"Internet Trolls Really are Horrible People"

[BruceVC]

Strange, i've been insulted and verbally abused but have never once felt that those words infringed on my dignity,

 

That's good to know, I also have never felt that. But of course we both are white, heterosexual males who have never really been on the receiving end of the type of discrimination I am talking about that can and does impact the dignity of person.

[Nonek]

In point of fact I have been on the end of racist abuse, just the other day I was verbally abused by a rather large gang of Indian or Pakistani youths near work, and referred to as a "White Bastard," which I promptly laughed at and shook my head while walking on. My nicknames arrives from a similar incident with a group of coloured youths using West Indian patois calling me a "No-necked Blood Clot." The amount of abuse i've recieved from Irish gentlemen has been even more virulent, but none of these have made me wish to restrict free speech or judge the majority by the actions of individuals.

 

Edit: I assume I attract this attention due to my large size and rough appearance, due to many years of Rugby training, but for all I know this could be a common occurence for any white gentlemen who walks through rough areas, when commuting to and from work. I will aslo admit that I come from a different generation who are not so delicate or whiny, so that may be a contributing factor.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Nonek

[BruceVC]

e

In point of fact I have been on the end of racist abuse, just the other day I was verbally abused by a rather large gang of Indian or Pakistani youths near work, and referred to as a "White Bastard," which I promptly laughed at and shook my head while walking on. My nicknames arrives from a similar incident with a group of coloured youths using West Indian patois calling me a "No-necked Blood Clot." The amount of abuse i've recieved from Irish gentlemen has been even more virulent, but none of these have made me wish to restrict free speech or judge the majority by the actions of individuals.

 

Edit: I assume I attract this attention due to my large size and rough appearance, due to many years of Rugby training, but for all I know this could be a common occurence for any white gentlemen who walks through rough areas, when commuting to and from work. I will aslo admit that I come from a different generation who are not so delicate or whiny, so that may be a contributing factor.

 

Come on Nonek, you are too bright to try to convince anyone, including yourself, that what you mentioned is anything remotely similar to the bigotry that many groups receive that I am referring to. And its not just words but how they are treated and how they perceive themselves. I really don't feel I should give you examples because its pretty obvious if you just look around the world at cases of discrimination  

 

I'm sure you have been the victim of verbal abuse because you look rough and you're large as you mentioned

[Nonek]

Racist abuse is racist abuse, the fact that I was on the streets and not being trolled on a computer would surely make my level of danger in that situation far more apparent than somebody abused on a computer? This seems blatantly obvious and shouldn't need explaining.

 

Edit: Whether people percieve themselves as victims or not is their own business and self pity should not affect free speech.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Nonek

[Malcador]

Couldn't it be construed, then, that you're taking things too seriously if you've decided to be an arbiter of who deserves and does not deserve to be deliberately provoked?

 

Doesn't the mere acknowledgement of "that person is taking things too seriously" mean that you also are?

I don't think it could, who said I'm being anything as fancy as an arbiter, it's an easy and simple observation to carry out, at least when it's preachy people, like some here - see the cheerleader for example.

 

Not really an attempt to dictate things with people, either, it's just fun to wind people up, you have to admit.

 

 

Also, has the forum software changed - keep seeing non breaking space elements

Edited February 22, 2014 by Malcador

[Hassat Hunter]

 

They should make me a Moderator of RPGCodex, half the members would be immediately banned and most of the other members would be on there last warning. " I'll bring order and respect to that cesspool of Internet forum social injustice"

Why do you hate free speech so much?

 

RPG codex doesn't like romances either?

[BruceVC]

 

Couldn't it be construed, then, that you're taking things too seriously if you've decided to be an arbiter of who deserves and does not deserve to be deliberately provoked?

 

Doesn't the mere acknowledgement of "that person is taking things too seriously" mean that you also are?

I don't think it could, who said I'm being anything as fancy as an arbiter, it's an easy and simple observation to carry out, at least when it's preachy people, like some here - see the cheerleader for example.

 

Not really an attempt to dictate things with people, either, it's just fun to wind people up, you have to admit.

