The "official" troll thread

[pernoctator]

DeadonDreaming, please explain why your philosophy should not apply in meatspace, and why those reasons are not valid beyond it.

 

[Kuu]

Oh please Stalin.

If you're going to ask for it, you should at least say pretty please!


Meh, some people just don't care. And really, why should I?

Perhaps I've been stalin' for far too long...

 

[DeadonDreaming]

In a forum full of "openminded" personalities, I expect that most "trolls" will be accommodated;

Looks like you were wrong.

"

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
​

"

 

[DeadonDreaming]

Perhaps I've been stalin' for far too long...

Do whatever you want, whatever makes you feel like a big man on the interwebz. Write your long winded justification before-hand, then post it in some random thread just like always happens . Make sure to justify your arbitrary decision with "sound" logic.

Do INTPs have repressed Napoleon-complexes?

 

[Fukyo]

Oh please Stalin.

Yes, we have a modicum of standards, and we regret we did not enforce them sooner with you, as you are obviously completely unrepentant. You can take your gratuitous Godwin's law invocations, hostility towards anyone who annoys you, and go to a different board that espouses your manner of expression.



I'm sorry that this thread has been derailed in part by us mods. If the OP is interested in splitting some of the posts, I'll oblige.

Considering this is a public internet board, which really should be a place where we can express things of a much wider nature than is allowed in meatspace (something Fukyo seems to disagree with, considering his disrespect analogy), it allows more freedom to hear how people really think without transgressing social rules. Maybe one day I'll think differently. Maybe one day Fukyo will think differently, considering he is all of 22 years young, yet seems to be so defensive about being right. He'll "grow" into my way of thinking.

This board is owned and paid for by someone, it's not public property, and some of us volunteer our own time managing it.

There is plenty of freedom here, and a lot of things that'd be punished on other forums get overlooked - but there will not be abuse of this freedom as an excuse for all kinds of crap by people entitled to say whatever they want.

I'm not much younger than you, and personally I hope I do not grow into your indiscriminate and immature ways of thinking.

We're not banning to feel high and mighty, and I take the effort to explain things not because I'm defensive, but because I want to bring forth clarity to wrong assumptions. After all if my motives are misjudged, it's only natural to correct.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Ninja's ban was probably justified otherwise, but that comic was legitimate retaliation.

Anyway it's interesting to note that usually it is the ENTPs that get banned / considered an irredeemable troll.

 

[pjoa09]

Yes, we have a modicum of standards, and we regret we did not enforce them sooner with you, as you are obviously completely unrepentant. You can take your gratuitous Godwin's law invocations, hostility towards anyone who annoys you, and go to a different board that espouses your manner of expression.



I'm sorry that this thread has been derailed in part by us mods. If the OP is interested in splitting some of the posts, I'll oblige.



This board is owned and paid for by someone, it's not public property, and some of us volunteer our own time managing it.

There is plenty of freedom here, and a lot of things that'd be punished on other forums get overlooked - but there will not be abuse of this freedom as an excuse for all kinds of crap by people entitled to say whatever they want.

I'm not much younger than you, and personally I hope I do not grow into your indiscriminate and immature ways of thinking.

We're not banning to feel high and mighty, and I take the effort to explain things not because I'm defensive, but because I want to bring forth clarity to wrong assumptions. After all if my motives are misjudged, it's only natural to correct.

I hope that is a temporary ban? I don't enjoy challenging authority I make a lot of effort on not trolling. But don't you think you could let off that ban button a little? I mean this dod one is a bit extra. I understand NinjaSurfer a bit. He did suddenly go Van Gogh.

But I really think dod had it a little too hard.

Who pays if you don't mind me asking? I have been pondering on that for quite some time.

 

[Coolydudey]

I'm sorry that this thread has been derailed in part by us mods. If the OP is interested in splitting some of the posts, I'll oblige.

I don't see how discussion related to trolls and their banning by the mods fall out of the scope of the thread .

In any case, why was ninja banned (I have an idea)? I got DeadOnDreaming...
EDIT: just realised, hadn't been paying any attention to that part of ninjas activity.

New tangent for the thread: do you think it's inevitable that a thread related to trolling will get trolled or derailed to some extent? I couldn't call this one trolled or derailed, because of the sheer vagueness with which I phrased the purpose of the thread (not an accident), but what if it were more specific?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Who pays if you don't mind me asking? I have been pondering on that for quite some time.

