"Internet Trolls Really are Horrible People"

[Nonek]

Personally I believe as Al Murray would state: Your Gaff, your rules. For instance in my company I insist upon proper decorum and respect, and will not stand for anything less.

 

What I enjoy about good trolling is explained in my previous post, it enlivens discussion, pricks pomposity and those who parrot the usual buzzwords, and makes a valid point usually while reminding us of the ridiculous nature of our topics. Personally I think Mr Parker does this extremely well, I enjoy his humour and hope the gentleman is not offended by my view of him. However I understand if others do not share my view, because I do not see a Troll as disrupting discussion but rather raising the bar on it, and providing an alternate view and argument.

 

Causing anger and frustration is not something I think anyone can predict, certain people have certain responses and no one can predict them all.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I agree with Nonek and KaineParker's posts amuse me as well.

[alanschu]

What I enjoy about good trolling is explained in my previous post, it enlivens discussion, pricks pomposity and those who parrot the usual buzzwords, and makes a valid point usually while reminding us of the ridiculous nature of our topics.

I guess I more mean to ask for clarification. The idea being whether or not what you enjoy about other people trolling is or is not in line with the particular conclusions of the study listed in the OP. So in that sense, how does it enliven discussion, prick pomposity and those who parrot buzzards, while making a valid point?

 

I'm more examining as to whether or not we tolerate some trolls simply because we find them funny, and that even if they are doing something hurtful, it's in alignment with our worldview (or at least, against someone who is not in our alignment with our world view), and we can sit back and laugh because we can agree with it.

 

Is it really that we think it elevates a conversation, or simply that we agree with the position presented, or the position undermined, and we have some easy laughs at the expense of the person that was the target? I think I'd be lying if I said I never felt this way.

 

 

Causing anger and frustration is not something I think anyone can predict, certain people have certain responses and no one can predict them all.

I think context is important. Hypothetical: gay man dies, and a person comes along onto their facebook memorial wall to talk about how the guy was a ****ing **** ass muncher and deserved to die because no man should love the **** because it's God's Will. That said, how many other people who believe the same way as him would laugh at the outrage this would cause because it's "good trolling" because those people deserve it. And someone posting like this could just as well be utilizing Poe's Law, since it could be someone intended to just stir up trouble for laughs, or someone that genuinely feels that way because of the type of person that they are. If it's the former, is that person contributing anything? Is there a circumstance that a "good troll" can bother talking?

 

 

I don't think it's that hard to get a rise out of a lot of people, especially once you get an opportunity to know little bit about them. Some people may not, and certainly not all in the same ways or through the same means, but is it that hard? Some topics and circumstances are pretty easy to get a rise out of people.

 

Is it a surprise that people suggesting that Anita Sarkeesian needs to get raped in response to the mere idea of suggesting that there are problematic elements in video game narratives is going to cause anger and frustration among those that agree with Anita? Could you make a reasonable prediction how people would respond if I were to go onto a religious themed message board and talk about how religion is horse**** and the bane of humanity's existence?

 

 

 

Tying things back to the study in the OP, we'd have to examine their perspective on what trolling is. Do you think that the studies the article makes reference to consider things like parody, satire, or devil's advocacy as equivalent types of trolling? In the event of self-reporting, do you think that those that employ those types of tactics consistently would consider their primary reason for being on the internet to troll other people?

 

 

There are people that explicitly state that they RIP troll in response to "grief tourism" because they find the sympathies put forth as hollow and self-serving. That is, they are intentionally posting hurtful messages in response to an action that they don't like. Is it reasonable to predict that these comments may hurt the family?

 

I understand that you probably don't consider this "good trolling" so it comes down to "Is the stuff that Kaine Parker does in any way comparable to these types of actions?" Is it appropriate to consider devil's advocacy, satire, and parody in any way associated with this type of activity?

 

When the OP article talks about trolling, are they talking more about RIP trolls or Kaine Parkers?

Edited February 23, 2014 by alanschu

[jillabender]

[...]

 

Tying things back to the study in the OP, we'd have to examine their perspective on what trolling is. Do you think that the studies the article makes reference to consider things like parody, satire, or devil's advocacy as equivalent types of trolling? In the event of self-reporting, do you think that those that employ those types of tactics consistently would consider their primary reason for being on the internet to troll other people?

