"Internet Trolls Really are Horrible People"

[BruceVC]

 

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.

 

 

I don't think you Troll and in fact you normally explain your view in detail if its a topic you are interested in debating.

[TrashMan]

 

I don't see Trolling as childish based on the articles definition. Troll is an unacceptable behaviour that needs to be condemned and attempted to be stopped. I see Trolling as form of anti-social behaviour so I can't see how we can just shrug our shoulders and say " oh well they are just emotionally immature"

 

 

Meh. Why?

 

It's harmless. People get worked up over nothing.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I don't see Trolling as childish based on the articles definition. Troll is an unacceptable behaviour that needs to be condemned and attempted to be stopped. I see Trolling as form of anti-social behaviour so I can't see how we can just shrug our shoulders and say " oh well they are just emotionally immature"

 

 

Meh. Why?

 

It's harmless. People get worked up over nothing.

 

  you funny Trashman

 

I encourage you read all my comments as I am not prepared to explain again IMO why some Trolling needs to be condemned and is in fact offensive and hurtful

[Mor]

 

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

 

So do you accept there are good trolls?

 

Maybe I am misreading the map, but I don't think at this point he, I and most of the rest, regardless of our positions care about this topic. But for the sake of the discussion, this my last shot at any contribution here and even tough it is blunt, I hope it will received as constructive.

 

 

...

I guess I am not articulate enough in english, so let me try to be more blunt. There is no change of definitions, the term 'retard' was used as analog to help you visualize the difference between our and your definition i.e. what you define as "good trolls" we don't consider to be an act of retard(troll), which leaves us with a "good" retard still being a retard, even if the retard is right twice a day.

 

The use of Open Post text with that analog, was an attempt to show you which definition is the more widely accepted. The "compromise" wasn't on my definition, but a retort to you calling that post a troll, after explaining the valid reason behind it, which would place it in the ballpark of what most said about a "good troll"... and considering your reactions, I added a reference to alanschu post, which explains that even your "good troll" may still be hurtful, hoping that what you got from it is the good ol' don't do to others what you don't want done to you.

 

Also IMHO any person who in GENERAL define himself as any shade of troll is literally a retard or edgy retard if you wish. For the same reason that privet jokes outside of family\friends\co-workers or whatever social circle is usually doesn't received well.. it doesn't mean it's not a "good" joke, it doesn't says anything about you, only that generally you shouldn't throw them around unless you know the circumstances are right..

[TrashMan]

 

I would say it would be difficult to argue that in the last few years there hasn't generally been more of a raised awareness around issues of Internet anti-social behaviour and social justice.

 

 

 

Meh.

 

"Social justice" and raised awareness. Not seeing much of it.

More like forums rune like camps lead by paranoid dogmatics that hand out harsh punishment for any percieved or hypothetical infraction.

 

Internet used to be a place of ultimate freedom of speech (and yes, that includes people saying things you'd absolutely hate). It's less so these days.

Hardly an improvement.

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

I would say it would be difficult to argue that in the last few years there hasn't generally been more of a raised awareness around issues of Internet anti-social behaviour and social justice.

 

 

 

Meh.

 

"Social justice" and raised awareness. Not seeing much of it.

More like forums rune like camps lead by paranoid dogmatics that hand out harsh punishment for any percieved or hypothetical infraction.

 

Internet used to be a place of ultimate freedom of speech (and yes, that includes people saying things you'd absolutely hate). It's less so these days.

Hardly an improvement.

 

 

 

People keep misunderstanding my point, I have no issue with people disagreeing with me or saying things I hate. I have an issue with comments that are hurtful and offensive. I don't suggest we stifle debate in any regards, I suggest we look at the choice of words we use. I can't see how this is censorship in any way?

Edited February 24, 2014 by BruceVC

[TrashMan]

 

 

 

Meh. Why?

 

It's harmless. People get worked up over nothing.

 

  you funny Trashman

 

I encourage you read all my comments as I am not prepared to explain again IMO why some Trolling needs to be condemned and is in fact offensive and hurtful

 

 

 

Grow a thicker skin.

 

You don't have a right to NOT be offended. No one dies.

 

Stick and stone can break my bones, but words leave lasting psychological damage cannot hurt me.

 

 

Trolling is pretty much playing pranks. Getting a reaction out of someone. A reaction that other person wants to have anyway - if you didn't feel anger at someone talking smack about Superman (or whatever), then you wouldn't respond. You wouldn't care.

The sooner people realize that they shouldn't take everything seriously, the better.

 

I know there are people who believe allowing any such behavior or crude jokes somehow promotes and creates bad behavior...for example:

if you make a "make me a sammich" joke, you're a sexist pig in RL

 

I personally think it's as much BS as games turning people into killers.