 

 

Also, has the forum software changed - keep seeing non breaking space elements

 

 

"the cheerleader"

[Malcador]

 

 

They should make me a Moderator of RPGCodex, half the members would be immediately banned and most of the other members would be on there last warning. " I'll bring order and respect to that cesspool of Internet forum social injustice"

Why do you hate free speech so much?

RPG codex doesn't like romances either?

 

All about the bromance over there.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

 

I think I get where you're coming from now. If I'm understanding you correctly, when you defend "good trolling," you're not so much defending silliness for the sake of silliness ...

IMO they are coming from a place like RPGCodex where "trolling" has its own definition and meme where it is both acceptable and encouraged, and they got butt hurt that outside "trolls" are seen as horrible people or according to this study psychopathic sadist. It like arguing about what is "cool", you will always upset several niche communities.

 

RPGCodex, hah, softy noveaux trollites who can't stand the heat and need to get out of the kitchen whenever there is some real discuss!on that isn't scaled to their level.

 

Usenet, bro, where trolls were trolls and moderation wasn't in the dictionary. Well, except in moderated groups, of course.

 

(Yeah, some trolls are horrible people. Some people are horrible people. It's sheer inevitability)

 

 

They should make me a Moderator of RPGCodex, half the members would be immediately banned and most of the other members would be on there last warning. " I'll bring order and respect to that cesspool of Internet forum social injustice"

 

 

Why do you hate free speech so much?

 

 

I don't hate free speech, I welcome and encourage  free speech. I am opposed to speech that is synonymous with discrimination or bigotry.

 

In the South African constitution we allow free speech but not if it infringes on the dignity of the person. Its not an unreasonable expectation

 

 

That's not free speech, but rather feel good speech. You may rationalize all you want, but the cow does not turn into horse just because you put it in the stables. 

 

Please stop hating freedom, my feelings and dignity depend on it

Edited February 22, 2014 by Meshugger

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

Strange, i've been insulted and verbally abused but have never once felt that those words infringed on my dignity,

 

That's good to know, I also have never felt that. But of course we both are white, heterosexual males who have never really been on the receiving end of the type of discrimination I am talking about that can and does impact the dignity of person.

 

 

While I'm white and heterosexual, I and many others I know in real life have been on the receiving end of the type of discrimination you are talking about that does not impact on our dignity as a person.

[alanschu]

I think I may be taking the definition of free speech a bit too literally (i.e. from something like the first amendment), since I don't typically see silencing or ignoring a troll to be a violation of free speech.

 

 

Are there any groups that the ability to say whatever one wants should see caution exercised?

 

 

Edit: I assume I attract this attention due to my large size and rough appearance, due to many years of Rugby training, but for all I know this could be a common occurence for any white gentlemen who walks through rough areas, when commuting to and from work. I will aslo admit that I come from a different generation who are not so delicate or whiny, so that may be a contributing factor.

It may also be a contributing factor that your life experiences lead you to assume all people are as equally capable of dealing with particular stimulus in identical ways? Is this a fair assessment (both of me of you, and you of the rest of humanity)? Is it possible that life has simply left others less equipped to deal with some situations as capably as you are, and as such less able to shrug some stuff off.

 

I'd also challenge the notion that your generation is different. The principle difference between "today's generation" is that we can more easily see what people from all over are saying. It mostly just comes across as the "I'm better than kids these days" which I'm sure the generation before you thought of your delicate, whiny generation.

Edited February 22, 2014 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

Ignoring a troll certainly isn't a violation of free speech- there's absolutely no obligation to listen to what someone says, whether they're trolling or providing concrete proof for The Theory of Everything. Silencing a troll through moderation or whatever is infringing free speech, but it's done on 'private property' so free speech is also a privilege there- there's no obligation to provide a platform for someone's free speech; unless you're the government, arguably.

[alanschu]

Fair enough regarding free speech. You're correct that I was looking at it more from the *right* to free speech, as opposed to simply executing free speech.

Edited February 22, 2014 by alanschu

[Meshugger]

I think I may be taking the definition of free speech a bit too literally (i.e. from something like the first amendment), since I don't typically see silencing or ignoring a troll to be a violation of free speech.