 

 

There are people that explicitly state that they RIP troll in response to "grief tourism" because they find the sympathies put forth as hollow and self-serving. That is, they are intentionally posting hurtful messages in response to an action that they don't like. Is it reasonable to predict that these comments may hurt the family?

 

I understand that you probably don't consider this "good trolling" so it comes down to "Is the stuff that Kaine Parker does in any way comparable to these types of actions?" Is it appropriate to consider devil's advocacy, satire, and parody in any way associated with this type of activity?

 

When the OP article talks about trolling, are they talking more about RIP trolls or Kaine Parkers?

 

 

I have to agree that the article isn't really about things like devil's advocacy, parody, or satire. I can understand why some people might want to defend the idea of needling someone just enough to deflate the person's ego, but I don't think that's what the study is talking about when it talks about people who consider trolling their favourite internet activity.

 

Not everyone whose actions could occasionally be considered "trollish" engages in extreme antisocial behaviour, but I don't think it makes sense to point to people who engage in occasional pranking in an attempt to refute the article's point about people who enjoy behaving in extreme and malevolent ways.

 

Leaving aside the question of whether a bit of mild provocation or needling can sometimes be okay (I think it's an interesting question, but I'm still not convinced that deliberately trying to get a rise out of people is ever something to be proud of), I think it's important to recognize that while some people may engage in things like satire or in relatively mild pranking or provocation without acting in extreme and malevolent ways, that may simply mean that the article is not talking about them – it doesn't necessarily mean that the observations in the article about the kinds of people who engage in extreme acts of trolling are invalid.

[213374U]

I think context is important. Hypothetical: gay man dies, and a person comes along onto their facebook memorial wall to talk about how the guy was a ****ing **** ass muncher and deserved to die because no man should love the **** because it's God's Will. That said, how many other people who believe the same way as him would laugh at the outrage this would cause because it's "good trolling" because those people deserve it. And someone posting like this could just as well be utilizing Poe's Law, since it could be someone intended to just stir up trouble for laughs, or someone that genuinely feels that way because of the type of person that they are. If it's the former, is that person contributing anything? Is there a circumstance that a "good troll" can bother talking?

I don't think it's that hard to get a rise out of a lot of people, especially once you get an opportunity to know little bit about them. Some people may not, and certainly not all in the same ways or through the same means, but is it that hard? Some topics and circumstances are pretty easy to get a rise out of people.

 

Is it a surprise that people suggesting that Anita Sarkeesian needs to get raped in response to the mere idea of suggesting that there are problematic elements in video game narratives is going to cause anger and frustration among those that agree with Anita? Could you make a reasonable prediction how people would respond if I were to go onto a religious themed message board and talk about how religion is horse**** and the bane of humanity's existence?

 

 

Tying things back to the study in the OP, we'd have to examine their perspective on what trolling is. Do you think that the studies the article makes reference to consider things like parody, satire, or devil's advocacy as equivalent types of trolling? In the event of self-reporting, do you think that those that employ those types of tactics consistently would consider their primary reason for being on the internet to troll other people?

 

 

There are people that explicitly state that they RIP troll in response to "grief tourism" because they find the sympathies put forth as hollow and self-serving. That is, they are intentionally posting hurtful messages in response to an action that they don't like. Is it reasonable to predict that these comments may hurt the family?

 

I understand that you probably don't consider this "good trolling" so it comes down to "Is the stuff that Kaine Parker does in any way comparable to these types of actions?" Is it appropriate to consider devil's advocacy, satire, and parody in any way associated with this type of activity?

 

The examples you are putting forth are not only the extremes of trolling, but also don't very well connect with the idea that "a troll is somebody that goes online with the sole intention of pissing others off". The extreme example is maybe the "God Hates f**s" crew. Do they go online only with the intention of sabotaging serviceman memorials? If they do so, is it because they get a kick out of angering mourners or because they really believe in the tripe they spread? How can we know the extent and tone of the rest of their interactions online, if any? This is why I contend that tagging individuals as trolls and calling it a day just doesn't cut it.