Illuminati.

 

[Fukyo]

I hope that is a temporary ban? I don't enjoy challenging authority I make a lot of effort on not trolling. But don't you think you could let off that ban button a little? I mean this dod one is a bit extra. I understand NinjaSurfer a bit. He did suddenly go Van Gogh.
But I really think dod had it a little too hard.

DoD was very insolent, had no intention of changing his behavior and that's why his ban is permanent. Making it temporary would only prolong the misery and make him more likely to act out because he knows he can get away with it without any punishment. There's not many options of disciplining people on a board. You can warn them and hope they take you seriously but that doesn't always work. DoD's reply consisted of "oh please Stalin" which is dismissive and indicative of no interest in changing his attitude.

DoD openly admitted he had no internal quality control, and his latest thread "who would you pee on" is a good example of such; and he had a long running tendency of lashing out at people who annoy or challenge him in some way, he did that with several posters who were apparently an annoyance to him, this is obvious if you look through even his recent posting history. We saw him as gaining more momentum to be a trouble maker, and to put it bluntly, that's why we banned him. DoD didn't take any warning seriously, openly stated he doesn't care what he posts and was a (an even bigger) trouble waiting to happen with his attitude.

Any more and I'll be repeating what was already said in this thread numerous times.

Who pays if you don't mind me asking? I have been pondering on that for quite some time.

Ragnar.

 

[pjoa09]

DoD was very insolent, had no intention of changing his behavior and that's why his ban is permanent. Making it temporary would only prolong the misery and make him more likely to act out because he knows he can get away with it without any punishment. There's not many options of disciplining people on a board. You can warn them and hope they take you seriously but that doesn't always work. DoD's reply consisted of "oh please Stalin" which is dismissive and indicative of no interest in changing his attitude.

DoD openly admitted he had no internal quality control, and his latest thread "who would you pee on" is a good example of such; and he had a long running tendency of lashing out at people who annoy or challenge him in some way, he did that with several posters who were apparently an annoyance to him, this is obvious if you look through even his recent posting history. We saw him as gaining more momentum to be a trouble maker, and to put it bluntly, that's why we banned him. DoD didn't take any warning seriously, openly stated he doesn't care what he posts and was a (an even bigger) trouble waiting to happen with his attitude.

Any more and I'll be repeating what was already said in this thread numerous times.

Eh... I guess I am very tolerant. I always thought it was in good humor (or shitty pretending to be good). Maybe I never picked up the clues, for me it just looked like mild dicking around.

Ragnar.

And all the time I was taking all of it for granted.

 

[Puffy]

Eh... I guess I am very tolerant. I always thought it was in good humor (or shitty pretending to be good). Maybe I never picked up the clues, for me it just looked like mild dicking around.




And all the time I was taking all of it for granted.

I think that thread he created on 'Cheating' was the breaking point for me, otherwise I might agree. It seemed clear that all he wanted to do was provoke people - the op was offensive anyway, if meant in seriousness - and though there were some attacks due to the content, even where there were reasoned responses (and there were many) he'd respond with attacks, or dismiss them.

Everyone 'dicks around' a little, he just seemed to be dicking around in every post. I get sad at bannings too, but I agree with this one, I imagine it's hard banning someone as a moderator, so I'm only writing to show my support.

 

[Puffy]

I mean:

Looks like you were wrong.

"

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
​

"

If meant in seriousness, that quote was originally used as a criticism of those in Nazi Germany who sat by as group after group disappeared to some of the most notorious concentration camps known to history. It was also appropriated for the Civil Rights movement. And he wants to use it, to fight for the right to harass people on internet boards? That's a little pathetic.

 

[pjoa09]

I think that thread he created on 'Cheating' was the breaking point for me, otherwise I might agree. It seemed clear that all he wanted to do was provoke people - the op was offensive anyway, if meant in seriousness - and though there were some attacks due to the content, even where there were reasoned responses (and there were many) he'd respond with attacks, or dismiss them.

Everyone 'dicks around' a little, he just seemed to be dicking around in every post. I get sad at bannings too, but I agree with this one, I imagine it's hard banning someone as a moderator, so I'm only writing to show my support.

