the trolling issue

I

iceaura

Valued Senior Member
We have a new policy of troll discouragement, and as one might expect in new situations, the standards appear to be fuzzy.

Perhaps concrete examples might help. The following is a very common kind of trolling response:
you could have started a thread asking that specific question, without the trolling implications that Americans engage in indiscriminate bombings of foreign nations with the intent to kill civilians etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Note the features: the troll discovers "implications" not overtly visible in someone's post, and the discovered implications are of a specific kind: they are an imputation of deliberate, intentional evil, evil as a goal; which the troll then declares ridiculous, and uses to attack the poster for harboring such ideas.

Common encounters:

Someone says the US is killing too many civilians in Iraq, shooting too many pregnant women at checkpoints, etc. The troll replies that accusing the US of intentionally killing civilians such as pregnant women in Iraq is ridiculous, demands evidence of such intent.

Someone says too many black men are being jailed, and it is wrecking he black communities n the US. The troll replies that accusing the police departments in the US of intentionally destroying local black communities is ridiculous.

And so forth.

This is one of the most common rhetorical means of deflecting a thread into inflamed and off topic argument. Perhaps we could use it as a touchstone to guide policy toward such deflections?
 
why sam chooses to rag on the US is anyones guess.
with her intelligence and capabilities she could go a long way to help her own countrymen, i guess she doesn't give a rats ass about india though.

i suppose she likes the idea of india being on the UN TIP list for the last 4 years for human trafficking.
 
Another common troll styling:
with her intelligence and capabilities she could go a long way to help her own countrymen, i guess she doesn't give a rats ass about india though.
Click to expand...

What is a good name for that one, besides the obvious but not really explanatory "ad hominum" ?
 
leopold99 said:
why sam chooses to rag on the US is anyones guess.
with her intelligence and capabilities she could go a long way to help her own countrymen, i guess she doesn't give a rats ass about india though.

i suppose she likes the idea of india being on the UN TIP list for the last 4 years for human trafficking.
Click to expand...

I don't agree she/he is just ragging on the US for the sake of it. I don't know her. She/he seems to disagree with American policy, that's all.
 
iceaura said:
This is one of the most common rhetorical means of deflecting a thread into inflamed and off topic argument. Perhaps we could use it as a touchstone to guide policy toward such deflections?
Click to expand...
I take your OP as serious, but slightly wry. That said I experience the same thing and have even trolled, by your broad definition myself. I have often felt justified since 'someone else started it' - which is as mature as it sounds. I think your point is important, since it often gets a pass, this kind of argument. Sure it is often an implicit or direct ad hom. Sometimes it is the way the other position gets painted, which could be any of a variety of fallacies. Toss in an unwillingness to make any concession at all and the very selective ways people respond to other posts and there is a real problem. I do notice moderators trolling, again if we use your broad definition, sometimes in mod notes themselves.
 
ejderha said:
I don't agree she/he is just ragging on the US for the sake of it. I don't know her. She/he seems to disagree with American policy, that's all.
Click to expand...
what's the difference between american policy and british policy? or russian as far as that goes.

russia is as much to blame for the bullshit in the mideast as any other country.
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
Perhaps concrete examples might help. The following is a very common kind of trolling response:

Note the features: the troll discovers "implications" not overtly visible in someone's post, and the discovered implications are of a specific kind: they are an imputation of deliberate, intentional evil, evil as a goal; which the troll then declares ridiculous, and uses to attack the poster for harboring such ideas.
Click to expand...

OK.

iceaura said:
encounters:
Someone says the US is killing too many civilians in Iraq, shooting too many pregnant women at checkpoints, etc. The troll replies that accusing the US of intentionally killing civilians such as pregnant women in Iraq is ridiculous, demands evidence of such intent.
Someone says too many black men are being jailed, and it is wrecking he black communities n the US. The troll replies that accusing the police departments in the US of intentionally destroying local black communities is ridiculous.
And so forth.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. So if a post claims something, it's trolling to say; 'I agree, or I disagree?

Also in your post, there is an expression: "...Shooting too many pregnant women at checkpoints.etc" Don't you think that's trolling. It's highly provocative and sounds like you are making fun of it. It a disturbing example, completely different than the rest as its expression but, now if I react to it, am I trolling?