 

Regardless, the internets is a new medium, where the dynamics of interaction are completely different from the real world where everyone first learned to interact with other people. Much like astronauts need to re-learn how to move in zero-g, people need to teach themselves first how to react before thinking of acting online. The first step is, as I mentioned before, to grow a thicker skin. This is a crude way to say that, in general, it is beneficial to learn to recognize and disregard noise and, in particular, to view content through the prism that "opinions are like arseholes". My reasoning is grounded on simplicity and economy of effort—it is much easier* to learn to recognize and reconduct my reactions than it is to try and moderate the internet to make it conform more or less to a set of rules established for a different medium. In an environment where fluff (or content aimed at eliciting a negative emotional response) is blocked at the user level or outright disregarded, there can be no trolling.

 

 

*as easy as any effort of self-reflection can be, anyway

Edited February 23, 2014 by 213374U

[Nonek]

With regards to Mr Schu's last post (I won't quote as it's a little long) i'd like to respond as such: For clarification I think the article presented in the OP is bogus, factually suspect and an example of the poor sensationalist journalism we have to endure since that medium began its steady decline. Good trolling is in my view fun, enlightening, and holds up a mirror to those who are too pompous and po-faced to realise they are being ridiculous, and perhaps even reminds them that they should not be so dependent on a virtual medium, that function is I believe reason enough to engage in a little good natured ribaldry.

 

Those who place too much importance on the net could occassionally do with a gentle humorous reminder that it is a virtual construct and not reality, or that their actions and stances are absolutrely ridiculous and silly. The recent case of a poorly educated woman writing an "open letter" to her son about not wanting him to become a rapist springs to mind, not only was it painful to read but obviously she was too invested in the issue and could not approach it with any sense of perspective. To accuse ones own child of being a potential rapist is idiotic and a damning inditement of her parenting to begin with, to then ask him to not do so is even more harebrained, as if the young man had really been looking forward to a career of violent abuse of women. That woman could do with some gentle trolling to point out her idiocy and even better perhaps somebody stopping her before she writes down such verbal diarrhea, and questioning her motives and reasoning. The reaction to the Mass Effect 3 ending also springs to mind, it was a silly fun popamole shooter, why become so upset over it?

 

What is contained in the article and the cases you mention is not trolling but straight forward abuse and bullying, why dress it up as trolling just because it contains an online element, this is just another part of the demonisation of the medium and mandate to censor the internet. With regards to Facebook personally I believe it's a vain site and makes a mockery of the privacy that should come with mourning and grief, however on the subject of a gay man being abused at his funeral I present the following example of satire and humour, which I hope makes my point far more vividly:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkxCHybM6Ek

 

Saarkesian's threats of rape are just that and should be dealt with by the authorities, personally I believe there's no point becoming upset by the woman from the one video I watched of hers, her points are weak, her presentation poor and her choice of subject matter devoid of relevance, there are far more modern examples of women being presented in extremely insulting fashions as idiots and slaves who can only be "fixed" by the protagonists sexual favours. Her points are easily invalidated and out argued, there is no need for such outrage and histrionics, a good troll might be able to bring those offended some perspective on this silly debate.

 

Edit: Just as it is too easy to accuse a person of trolling if they do not agree with you so it is too easy for a rude or spiteful individual to hide behind the mask of a Troll, differing terminology is no excuse and far too easy to utilise, trolling is not abuse or bullying and to say it is excuses that behaviour.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Nonek

[Mor]

What is contained in the article and the cases you mention is not trolling but straight forward abuse and bullying, why dress it up as trolling just because it contains an online element, this is just another part of the demonisation of the medium and mandate to censor the internet.

I agree with all the examples you made, with the exception that I don't consider any of them as cases of trolling. criticism, satire, non PC commentary, good natured ribaldry etc shouldn't be dress up as trolling, just because they have been posted online. The difference between those things and trolling is just like the difference between Humor and 'making fun of' or even abuse i.e. knowing the right timing and situation. This difference is highlight on the internet because for the most part you have no awareness of your surroundings(and it gives some people the freedom to act out).