Okay, I guess I am very tolerant. It's probably a personal issue then. I honestly thought 'Cheating' was a written expression of promiscuity and apathy. A sort of entertainment. Maybe if I were a moderator I'd screw it up big time. I can't tell when someone is being entertaining or outright demeaning through text.

 

[BigApplePi]

Isn't be a troll like someone telling your horrorscope (sp?). Both are going fishing. They hope they will come up with something and they usually do.

This is good if you presently have no direction. It gives you a direction to play with. The problem is it doesn't give you YOUR direction when you don't want to play.

 

[Cognisant]

Oh please Stalin.

I for one support the technocratic communist party.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

..... Dafuq? I.. I can post in the Unpostable zone? Cool. Trolololo... Meh.

 

[Coolydudey]

Trolling my troll thread for the trololols

all whites are black

 

[BigApplePi]

On here, feel free to go off on any amount of tangents about trolls and trolling, but preferably mostly related to this forum.

I was thinking, you can have good trolls and bad trolls. Wtf? Well, while someone can be a troll, if they only keep it up for a brief amount of time, causing you to re-examine some assumptions (which can be useful), and/or say something funny (not your average troll), then they can actually be considered as an asset to the discussion, in small quantities. So for example, I consider DeadOnDreaming to be an ok (towards good) troll.

I was also thinking, all INTPs (in the slightly stereotypical sense) must have something of a troll inside them, given their nature.

I definitely LOVE annoying people in a troll-like sense, but trolling online provides nothing like the satisfaction of seeing people's faces and reactions, so I have not so far even tried. I'm sure I'll grow out of it soon.

Not sure if I'm ready to define "troll." A troll is a poster who makes suggestions solely for the purpose of fishing for responses. This would make a troll hard to identify. INTPs are notorious for possessing Ne. The purpose of Ne is to go fishing to feed their Ti. Unless their Ti is known, and there is no reason or commitment to a forum that it should be, how is a fishing expedition to be distinguished from a trolling one? Note the word, "soley." An INTP doesn't go fishing soley to get responses. (S)he is hungry and responses are not the only way to feed hirs hunger.

So we can have a broad troll definition which would include all INTPs ... a bad idea. Or a narrow one which points to seeking random responses for the sake of random responses. One can't simply condemn such a troll because what if an eager INTP or anyone takes the bait and it leads others onward productively? Apparently we have to identify a troll, not by a single fishing expedition, but by multiple ones.

I suppose a troll is harmless if the response is weak ... few take the bait and no harm is done. Then when is a troll harmfull? Try this answer: Trolling does not make the troll. A troll must be committed to seeking random responses. Once a thread or a sub-thread or a sub-sub thread tributary is going, that is good. But if the thread has not yet caught hold and is strong enough, one single act of trolling from a troll can kill the thread. I assume that is bad.

Then we can have weak troll and a strong one. A weak troll doesn't disrupt a thread; a strong one can. Notice again, a poster who has a Ti* purpose in mind can continually disrupt a thread but is not a troll. Such a poster must be asked what they are getting at ... unmask that Ti! A true troll who is strong can continually disrupt a thread. The difference is the troll has no purpose other than disruption for disruption's sake.

*That's unfair to Ni and Si and Fi dominants. But on a Ti Forum they are not conforming to Ti and may not be quite at home, but that's not a troll issue.

 

[Coolydudey]

Classifying trolls is interesting enough but the real depth lies in looking at what emotional/psychological phenomena and needs are involved in the creation of the troll behavior. I think they are (broadly):

a) feeling more intelligent / having outsmarted others into "taking your bait" (mostly)
b) enjoying the suffering caused to the relatively speaking now inferior, who you can laugh at

 

[BigApplePi]

Classifying trolls is interesting enough but the real depth lies in looking at ...

Preceding post lacked something in depth, lol.

what emotional/psychological phenomena and needs are involved in the creation of the troll behavior. I think they are (broadly):

My guess is it can't be determined.

a) feeling more intelligent / having outsmarted others into "taking your bait" (mostly)
b) enjoying the suffering caused to the relatively speaking now inferior, who you can laugh at

Do we have any trolls to interrogate? We can ask them ... or would they keep answers to themselves? We need a troll to study.