[TrashMan]

 

 

People keep misunderstanding my point, I have no issue with people disagreeing with me or saying things I hate. I have an issue with comments that are hurtful and offensive. I don't suggest we stifle debate in any regards, I suggest we look at the choice of words we use. I can't see how this is censorship in any way?

 

 

How is forbiding the usage of words not censorship?

Sometimes changing the word changes completely what you want to say.

 

We can argue if it's justified or not, we can argue if it's moral or not, but let's call a space a spade.

 

Human society is build on brainwashing, pressure and punishment.

Our reasoning changes and what we punish/encourage changes, but at the end we are doing the very same thing.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

I would say it would be difficult to argue that in the last few years there hasn't generally been more of a raised awareness around issues of Internet anti-social behaviour and social justice.

 

 

"Social justice" and raised awareness. Not seeing much of it.

 

 

As a guy from Croatia (if I remember correctly), it's not very surprising that you don't. But generally there's been a marked improvement in other countries about these issues.

 

I always smile when people belittle this general change in attitude. Society marches on, the definition of what is and isn't acceptable moves, and you can adapt, or, in a few decades, become the racist grandparent whom their grandchildren are ashamed of. In any case, you've already lost, whether you realize it or not

[Cultist]

I feel the need to contribute and clarify the nature of interaction between human beings in the Internet.

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

 

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

 

So do you accept there are good trolls?

 

 

Maybe I am misreading the map, but I don't think at this point he, I and most of the rest, regardless of our positions care about this topic. But for the sake of the discussion, this my last shot at any contribution here and even tough it is blunt, I hope it will received as constructive.

 

 

You obviously care to continue with it.

 

 

 

I guess I am not articulate enough in english, so let me try to be more blunt. There is no change of definitions, the term 'retard' was used as analog to help you visualize the difference between our and your definition i.e. what you define as "good trolls" we don't consider to be an act of retard(troll), which leaves us with a "good" retard still being a retard, even if the retard is right twice a day.

 

The use of Open Post text with that analog, was an attempt to show you which definition is the more widely accepted. The "compromise" wasn't on my definition, but a retort to you calling that post a troll, after explaining the valid reason behind it, which would place it in the ballpark of what most said about a "good troll"... and considering your reactions, I added a reference to alanschu post, which explains that even your "good troll" may still be hurtful, hoping that what you got from it is the good ol' don't do to others what you don't want done to you. 

 

Using retard is not a good example and as I said only works against you. And you're now saying a good troll is still a troll? As in a good retard is still a retard. Thank you very much because some people don't accept that a good troll is still a troll, and are trying to call it something else. eg. satire. This is something we can agree on.

 

And with the Leeroy Jenkins troll thread. I do find it hard to believe someone could be offended by it.

[Malcador]

People keep misunderstanding my point, I have no issue with people disagreeing with me or saying things I hate. I have an issue with comments that are hurtful and offensive. I don't suggest we stifle debate in any regards, I suggest we look at the choice of words we use. I can't see how this is censorship in any way?

Problem is, it's you determining what is hurtful and offensive.

[TrashMan]

 

 

"Social justice" and raised awareness. Not seeing much of it.

 

As a guy from Croatia (if I remember correctly), it's not very surprising that you don't. But generally there's been a marked improvement in other countries about these issues.

 

I always smile when people belittle this general change in attitude. Society marches on, the definition of what is and isn't acceptable moves, and you can adapt, or, in a few decades, become the racist grandparent whom their grandchildren are ashamed of. In any case, you've already lost, whether you realize it or not

 

Oh look, the "you're a conservative/primitive/redneck/bigot from a stupid/horrible/place and you should be ignored" card.

Followed by the "I'm enlightened/progressive/moral/better than you, look at me!" card.

 

Internet at it's finest.

 

Talking smack about s*** you know nothing about..like me or my country.

But hey, here I am, defending your right to talk stupid and offensive s***. How horrible of me. Truly I'm a monster.

 

 

B.t.w. - society constantly changes, and if you think it will stop with you, you're wrong.

In 10-20 years, you will be the "stupid grandparent" too.

There is no "victory", there is no competition.

[Malcador]

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

 

 

 

One of the pro-romance freaks posted something along that line in the PE subforum during the campaign ,it was also fine with the moderators.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

People keep misunderstanding my point, I have no issue with people disagreeing with me or saying things I hate. I have an issue with comments that are hurtful and offensive. I don't suggest we stifle debate in any regards, I suggest we look at the choice of words we use. I can't see how this is censorship in any way?

 

 

How is forbiding the usage of words not censorship?

 

 

 

That's a very good question and even though it seems like I'm contradicting myself I'm not. I'll explain why

 

I know that you and people like Cultist don't care much about gay rights. We have discussed this before. Even though I disagree with your opinion I respect your right to have a different opinion. But if during those debates you had made comments around the treatment of gays in Russia like " f***g f****ots they must round them all up and send to a concentration camp" my response and I guarantee the response from the Moderators would be very different.

