides to this debate as we have all seen from some of the posts.

[alanschu]

I don't have any real problem with people having different interpretations of what trolling is, despite the last line of my previous post.

Cool beans and I appreciate the clarification since I was unsure and it seemed to be coming from more than just yourself as well.

 

To be clear, most (but maybe not all... >.>) of my definition clarification is mostly to point out that we apply the term in a non-uniform way. As such, the context for how it's used is useful for us understanding each other's points of view, as well as that of the article. (more of a general statement to the thread, as opposed to you directly, as I'm pretty sure you wouldn't disagree)

 

 

That's why I rather like the comparison to art, while art does have a more or less set definition it is very much up to the individual as to what they personally consider art to be, and indeed art is very much defined by its context as well.

Fair enough. On this point I think we agree.

 

 

 

Everyone does that, of course, but I think that this in particular runs into the basic free speech argument. I don't have the right to tell people not to offend me and say only stuff I find acceptable, and because that's a reciprocal right they also don't have the right to demand that I not offend them and only say stuff they find acceptable. Considering the sort of stuff people as individuals and collectives find objectionable there'd be very little to talk about if that were not the case.

 

 

 

Take the hypothetical situation of there being someone who posts lots of stuff I find offensive. I'm not exactly sure what, since I struggle to think of anything I'd find actually offensive (edit: to clarify; as opposed to finding it something else instead such as stupid) that isn't actually illegal or bannable already, even somewhere like the codex. But anyway, it'd be tough noogies to me. I'd reserve the right to disagree, even strenuously disagree. What I wouldn't reserve is the right to tell them they cannot state their opinion simply because I don't like it.

Granted, the thread has gone in a lot of directions, but has it really gone into much of a "how to deal with trolls (if at all)" perspective. I know I made a comment about how I have little issue with a troll being banned off of private server space, if the caretakers of said space deem it appropriate. Nor am I particularly against the idea of removing comment fields, as I feel it neither mutes free speech nor criticism.

 

The post originally started from the characteristic traits the analysis in the OP's link does, so if I may I have some thought experiments there, as well.

 

 

I do tend to believe that people are not "all or nothing" in terms of personality traits (at the risk of perhaps giving the study too much credibility, for better or worse). When someone decides to make troll posts, does that mean that there are aspects of their character that would fit along the traits listed? (machiavellianism, narcissim, psychopathy, and sadism). The first is a bit easier for me to see, as part of me would not be surprised that a skilled troll would possibly score quite high in machiavellianism. For the other aspects, I suppose it would depend on the types of actions being enacted upon by the troll. As a final addendum to this point, however, is it necessarily bad that people may not be completely devoid of these traits?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 I'm simply taking an objective view of what a troll is and can do.

 

...an objective view of what a troll is?...

 

...objective stance I'm taking...

 

That's an awful lot of times you felt you needed to affirm us that you are absolutely, completely, utterly impartial and objective in this debate 

[BruceVC]

 

 I'm simply taking an objective view of what a troll is and can do.

 

...an objective view of what a troll is?...

 

...objective stance I'm taking...

 

That's an awful lot of times you felt you needed to affirm us that you are absolutely, completely, utterly impartial and objective in this debate 

 

 

 

In fact I would that argue that someone who insists he is being unquestionably objective so much doesn't have the intention of being truly objective

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

 

 I'm simply taking an objective view of what a troll is and can do.

 

...an objective view of what a troll is?...

 

...objective stance I'm taking...

 

That's an awful lot of times you felt you needed to affirm us that you are absolutely, completely, utterly impartial and objective in this debate 

 

 

 

In fact I would that argue that someone who insists he is being unquestionably objective so much doesn't have the intention of being truly objective

 

 

uh no. You'd rather take the stance that all trolls are made by horrible people? That you don't consider the possibility that there are good trolls? I don't think that's a good quality to have.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Also, is alan still being evasive and ignoring my questions?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I'm simply taking an objective view of what a troll is and can do.

 

...an objective view of what a troll is?...

 

...objective stance I'm taking...

 

That's an awful lot of times you felt you needed to affirm us that you are absolutely, completely, utterly impartial and objective in this debate 

 

 

 

In fact I would that argue that someone who insists he is being unquestionably objective so much doesn't have the intention of being truly objective

 

 

uh no. You'd rather take the stance that all trolls are made by horrible people? That you don't consider the possibility that there are good trolls? I don't think that's a good quality to have.

 

 

Come now Hiro, I have conceded that there is such a thing as a good Troll. They are rare but I can't say with absolute conviction "there is no such thing as a good Troll" based on the observations from you and others

 

But you have to admit that aluminium's post was funny

[alanschu]

It's clearly either or.  No wiggle room or per case analysis!

[Hiro Protagonist]

It's clearly either or.  No wiggle room or per case analysis!

 

So do you accept there are good trolls?

[Zoraptor]

Zor do you consider yourself a Troll?

 

Nah, I don't troll. Others may think I do, but from my perspective no.

 

But while I can honestly say that I've never said anything solely to get a negative or emotive reaction I equally am not overly concerned about saying things that I know will offend people or that people won't like. Because I know that if I were overly concerned I'd never write or say anything of any substance. If I don't think it's worth it I'll usually bite my tongue though, because it, uh, isn't worth it.