 

[Goku]

Not sure if I'm ready to define "troll." A troll is a poster who makes suggestions solely for the purpose of fishing for responses. This would make a troll hard to identify. INTPs are notorious for possessing Ne. The purpose of Ne is to go fishing to feed their Ti. Unless their Ti is known, and there is no reason or commitment to a forum that it should be, how is a fishing expedition to be distinguished from a trolling one? Note the word, "soley." An INTP doesn't go fishing soley to get responses. (S)he is hungry and responses are not the only way to feed hirs hunger.

So we can have a broad troll definition which would include all INTPs ... a bad idea. Or a narrow one which points to seeking random responses for the sake of random responses. One can't simply condemn such a troll because what if an eager INTP or anyone takes the bait and it leads others onward productively? Apparently we have to identify a troll, not by a single fishing expedition, but by multiple ones.

I suppose a troll is harmless if the response is weak ... few take the bait and no harm is done. Then when is a troll harmfull? Try this answer: Trolling does not make the troll. A troll must be committed to seeking random responses. Once a thread or a sub-thread or a sub-sub thread tributary is going, that is good. But if the thread has not yet caught hold and is strong enough, one single act of trolling from a troll can kill the thread. I assume that is bad.

Then we can have weak troll and a strong one. A weak troll doesn't disrupt a thread; a strong one can. Notice again, a poster who has a Ti* purpose in mind can continually disrupt a thread but is not a troll. Such a poster must be asked what they are getting at ... unmask that Ti! A true troll who is strong can continually disrupt a thread. The difference is the troll has no purpose other than disruption for disruption's sake.

*That's unfair to Ni and Si and Fi dominants. But on a Ti Forum they are not conforming to Ti and may not be quite at home, but that's not a troll issue.

This is a pretty thorough analysis that I agree with. I might elaborate on the topic later, but I want to address first a topic which must be clear before a "troll" can even be defined.

A lot depends on the site owner, creator, his/her wishes, the structure he's put in place and the people he's put in power to enforce his wishes. Also, the people who enforce his wishes, admins and moderators, they can collectively lean more liberally or conservatively. Liberal mods will loosely interpret the rules while conservative mods will strictly interpret the rules. There are the anti-ban and pro-ban camps.

Thus, the more conservative supreme court justices will be more inclined to define what a troll is and execute him for being as such. Their liberal counterparts would prefer to rehabilitate and incorporate the person (trolls are people too remember?) back into society.

Tiring yourself out by trying to define "troll" is a distraction -- it means that the conservative side has already won and they are distracting you. The liberal viewpoint is that a "troll" does not even exist, in the way that some (including myself) believe that "schizophrenia" doesn't exist.

Sure there are some truly delusional people that see and hear things, and they DO deserve the schizophrenia label. I would define schizophrenia very narrowly.

However, schizophrenia has been generalized to include a plethora of symptoms and morphed into this gigantic way to classify someone who is "abnormal." Seriously. It's just a simple way to say someone is "abnormal," except now you can say they have a mental illness. My opinion is that schizophrenia, as it is portrayed in the DSM-V, is so general ubiquitous that it is equal to the what you will find in Meriam Webster's dictionary for the word "abnormal."

So defining troll comes down to defining how you want to run your society, in this case, a forum. The wider the definition, the more cuckoos you're gonna have, the more criminals, the more executions. The more narrow the definition, maybe your society will be filled with more eccentric people.

So I'd rather not spin my wheels (yet) and define "troll."

I think the first question to be answered is: how is this society run? and, who's decision is that? can that be changed? does the community have input? etc. etc.

"Troll" is this word that came about, in a similar fashion as "schizophrenia" came about, to categorize the abnormal people in society, as a way to put a scarlet letter on their chest and cut them off from society.

I'd take the liberal stance and say, hey, you go define troll however you want, trolls have a right to post too. Maybe they are just misunderstood. If they break the rules, they must face the consequences. However, we can't treat them differently just because of how we feel about them.

It reminds of laws which prevent gay people from getting married. Applying a double-standard to someone because something about them disgusts you, or makes you uncomfortable. Maybe the troll didn't outright break any rule, but something about him smells fishy and you don't like it. So you use that as a reason to slap the "troll" label on him and get him banned.