 

So you don't have to censor someone's controversial or personal opinion as long as the person positions there argument in a way that is not derogatory or offensive

Edited February 24, 2014 by BruceVC

[TrashMan]

 

 

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.

 

It's called dark humor. Look it up.

 

Equating it with being indifferent is a fallacy.

 

Ye gods. It's like middle ages again, where religion-based jokes were not allowed. Except its "this thing X... never, EVER mention this word in any context or purpose except for one I personally approve. Otherwise you are a monster."

 

 

Yes, this type of humor IS acceptable.

And if you somehow think that this makes me a woman-hater or someone who condones rape, then I think you're a retard. And that makes us even.
 

 

[BruceVC]

 

People keep misunderstanding my point, I have no issue with people disagreeing with me or saying things I hate. I have an issue with comments that are hurtful and offensive. I don't suggest we stifle debate in any regards, I suggest we look at the choice of words we use. I can't see how this is censorship in any way?

Problem is, it's you determining what is hurtful and offensive.

 

 

Malc what always makes the job of raising issues of social justice easier is knowing I have the support of people like you on my side, it just helps knowing we share a similar sentiment

 

Please read my post I made about offensive words in South Africa, I'm not the one saying these words and statements are offensive. These words and statements are unquestionably offensive to almost every person who the bigotry is directed at

[213374U]

I know there are people who believe allowing any such behavior or crude jokes somehow promotes and creates bad behavior...for example:

if you make a "make me a sammich" joke, you're a sexist pig in RL

 

I personally think it's as much BS as games turning people into killers.

 

Right. I'm not so convinced either way. "Games turn kids into killers" is probably the most extreme example you can make, but there are other scenarios we could consider. For instance, the rise of "happy slapping" and other phenomena that transcend the barriers of the 'nets and affect people's physical lives. This is not the same as suggesting that 'Codex is a nest of rapists because they systematically trivialize rape, but it's difficult to establish whether a certain mindset becoming the norm online can affect individuals' mindsets when they log off. How good are we really at separating our online and RL personas? Social pressure is essential at curbing antisocial (oh, wow, I went there) conducts, but with the internet you have a space where standard social norms no longer apply and may or may not be substituted by something entirely different depending on the community you are looking at.

[Malcador]

Malc what always makes the job of raising issues of social justice easier is knowing I have the support of people like you on my side, it just helps knowing we share a similar sentiment

 

Please read my post I made about offensive words in South Africa, I'm not the one saying these words and statements are offensive. These words and statements are unquestionably offensive to almost every person who the bigotry is directed at

Well, overtly offensive statements are one thing, but you'd be surprised at the crap people find 'hurtful' (see the dickwolves outrage, for example, silly joke about MMORPGs but was insulting to some even before the reaction).

 

And really, people being mean online is a 'social justice' issue ?

[BruceVC]

oc 

 

I know there are people who believe allowing any such behavior or crude jokes somehow promotes and creates bad behavior...for example:

if you make a "make me a sammich" joke, you're a sexist pig in RL

 

I personally think it's as much BS as games turning people into killers.

 

Right. I'm not so convinced either way. "Games turn kids into killers" is probably the most extreme example you can make, but there are other scenarios we could consider. For instance, the rise of "happy slapping" and other phenomena that transcend the barriers of the 'nets and affect people's physical lives. This is not the same as suggesting that 'Codex is a nest of rapists because they systematically trivialize rape, but it's difficult to establish whether a certain mindset becoming the norm online can affect individuals' mindsets when they log off. How good are we really at separating our online and RL personas? Social pressure is essential at curbing antisocial (oh, wow, I went there) conducts, but with the internet you have a space where standard social norms no longer apply and may or may not be substituted by something entirely different depending on the community you are looking at.

 

 

You raised an excellent point and that is " it's difficult to establish whether a certain mindset becoming the norm online can affect individuals' mindsets when they when they log off. How good are we really at separating our online and RL personas"

 

I was going to say something similar but I didn't feel like having to respond to the deluge of responses I knew I would get along the lines of "are you saying I'm a rapist now because I think rape jokes are funny"

 

Personally I feel that there are people that revel in misogyny, racism,  homophobia and sexism. And in RL they probably act on those traits in certain ways. So my view is why give them a platform where they can influence others or be dismissive of these social problems. So my point once again is you can make a controversial point but you need to choose your words.

[Hurlshort]

Trashman is super late to this party.

[213374U]

Personally I feel that there are people that revel in misogyny, racism,  homophobia and sexism. And in RL they probably act on those traits in certain ways. So my view is why give them a platform where they can influence others or be dismissive of these social problems. So my point once again is you can make a controversial point but you need to choose your words.