 

Overall when you say trolling most of us think of stuff like kids who add 'boobs' to wikipidea or the reason why every forum need moderators( and sometimes anti spam measures). Not your examples.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Mor

[BruceVC]

 

 

Saarkesian's threats of rape are just that and should be dealt with by the authorities, personally .

 

I want you ask you and others a simple question, do you think  for example someone on...I don't know lets say RPGCodex logs on to there forums and during a debate about the objectification of women in video games says "that Saarkesian women has a big mouth, I know what would sort her out. She should get raped"

 

Do you think people should just ignore that type of comment or do you think that person should get banned? Or some other way of addressing that comment?

[Nonek]

That is up to the moderator's of the site and the authorities if they believe the threat is anything but idle bluster, as i've said I believe that there's no need to resort to such crudities as her content is farcical, but then again as a man who does not often swear let alone threaten I do not think I am able to judge. A visit from a local Bobby and a quiet word is what i'd use to dissuade this kind of behaviour in the old days, but policing every threat on the net would be unmanageable, especially when the threat is in no way shape or form going to be acted upon. I would call that frivolous prosecution and a waste of taxpayers money.

 

Similarly I would not prosecute the women on feminist sites who advocate that all men are rapists, that they serve no use other than procreation, should be culled and that Valerie Solanas had the right idea and should be viewed as a heroine. These are silly people and everyone knows it, they are not Trolls but abusive idiots and could do with some good trolling to bring this to light.

[BruceVC]

That is up to the moderator's of the site and the authorities if they believe the threat is anything but idle bluster, as i've said I believe that there's no need to resort to such crudities as her content is farcical, but then again as a man who does not often swear let alone threaten I do not think I am able to judge. A visit from a local Bobby and a quiet word is what i'd use to dissuade this kind of behaviour in the old days, but policing every threat on the net would be unmanageable, especially when the threat is in no way shape or form going to be acted upon. I would call that frivolous prosecution and a waste of taxpayers money.

 

Similarly I would not prosecute the women on feminist sites who advocate that all men are rapists, that they serve no use other than procreation, should be culled and that Valerie Solanas had the right idea and should be viewed as a heroine. These are silly people and everyone knows it, they are not Trolls but abusive idiots and could do with some good trolling to bring this to light.

 

Interesting so despite the fact that comment would be very offensive to many people you personally don't see it as big deal? And if I understand you correctly the reason you feel that is its just words and may not mean anything but bluster or some misplaced attempt at humour?

[Nonek]

The people who are offended by that if it is bluster or humour need to get out more and stop being offended by loudmouthed idiots on the internet, just because somebody is whining about being offended gives them no rights and means nothing, if they wish to challenge the individual then do so with a good argument or a rebuttal. If they feel that the threat is real and carries weight then it is their responsibility to inform the authorities of it, and thereby do a good deed if they are positive of the danger to Ms Saarkesian, and be charged for wasting police time if they do so merely because they are "offended."

 

I personally do not see idle threats as a big deal, I see real danger as a big deal.

[BruceVC]

The people who are offended by that if it is bluster or humour need to get out more and stop being offended by loudmouthed idiots on the internet, just because somebody is whining about being offended gives them no rights and means nothing, if they wish to challenge the individual then do so with a good argument or a rebuttal. If they feel that the threat is real and carries weight then it is their responsibility to inform the authorities of it, and thereby do a good deed if they are positive of the danger to Ms Saarkesian, and be charged for wasting police time if they do so merely because they are "offended."

 

I personally do not see idle threats as a big deal, I see real danger as a big deal.

Excellent, thanks for responding. I am trying to understand your perspective so please work with me as I have few more questions before I get to my final point

 

I know you have children, I don't know if you have a daughter. But lets say hypothetically you have a daughter and she's 11 or 12 and is active on a website for people her age. Its very innocent and they discuss things that girls her age do. One day someone on that forum makes a post " My Ideal Birthday Present" and all the girls start discussing and chatting about there perfect present. She even calls you over to give you some hints for her b-day with comments like "daddy look what this girl is getting...hint ..hint ". Its really good fun and very sweet.