Seems like feelings of discomfort often precede "troll" name calling. I'm kind of a forum connoisseur, if you will, have been on many, run my own, and it's a very interesting dynamic that I'm always curious to see play out on each site I visit. It's also this feeling of discomfort which cause society to label one as schizophrenic.

 

[BigApplePi]

This is a pretty thorough analysis that I agree with. I might elaborate on the topic later, but I want to address first a topic which must be clear before a "troll" can even be defined.

A lot depends on the site owner, creator, his/her wishes, the structure he's put in place and the people he's put in power to enforce his wishes. Also, the people who enforce his wishes, admins and moderators, they can collectively lean more liberally or conservatively. Liberal mods will loosely interpret the rules while conservative mods will strictly interpret the rules. There are the anti-ban and pro-ban camps.

Thus, the more conservative supreme court justices will be more inclined to define what a troll is and execute him for being as such. Their liberal counterparts would prefer to rehabilitate and incorporate the person (trolls are people too remember?) back into society.

Tiring yourself out by trying to define "troll" is a distraction -- it means that the conservative side has already won and they are distracting you. The liberal viewpoint is that a "troll" does not even exist, in the way that some (including myself) believe that "schizophrenia" doesn't exist.

Sure there are some truly delusional people that see and hear things, and they DO deserve the schizophrenia label. I would define schizophrenia very narrowly.

However, schizophrenia has been generalized to include a plethora of symptoms and morphed into this gigantic way to classify someone who is "abnormal." Seriously. It's just a simple way to say someone is "abnormal," except now you can say they have a mental illness. My opinion is that schizophrenia, as it is portrayed in the DSM-V, is so general ubiquitous that it is equal to the what you will find in Meriam Webster's dictionary for the word "abnormal."

So defining troll comes down to defining how you want to run your society, in this case, a forum. The wider the definition, the more cuckoos you're gonna have, the more criminals, the more executions. The more narrow the definition, maybe your society will be filled with more eccentric people.

So I'd rather not spin my wheels (yet) and define "troll."

I think the first question to be answered is: how is this society run? and, who's decision is that? can that be changed? does the community have input? etc. etc.

"Troll" is this word that came about, in a similar fashion as "schizophrenia" came about, to categorize the abnormal people in society, as a way to put a scarlet letter on their chest and cut them off from society.

I'd take the liberal stance and say, hey, you go define troll however you want, trolls have a right to post too. Maybe they are just misunderstood. If they break the rules, they must face the consequences. However, we can't treat them differently just because of how we feel about them.

It reminds of laws which prevent gay people from getting married. Applying a double-standard to someone because something about them disgusts you, or makes you uncomfortable. Maybe the troll didn't outright break any rule, but something about him smells fishy and you don't like it. So you use that as a reason to slap the "troll" label on him and get him banned.

Seems like feelings of discomfort often precede "troll" name calling. I'm kind of a forum connoisseur, if you will, have been on many, run my own, and it's a very interesting dynamic that I'm always curious to see play out on each site I visit. It's also this feeling of discomfort which cause society to label one as schizophrenic.

Goku I like your response.

So trolls are people too? I'm beginning to think trolls are just those whom one doesn't like. If one doesn't like someone the desire is to push them away or stay away from them. In either case that removes their personhood and they are no longer people. Once they are no longer people we can kill them. Nice.

I like this as an alternative. It's more narrow: We can't dislike people because they are impossible to fully know. What we dislike is their actions. Actions (substitute another word if you like) are a small part of people. Address those actions and you don't have to kill them.

More ... talking about liberal and conservative interpretations ... the broadening and narrowing of terms of language ... I'm not sure how to place that. I want to think "context." What you said about schizophrenia ... when I grew up there was no such thing as ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. It applies. Those in power would like to control children the easy way via pills. So the more control is desired the more children must fall under this ADHD label.

 

[Goku]

Goku I like your response.

So trolls are people too? I'm beginning to think trolls are just those whom one doesn't like. If one doesn't like someone the desire is to push them away or stay away from them. In either case that removes their personhood and they are no longer people. Once they are no longer people we can kill them. Nice.

I like this as an alternative. It's more narrow: We can't dislike people because they are impossible to fully know. What we dislike is their actions. Actions (substitute another word if you like) are a small part of people. Address those actions and you don't have to kill them.

