The use of the "trolling" argument

[RationalLunacy]

Okay, I have to ask .... what does "trolling" mean?

.........

 

[ozguy]

Addendum .... thanks, mikami.

 

[PreTTy PeTe]

Trolling is some one who specifically posts and makes threads to get people all worked up. Not to actually contribute, but just to piss people off, make em angry, or whatever else.

oh shit i'm a troll then
crap

 

[PreTTy PeTe]

lol. Pete, you are not.

but but but Peto called me a troll

 

[G-Lexington]

Very meta.

Lex

 

[RationalLunacy]

How insightful.

 

[RationalLunacy]

What's up with the old threads being brought back to life?

It's called "trolling."

 

[PreTTy PeTe]

As far as the trolling argument goes, I've noticed a few people doing that. I think that Rational Lunacy and Pretty Pete cause mischief on the board just by hijacking every other thread. I think they are nice and well liked..

actually every post i make has a meaning to it.

ask me

 

[sunoftheskye]

It's just the internet, people.

 

[PreTTy PeTe]

I've seen many a thread ruined by trollers.

i try.........

 

[Dduder]

Over the last few weeks, there has been a growing tendency amongst the pseuds on this site to claim that members are "trolling".

It tends to occur when these members are faced with a point of view that is contradictory to their own. They can not be bothered, or are unable, to engage in a discussion, so simply accuse the member of "trolling".

In the past, other members would employ the phrase "I'm offended" or "That's offensive" in order to close down arguments - accusing a member of trolling is a subtle (albeit cowardly) way of saying "You're an idiot" to a member. This puts the keys into the JUB Bandwagon for every other person to join in...rather like a coop of chickens when they smell blood - Peck-peck-peck-peck-peck.

So, to the people who accuse other members of simply being trolls (or use weasley insinuations to the same), either take part in the thread, start your own thread or fuck off.

Thank you for reading.

Agreed 100%. I've been called troll innumerable times in this board, even though all I did to deserve this was to explain my arguments calmly and rationally during intellectual debates, or defend myself from accusations and assumptions made about me. It's very funny that someone would accuse me of being something, insult me and, when I replied correcting them and easily refuting the charges made against me, I would get called "troll". Of course, what this little word means is this:

"I hate your guts, am unable to reply to anything you just wrote on an intellectual level and want to call you so many four letter words that it would make a truck driver blush, but instead of telling you how I really feel about you, I will just call you a troll because of my fear of the moderators."

Stupidity and cowardice make a pretty pathetic combo, I must say.

 

[belamy]

Sometimes, people aren't consciously aware of how others perceive them.

Isn't that a pleonasm.

 

[belamy]

How would you have worded it, belamy?

I write this question from the viewpoint of a man who's tittered at many a pleonasm. ("Tuna fish" and "raw dough" are my favorites.)

Use "be conscious of" or "be aware of"...

But my English grammEr is usually worse than that

 

[BenF]

I write this question from the viewpoint of a man who's tittered at many a pleonasm.

I quite like pleonastic tautologies.

 

[belamy]

Belamy, the trouble with this is that it doesn't express the thoughts that I'm trying to convey.

Sometimes, people are aware on an emotional level of their effect on others, but not on a intellectual level. Alternately, people are subconsciously aware, but not aware at the level of the conscious mind.

The funny thing is, I see your point of view, too.

"Awareness" is always rational. In fact, that's what distinguishes the mecanichal rationality from the human one. (Yes, there's rationality in machines, -they were made by humans after all-, just like there are people -so many- who just parrot "ideas" and "beliefs" and repeat actions mechanically).
The difference between human rationality and animal one is only that we have no means to establish (we can only "feel" it) whether they are aware of their obviously rational actions.
The rest are "feelings", "hunchs"... whatever. When someone says he "knows" something but can't express it he doesn't know nor is he "aware": he is not even aware of his lack of knowledge.

 

[BenF]

I quite like pleonastic tautologies.

As long as somebody recognises and acknowledges the Radio 4 level of wit in this post, I'll be happy.

 

[BenF]

I could give you a specific example in this particular thread, but discussing a man in front of his face is impolite--I won't do it without his permission.

If you mean me, feel free to say it.

If it is not me, then tell us anyway.

 

[belamy]

I could not disagree more, Belamy; in fact, I think that you're thinking in shades (...)

Which is the important thing, not whether they are in black-and-white or color

The awareness ( ) of shading, nuances, blurry zones, awareness that is not a couple or a dozen colours but the relation and gradation of them in one single continuum what matters. If you say you are aware but can't determine what you are ware of what the hell are we talking about. It's like what we were discusing the other day about conspiracy theories. Even when they are right they were not right for the reasons they defended, so we can't say they were right in their theories.

I think you are defending the usage of awareness as describing real but undefined feelings and I'd have no problem with that. But there are cases in which you need to clarify and if you get used to make an indiscriminate use of blurring you are paving the way to even more drastic future uses of "black-and-white".
People seem to have no problem in accepting clearness when relating to law and science, but anywhere else they feel uncomfortable... and that is the source of even worse discomforts.

 

[belamy]

I'm beginning to sense that this conversation is becoming too obtuse, besides being a major diversion from the point at hand. "Awareness" is a concept that even scientists dispute;(...).

"Science" is a concept that even scientists dispute
Doing something and being aware of what you do are two different things. See? A scientist may be aware of what he or she does when operating some chemical precipitation, but the "awareness" of it in a wider intellectual context (science) is a mere vague feeling... that, of course, unless he has read my work about that question

I will accept for now Belamy's criticism of my sentence. Let's rephrase it: "Some people are insufficiently aware of how other perceive them." Is that clearer? I'm not happy with this simplistic statement but it'll have to do.

I don't expect nor want anybody to "accept" anything coming from me. And I don't care about grammEr, but I was interested in the criticism of "awareness".

 

[Ethanjames2]

I am confused. I thought a troll was a creepy old guy who cruised bathrooms and parks looking for dicks to suck. I guess calling one that is an insult???