 

Someone, with a nickname like "danthedashing", then makes a comment that's say " I know what all you girls really want for Christmas, you want to get  raped" ...but he then says " just joking, I'm just Trolling" and puts a big smile at the end 

 

Your daughter is obviously upset and comes to you. How would you deal with it? This website does have Moderators and posts can be reported

[Nonek]

I would report him and ask her to use another site for awhile, however if she'd been perusing the RPG Codex which is certainly not for children I would take away her computer rights for a week and make it clear that I expect better of her, and that if she's offended then it's her own fault for venturing onto an inappropriate site. Adult sites are not for children and vice versa.

[BruceVC]

I would report him and ask her to use another site for awhile, however if she'd been perusing the RPG Codex which is certainly not for children I would take away her computer rights for a week and make it clear that I expect better of her, and that if she's offended then it's her own fault for venturing onto an inappropriate site. Adult sites are not for children and vice versa.

 Excellent answer and what is the reason you would report him as you have made it clear that you wouldn't report someone on RPGCodex. Please give as much detail as possible?

[Nonek]

Inappropriate behaviour and language on a site designed for minors.

[BruceVC]

e

Inappropriate behaviour and language on a site designed for minors.

 

Valid response and I agree. Now we reach an interesting question. Is it fair to say that you acknowledge that certain comments and words on the Internet  can be unacceptable and the person who makes those comments could or should be banned from a particular forum? But obviously you would have to look at what type of forum the comments were made?

[Nonek]

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.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Nonek

[Malcador]

If you are worried by what others find offensive, you are in for a very stressful time these days online. Posting a threat online might be bluster just like someone saying in a pub they want to take a bat to a politician.

[alanschu]

What is contained in the article and the cases you mention is not trolling but straight forward abuse and bullying, why dress it up as trolling just because it contains an online element, this is just another part of the demonisation of the medium and mandate to censor the internet. With regards to Facebook personally I believe it's a vain site and makes a mockery of the privacy that should come with mourning and grief, however on the subject of a gay man being abused at his funeral I present the following example of satire and humour, which I hope makes my point far more vividly:

 

Well, it's been a useful talk in this sense, in that this is where we're divided. This type of behaviour definitely fits under trolling for me, while satire or the use of humour does not. Including the John Cleese video. That and people deal with grief in different ways. My own father, and one of my cousins, made jokes at my brother's funeral and in general people appreciated the levity because context is important - no one doubted that the comments were anything more than an attempt to cheer up a group of people who were down in spirits.

 

 

These are silly people and everyone knows it, they are not Trolls but abusive idiots and could do with some good trolling to bring this to light.

I doubt "good trolling" (i.e. the type you refer to) would bring anything to light. I think the good trolling would mostly just be entertaining for those that are watching and disagree with the notion that all men are rapists.

 

 

 

The extreme example is maybe the "God Hates f**s" crew. Do they go online only with the intention of sabotaging serviceman memorials? If they do so, is it because they get a kick out of angering mourners or because they really believe in the tripe they spread? How can we know the extent and tone of the rest of their interactions online, if any? This is why I contend that tagging individuals as trolls and calling it a day just doesn't cut it.

Very valid point. That "skilled" (as opposed to "good") trolls flirt the line so much with Poe's Law complicates the matter a significant amount. Who's a troll, and who just has an opinion/perspective we think is reprehensible.

[alanschu]

if they wish to challenge the individual then do so with a good argument or a rebuttal.

Eh, I think if embattled against a troll no good argument nor rebuttal will make a difference. Most troll posts are not very skilled, and once you identify the usual tactics like deflecting or even reflecting attacks, it's likely just a waste of time and I'd encourage someone to simply not let themselves get frustrated and disengage.

 

 

The primary reason why I hesitate with "grow thicker skin" is that it becomes a victim blaming problem. Which is an approach I think is okay in singular instances, but becomes problematic if/when the scale of an act ramps up in frequency. Though rather than censorship I'd prefer any focus to go on preparing and educating people to both better deal with the adversity and to recognize that actions and statements over the internet can have consequences.

 

 

Early studies show that hostile comments tended to polarize opinions, while simultaneously causing the participants to actually learn less from articles while thinking they learned more, than had hostile comments not occurred.

 

Now this is just hostility in general, but that is the type of atmosphere I feel a troll both seeks to create, and is increasingly successful in.