More ... talking about liberal and conservative interpretations ... the broadening and narrowing of terms of language ... I'm not sure how to place that. I want to think "context." What you said about schizophrenia ... when I grew up there was no such thing as ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. It applies. Those in power would like to control children the easy way via pills. So the more control is desired the more children must fall under this ADHD label.

One of the character traits that came along with my INTP personality was/is my open-mindedness. Because of this, I'm not accustomed to judging people. People are like puzzles to me. When I sense "weirdness," I am intrigued. Whereas others might feel disgusted (slightly) and avoid this weird person, I evaluate people objectively (for the most part).

I've even befriended this guy who's been clinically diagnosed as schizophrenic. It's very lol because I realized he actually deserves this label haha, because I don't believe he can hold down a real job nor can he function without his disability check. I met him on the street and actually talked to the guy instead of brushing him off. He's got a high IQ and some valuable insights into life. He also has no shame and can be very embarrassing to hang around sometimes-- he'll just start talking to strangers and being loud at Starbucks with no qualms as to how they feel about him. That part is a very admirable characteristic which I can relate to, haha, (the whole I don't give a fuck mentality). I don't really hang around him that much at all anymore because I don't really enjoy his company. I did give him a chance though.

I'll use myself to highlight someone who is weird. I avoid at all costs getting my fingers dirty (when eating)-- this is a habit I developed in childhood. This seemed logical to me, although others thought I was weird for defying convention. I'm talking about eating pizza with a fork and knife. I'm talking about eating your buffalo chicken wings with a fork. French fries? Yea, they don't have forks at McDonalds-- so I'd take a straw, bend it in half, and use it like chopsticks. I'd also just dump the french fries in my mouth to avoid getting my fingers greasy. People thought I was so weird for doing this, but it seemed totally normal to me, in fact, more civilized.

I consider myself a genius for inventing the straw-chopstick in elementary school; other people think I'm weird and avoid me. Story of my life.

Some see genius and some see troll.

It's much easier to write someone off than to take the time to understand them.

 

[BigApplePi]

One of the character traits that came along with my INTP personality was/is my open-mindedness. Because of this, I'm not accustomed to judging people. People are like puzzles to me. When I sense "weirdness," I am intrigued. Whereas others might feel disgusted (slightly) and avoid this weird person, I evaluate people objectively (for the most part).

I can identify with that, but only as long as I'm an observer. Speak out loud about your observation to the observed and you can get a feedback response. What if the feedback inhibits you in some way or complicates the situation so that only some things can be addressed while others close up? Then doesn't this open-mindedness turn narrow? Turn it narrow enough and the mind closes onto the feedback itself.

 

[Goku]

I can identify with that, but only as long as I'm an observer. Speak out loud about your observation to the observed and you can get a feedback response. What if the feedback inhibits you in some way or complicates the situation so that only some things can be addressed while others close up? Then doesn't this open-mindedness turn narrow? Turn it narrow enough and the mind closes onto the feedback itself.

Experience has trained me to keep my thoughts inside my head for that very reason, to avoid the feedback response. My extraverted intuition may happen upon a connection which seems obvious to me, but hidden for everyone else. More specifically, I've found that when I identify an emotion that another person has been denying, it is painful for them and they associate that pain with me, thus reacting with hostility.

Feedback from my ex gf had me feeling extremely abnormal for a long time. She made me feel weird for being who I was. I became closed in on her feedback loop, and I lost the objective perspective of viewing myself. I saw myself as needing to be fixed, just as she did.

Then, there are times where the feedback helps me become more objective. I generally don't feel that I can benefit from feedback. But there have been times where unsolicited feedback helped me gain insight, perspective, and made me realize the subjectivity of my own view. This happens when another person reaches a completely different conclusion, however it seems completely rational in their eyes.

I have gotten better at being both the (objective) observer and the subject at the same time.

 

[BigApplePi]

Experience has trained me to keep my thoughts inside my head for that very reason, to avoid the feedback response. My extraverted intuition may happen upon a connection which seems obvious to me, but hidden for everyone else. More specifically, I've found that when I identify an emotion that another person has been denying, it is painful for them and they associate that pain with me, thus reacting with hostility.

Feedback from my ex gf had me feeling extremely abnormal for a long time. She made me feel weird for being who I was. I became closed in on her feedback loop, and I lost the objective perspective of viewing myself. I saw myself as needing to be fixed, just as she did.