 

How do you build any form of principle for free speech from that?

[alanschu]

I was looking at the application to the *right* to free speech. See the brief discussion with Zoraptor about the point.

 

 

That said, is any type of free speech acceptable against any type of group? The onus is just on the target to take the high road?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

That said, is any type of free speech acceptable against any type of group? 

 

Well, I prefer having the crazies (neonazis, holocaust deniers etc.) safely recognizable by giving them the ability to spout their nonsense as they see fit. Then again, as a white cis male, I'm not exactly among their prime targets, so that's not really a decision I feel I should have any kind of authority to make.

Edited February 22, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Nonek]

I think I may be taking the definition of free speech a bit too literally (i.e. from something like the first amendment), since I don't typically see silencing or ignoring a troll to be a violation of free speech.

 

 

Are there any groups that the ability to say whatever one wants should see caution exercised?

 

 

Edit: I assume I attract this attention due to my large size and rough appearance, due to many years of Rugby training, but for all I know this could be a common occurence for any white gentlemen who walks through rough areas, when commuting to and from work. I will aslo admit that I come from a different generation who are not so delicate or whiny, so that may be a contributing factor.

It may also be a contributing factor that your life experiences lead you to assume all people are as equally capable of dealing with particular stimulus in identical ways? Is this a fair assessment (both of me of you, and you of the rest of humanity)? Is it possible that life has simply left others less equipped to deal with some situations as capably as you are, and as such less able to shrug some stuff off.

 

I'd also challenge the notion that your generation is different. The principle difference between "today's generation" is that we can more easily see what people from all over are saying. It mostly just comes across as the "I'm better than kids these days" which I'm sure the generation before you thought of your delicate, whiny generation.

 

 

If others are less able to deal with poor behaviour then that is their business, I simply make a case that one has control over ones own behaviour and nobody else's, and that is all that one may realistically accomplish in the wider world. To take away free speech on the web and enforce a certain code of conduct on everybody is as equally foolish and vain as trying to police the streets of all anti-social behaviour, it will always be there in some form and letting it affect one is a sign of ones own vulnerability. Hopefully better education and social reform may rid us of such a problem but in England that is a far off goal at the moment, especially under a government that wishes to downsize the state.

 

Added to this society is often wrong and what is acceptable now is revealed as unacceptable in twenty years, and those who favour self righteous preaching are often guilty of the most flagrant abuses, distasteful attitudes and shocking actions. We need subversive elements to speak out against them when the established methods do not, especially when political correctness often means telling lies and massaging statistics to favour a political bias, or when journalists have established a symbiotic partnership with those they are supposed to criticise. Especially when a certain section of society has in effect retained and strengthened its old position of dominance and rulership over the majority.

 

As for my generation, in England I certainly do believe there has been a certain societal change, my generation are somewhat repressed, private and conservative. The modern one is in general far more demonstrative, fame hungry and ambitious. Whether one of these is better I neither know nor particularly care, it all comes down to the individual in the end.

[Walsingham]

Moderation of free speech isn't a contradiction. I can chair a meeting, dictating the words allowable, and who is allowed to speak, and when, without curtailing the meaning of the positions taken.

 

If anything - and this point has been made at length before - good moderation enhances, rather than diminishes free speech. It curtails hateful and aggressive language, it cuts out points that are manifestly weak. Thereby it leaves bandwidth free for genuinely useful exchange.

 

Yet again we have to make the point that freedom and anarchy are not the same thing. This should be as redundant a point as evolution and intelligent design.

[Malcador]

What's wrong with aggressive language ?

[Meshugger]

 

 

I was looking at the application to the *right* to free speech. See the brief discussion with Zoraptor about the point.

 

 

That said, is any type of free speech acceptable against any type of group? The onus is just on the target to take the high road? 

 

I will ask again: What are your principles regarding free speech and the application of these on public and private property? And what is the end purpose? Stability? Order? Truth? Liberty?