Edited February 23, 2014 by alanschu

[jillabender]

[...]

 

Edit: Just as it is too easy to accuse a person of trolling if they do not agree with you so it is too easy for a rude or spiteful individual to hide behind the mask of a Troll, differing terminology is no excuse and far too easy to utilise, trolling is not abuse or bullying and to say it is excuses that behaviour.

 

I completely agree that abuse and bullying like "RIP trolling" and the threats that Anita Sarkeesian received should be treated as abuse and bullying, and should never be dismissed as insignificant simply because the person doing it might consider it to be "trolling."

 

The difficulty is that it almost seems unavoidable to talk about that kind of behaviour in the context of discussing other things that sometimes get referred to as trolling – like being deliberately outrageous to get a rise out of someone in the context of an argument. Just as someone might justify saying something deliberately offensive in the context of an argument by saying "I didn't really mean it, I only said it to get a laugh at the expense people who might take it seriously," the people who threatened Anita Sarkeesian might justify their actions by saying "I never had any intention of actually harming her, I just wanted to get a rise out of her and people who agree with her."

 

I absolutely agree that milder forms of needling and provocation are not equivalent to extreme threats and harassment, but what I think those behaviours often have in common is an underlying attitude that if it happens online or if a person doesn't "actually mean" what they say, it means that the person doesn't have to take responsibility or be accountable for their words.

 

My question regarding whether some people "deserve" to be trolled for taking something too seriously is this: If I believe that someone is taking an issue "too seriously" and therefore "deserves" to be trolled, and I then say something deliberately outrageous to provoke them, is it fair for me to argue that I didn't "actually mean" the outrageous thing I said, as a way of dismissing people who might challenge my assumption that the problem is with the other person?

 

Put more simply, if people respond with criticism or anger to something that I didn't "actually mean," does that automatically mean that the problem is with them?

 

I agree that describing extreme bullying as "trolling" can diminish the seriousness of it by implying a shrugging attitude that "people are going to be outrageous and ridiculous, but what can you do?" I also don't believe that people who engage in extreme bullying are necessarily doing it solely to get a rise out of people – I think it's critical to recognize that there are people who use that kind of behaviour to hurt and intimidate people and even as a way of keeping a less powerful group of people "in their place."

 

But I also think it's important to recognize that sometimes acts that are intended as "mild provocation" can be incredibly hurtful, especially when someone is being provoked about an issue that has caused a lot of pain for them personally  – and that's why I take issue with the kinds of things some people are defending as "good trolling" even though they may not fall into the same category as the worst examples of online abuse.

 

To me, even actions that some people might consider "mild provocation" seem to stem from an attitude of seeing oneself as exempt from responsibility for one's words and actions, and from a disregard for how those words and actions might be perceived by the people on the receiving end – and I see that as a dangerous mindset.

[Hiro Protagonist]

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. Even with this evidence shown that a good troll does exist, that some people still believe they don't. 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.

[Meshugger]

 

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 specifically said that internet message board-trolls wasn't point of my question. Oh well.

[alanschu]

I specifically said that internet message board-trolls wasn't point of my question. Oh well.

Well, that was a bit confusing because my discussion was about trolls on internet message boards (or rather, private property in general), and beyond.

 

If you're not referring to trolls on internet message boards, then you seem to be excluding a group that you implicitly include in the first part of your question.

 

 

You asked me "what are your principles regarding free speech and the application of these on public and private servers?" Your intent then, was to shift the discussion onto free speech in general and what that means, as opposed to within the context of the current discussion? You did say "I will ask again" (but then asked a different question...) but my initial elaboration was that I wasn't clear when I said "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."

 

 

I already answered this, when Zoraptor called me on it, in that I clarified that I was referring to the legal right to free speech, which isn't applied in a private space. In that sense, I don't see banning a troll as a violation of anyone's right to free speech. The troll can still go and be a troll without fear of government persecution. He just can't do it on someone's private property anymore.

 

 

You're right that my original statement was wrong. I thought, though, that that was cleared up when Zoraptor pointed it out and I recanted the original statement.

Edited February 23, 2014 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

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. Even with this evidence shown that a good troll does exist, that some people still believe they don't. 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.

 

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.