 

I honestly don't know about that. Encyclopedia Dramatica is a favorite of mine (I have a weakness for "an hero" shopped pics) and yet I'd like to think I'm a fairly well-adjusted individual. Who doesn't think the same, though? Despite my best efforts to be serious and non-offensive—when I choose to be—the deep aspects of my personality are going to leak through and affect the way I behave. The question is, if the person I am affects the way I behave online, can the way I behave online also affect the person I am?

 

Another perspective is the relationship between language and thought. I remember reading a theory that suggested that thought and language both affect each other, as opposed to language being simply an imperfect tool to convey thoughts. If the use of language is distorted, the concepts behind it can be distorted as well—this mechanism is well established and a basic lesson in propaganda. The internet is a special setting where it's all language and no action, and it's basically one huge free for all, so the boundaries to which it's "acceptable" to distort language are poorly defined, if at all.

[TrashMan]

 

 

That's a very good question and even though it seems like I'm contradicting myself I'm not. I'll explain why

 

I know that you and people like Cultist don't care much about gay rights. We have discussed this before. Even though I disagree with your opinion I respect your right to have a different opinion. But if during those debates you had made comments around the treatment of gays in Russia like " f***g f****ots they must round them all up and send to a concentration camp" my response and I guarantee the response from the Moderators would be very different.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, you know nothing.

 

It's a common trait of humans (especially on the internet) to classify people and put them into neat little boxes for their convenience. We construct mental images of persons - or to be more precise, we construct mental images of an average representative of X (republican, gay, black, religious person, feminist, gay activist, whatever) and use many such pieces to construct an image of a persona.

 

 

 

 

So you don't have to censor someone's controversial or personal opinion as long as the person positions there argument in a way that is not derogatory or offensive

 

The problem is that what is "offensive" can be very well subjective, and that people tend to overreact.

I've seen people overreact again and again, on both sides. Heck, on EVERY side of every possible debate.

 

I've seen horrible statements go unchallenged. I've seen people jumping on innocent posters.

 

 

Of course, being respectful is a must, but some points and opinions really can't be expressed without hurting someones feelings.

[TrashMan]

 

I know there are people who believe allowing any such behavior or crude jokes somehow promotes and creates bad behavior...for example:

if you make a "make me a sammich" joke, you're a sexist pig in RL

 

I personally think it's as much BS as games turning people into killers.

 

Right. I'm not so convinced either way. "Games turn kids into killers" is probably the most extreme example you can make, but there are other scenarios we could consider. For instance, the rise of "happy slapping" and other phenomena that transcend the barriers of the 'nets and affect people's physical lives. This is not the same as suggesting that 'Codex is a nest of rapists because they systematically trivialize rape, but it's difficult to establish whether a certain mindset becoming the norm online can affect individuals' mindsets when they log off. How good are we really at separating our online and RL personas? Social pressure is essential at curbing antisocial (oh, wow, I went there) conducts, but with the internet you have a space where standard social norms no longer apply and may or may not be substituted by something entirely different depending on the community you are looking at.

 

 

Hm... are you familiar with the psychological practice of getting people to beat eacother up with nerf bats? Supposedly it's there to express/vent frustration and is healthy.

Couldn't the same be applied to verbal expression?

 

In other words, does the ability to be TEMPORARILY completely open and free with my speech make me a worse person? Or does it make me a better one, because it provides a valve/release/therapy?

 

Hehe... the funny thing with psychology that pretty much EVERYTHING in it is a glass half full/empty.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

That's a very good question and even though it seems like I'm contradicting myself I'm not. I'll explain why

 

I know that you and people like Cultist don't care much about gay rights. We have discussed this before. Even though I disagree with your opinion I respect your right to have a different opinion. But if during those debates you had made comments around the treatment of gays in Russia like " f***g f****ots they must round them all up and send to a concentration camp" my response and I guarantee the response from the Moderators would be very different.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, you know nothing.

 

It's a common trait of humans (especially on the internet) to classify people and put them into neat little boxes for their convenience. We construct mental images of persons - or to be more precise, we construct mental images of an average representative of X (republican, gay, black, religious person, feminist, gay activist, whatever) and use many such pieces to construct an image of a persona.

 

 

 

 

So you don't have to censor someone's controversial or personal opinion as long as the person positions there argument in a way that is not derogatory or offensive

 

The problem is that what is "offensive" can be very well subjective, and that people tend to overreact.

I've seen people overreact again and again, on both sides. Heck, on EVERY side of every possible debate.

 

I've seen horrible statements go unchallenged. I've seen people jumping on innocent posters.

 

 

Of course, being respectful is a must, but some points and opinions really can't be expressed without hurting someones feelings.

 

 

I apologize if I have made an assumption around your view on gay rights. What do you think about the rise of homophobia in Russia and laws that legislate it?