 

It's quite simple. For example, my principle is freedom of expression as much as possible and the purpose is truth and liberty. Trolls on internet message-boards is not the focus here, that's private property and a completely different matter.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Meshugger

[Nonek]

I agree Walsingham and try to comport myself with dignity wherever I go, following the general rules of the locale and I do not see others trolling as particularly diminishing that, in fact I see it as quite a nice, lively method of interaction. I usually do not partake of it but think it is a valid form of satire and have observed some masterful uses of it, and as regards the wish to intrude upon the RPG Codex and excessively moderate them, I do not believe it is needed or wanted. They are boisterous and rude but hardly dangerous gentlemen, and occassionally seem to produce some fine content, with editorials and such that you will not see at mainstream sites due to the caustic honesty inherent in them.

 

Mr Kaine Parker on this site for instance is I believe a fine representation of a Troll, and adds a great deal of fun and satire that pricks the pomposity we all occassionally happen to partake in. I like the gentleman, his posts and sometimes being the target of his jests. I try to play along with my much poorer sense of humour and give as good as I get, and really think it enlivens the environs. The image of the laughing fool making a mockery of everything is a constant in every culture, and personally I believe is to be cherished and protected, a society and individual that can laugh at itself is a confident one.

[Orogun01]

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.

[Malcador]

It communicates intent but not language.

 

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

Hm, depends on what considers aggressive anyway, but fair enough.

[alanschu]

I will ask again: What are your principles regarding free speech and the application of these on public and private property? And what is the end purpose? Stability? Order? Truth? Liberty?

 

It's quite simple. For example, my principle is freedom of expression as much as possible and the purpose is truth and liberty. Trolls on internet message-boards is not the focus here, that's private property and a completely different matter.

I think this comes back to what is a troll, because if it is someone that seeks to undermine and disrupt discussion and seek only to anger and frustrate discussion participants, couldn't I conclude that you and I both agree that trolls are not productive nor conducive to free speech?

 

 

Trolls on internet message boards is simply as subset of the discussion here. Within the context of the study, I'd argue that most trolls perform their actions on places that would be considered private property. In this case, my assumption is that Nonek refers to the use of free speech in ALL applications (including internet message-boards and other places that are private property), not specifically the places where a right to free speech is more explicitly protected.

 

 

 

 

I do not see others trolling as particularly diminishing that, in fact I see it as quite a nice, lively method of interaction. I usually do not partake of it but think it is a valid form of satire and have observed some masterful uses of it

What is it, specifically, that you enjoy about watching a masterful troll at work?

 

Mr Kaine Parker on this site for instance is I believe a fine representation of a Troll, and adds a great deal of fun and satire that pricks the pomposity we all occassionally happen to partake in. I like the gentleman, his posts and sometimes being the target of his jests.

It's interesting, because Kaine Parker is not someone I would consider a troll. So it boils back: "is something that posts parody and satire a troll?" Because I'd argue that Kaine Parker is a poor troll because he doesn't do a good job of intentionally disrupting discussion and doesn't seem to be very good at intentionally causing anger and frustration in his marks. But I also don't think he seeks to be a troll.

Edited February 23, 2014 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

Moderation of free speech isn't a contradiction. I can chair a meeting, dictating the words allowable, and who is allowed to speak, and when, without curtailing the meaning of the positions taken.

 

If anything - and this point has been made at length before - good moderation enhances, rather than diminishes free speech. It curtails hateful and aggressive language, it cuts out points that are manifestly weak. Thereby it leaves bandwidth free for genuinely useful exchange.

 

Yet again we have to make the point that freedom and anarchy are not the same thing. This should be as redundant a point as evolution and intelligent design.

 

Yes, and for formalised settings such as a debate that is completely appropriate, since they have a specific purpose and reason/ topic in mind. Everyone sensible acknowledges that there should be practical limitations, first and foremost that you should not infringe others' rights to free speech and to express themselves as well. But that is both a bit of a high bar to set for the vast majority of what passes for discussion on the internet- indeed all too often there is very little happy medium between moderating when necessary or rules are broken and moderating when a particular moderator doesn't like what is being said- and there is also very little barrier to entry in internet communication as it's a fundamentally continuous/ simultaneous system. Unlike in a formal meeting type setting it's very difficult to 'talk over' or shout down other people; you cannot silence other's twitters by tweeting yourself, nor other people's postings by posting yourself.