Then, there are times where the feedback helps me become more objective. I generally don't feel that I can benefit from feedback. But there have been times where unsolicited feedback helped me gain insight, perspective, and made me realize the subjectivity of my own view. This happens when another person reaches a completely different conclusion, however it seems completely rational in their eyes.

I have gotten better at being both the (objective) observer and the subject at the same time.

Not sure us organisms can avoid feedback responses for as we output we require replacement input to remain viable. There are two extremes of feedback. At one end we have destructive; at the other end constructive. We can educate ourselves to predict the difference but if we are dealing with organisms and an quasi-organic world our abilities will always be limited.

The opposite sex can present strange feedback loops. My wife had complimented me on my ability to move into a small parking space. So I decided to enlist her help when things really got tough: move forward, move back, turn wheels, stay away from that motorcycle, you're onto the curb, etc. She observed last night how my skills have gotten much worse. Maybe when I park in the future I can resist the temptation to request a feedback loop and park the car the hell on my own.

 

[BigApplePi]

Who the #%$#^ got us off into this tangent? Must have been that shrewd master troller:

Classifying trolls is interesting enough but the real depth lies in looking at what emotional/psychological phenomena and needs are involved in the creation of the troll behavior.

 

[Goku]

Who the #%$#^ got us off into this tangent? Must have been that shrewd master troller:

In response to that quote, I think it's more interesting to investigate why the behavior bothers people. Very interesting how words on a screen can make people feel pain.

 

[Hawkeye]

In response to that quote, I think it's more interesting to investigate why the behavior bothers people. Very interesting how words on a screen can make people feel pain.

It's because people are weak minded and require society to accept them.

Try pissing off someone that doesn't give a shit.

 

[Coolydudey]

It's because people are weak minded and require society to accept them.

Try pissing off someone that doesn't give a shit.

Nicely said. Although it is annoying to get trolled, you feel like you've just wasted your time.

That said, I don't think trolls should be banned: once they are known you can expect the troll behaviour (perhaps you could even put a label under their name), so as long as they don't abuse the community in any other way (post count, post content etc.) they might as well stay.

 

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Goku
In response to that quote, I think it's more interesting to investigate why the behavior bothers people. Very interesting how words on a screen can make people feel pain.

My previous post was a joke.

It's because people are weak minded and require society to accept them.

Try pissing off someone that doesn't give a shit.

Words on a screen can cause pain if they have the power to send you in a direction you don't want to go.

How does one tell someone doesn't give a shit? If they are posting, don't they care enough to post? Suppose they post something innocuous and someone with power says they can't post anymore. Don't you think that would cause pain?

 

[Goku]

My previous post was a joke.





Words on a screen can cause pain if they have the power to send you in a direction you don't want to go.

How does one tell someone doesn't give a shit? If they are posting, don't they care enough to post? Suppose they post something innocuous and someone with power says they can't post anymore. Don't you think that would cause pain?

Yes, it hurts to be excluded from a group-- grade-school playground, or Internet forum.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Wow, must've been waitin' for that one

 

[Melkor]

Uh...Uhm.... Uh...

HIYA.

 

[Jennywocky]

I was rather amused/aghast to see another judge trolling the conservatives this week:

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-oklahoma-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-002455586.html

Washington (AFP) - A US federal judge struck down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it was unconstitutional, a month after a similar move in Utah.

I have no idea whether this will go anywhere or what SCOTUS might come up with if pinned to the floor for an answer, but a lot of panties are in a bunch lately, from two surprising states, over this. Political drama... this and Christie's "TrafficLaneGate" are getting their 15 minutes of fame.

(If it matters, the conservatives are trolling liberals by slapping down as many new abortion restrictions as possible + trying to get LGBT protection legislation repealed.)

It's hard to tell if any of this will go anywhere... hence, more a matter of inflaming the opponent than achieving anything productive.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Who was being said hi to?

 

[Grayman]

How does one tell someone doesn't give a shit? If they are posting, don't they care enough to post? Suppose they post something innocuous and someone with power says they can't post anymore. Don't you think that would cause pain?

I suppose, but being excluded emotionally is not the same as getting your tv time taken away. For someone who is here strictly for fun and does not care about anyone else it is more like losing your tv time. IMO