Are you sure, you people know what's really trolling or not? This is an honest question.
 
leopold99 said:
what's the differece between american policy and british policy? or russian as far as that goes.

russia is as much to blame for the bullshit in the mideast as any other country.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But a thread wouldn't be closed, or people wouldn't be blamed by trolling, if that was the issue, would it?
 
iceaura said:
Another common troll styling:

What is a good name for that one, besides the obvious but not really explanatory "ad hominum" ?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Would such a policy apply to all posters equally?
 
eiderha said:
I don't get it. So if a post claims something, it's trolling to say; 'I agree, or I disagree?
Click to expand...
No. I'm only complaining about certain specific responses.
eiderha said:
Also in your post, there is an expression: "...Shooting too many pregnant women at checkpoints.etc" Don't you think that's trolling.
Click to expand...
No, it's an opinion about the larger world, based on a factual observation (the factual observation at the time, backed with a link, was: that so many women in labor being driven to the hospital in Baghdad had been running foul of US checkpoints, including getting shot, getting their driver or husband shot, being held for hours, getting turned around and sent home, etc, that there was a noticeable statistical uptick in women suffering complications from home birth without pro medical care present, early in the occupation when the US controlled the streets.

The opinion was: that that was "too many").
eiderha said:
Are you sure, you people know what's really trolling or not? This is an honest question.
Click to expand...
If that specific common and repeated technique of inflaming an argument is not trolling, what is?
 
Actually, this was ice's issue. I've been heinously trolled before, then temp-banned when I struck back in a measured and appropriate way. You want fair? Afterlife.
 
iceaura said:
No. I'm only complaining about certain specific responses.
No, it's an opinion about the larger world, based on a factual observation (the factual observation at the time, backed with a link, was: that so many women in labor being driven to the hospital in Baghdad had been running foul of US checkpoints, including getting shot, getting their driver or husband shot, being held for hours, getting turned around and sent home, etc, that there was a noticeable statistical uptick in women suffering complications from home birth without pro medical care present, early in the occupation when the US controlled the streets.

The opinion was: that that was "too many").
If that specific common and repeated technique of inflaming an argument is not trolling, what is?
Click to expand...

OK. I misunderstood the pregnant women example.

iceaura, I am not trying to get any attention or any audience. If you objectively look, only specific ideas are being bashed as trolling. It's so obvious. And I didn't notice this before, but then I have been here for a very short time. I joined this forum because, it has the claim of being respectful of poster's ideas. Is that correct?

About inflaming an argument. The arguments causing this very thread is inflaming in nature. Those unresolved issues disturbs everyone. I know what I am talking about, I got serious trouble in real life because I disagree with my people. I also know, how dangerous any kind of censorhip is.

Do you honestly think that any opinion sharing on genocide, war, religion or god... could go on or end in a clean way.
May be you think, 'hey this forum is American so, there will be supporting that side'. I don't know. May be it's not even up to mods and admins to decide that I have no idea. Probably there are some people answering to some sort of rules.

But permenantly baning people, 'cause their opinion is against yours or the most is wrong. Because when this once starts it goes on by itself, it grows and it will be too late when you realise everyone is out of the same box, looking like the same plastic dummies.
 
GeoffP said:
Actually, this was ice's issue. I've been heinously trolled before, then temp-banned when I struck back in a measured and appropriate way. You want fair? Afterlife.
Click to expand...

I get it. Can't help you with afterlife, I don't have a faith of the sort. But S.A.M. shouldn't have gotten a permaban in my opinion. That's an opinion. I can also sympathise with mods, dealing with the same thing everyday, uff, but then it is the job. I am also not sure that if it's healthy including them in the discussions. I mean this as in a way to make their job easier.
 
Sam didn't get one. Anyway...I just don't know about the case. Some of her arguments are very apt, others kind of veer, in my opinion. I do hate the acrimony, although I can certainly get my blood up.
 
eiderha said:
About inflaming an argument. The arguments causing this very thread is inflaming in nature.
Click to expand...
Having a heated argument, or a hot topic, is not the issue.

The issue is deflection of the thread argument into heated irrelevancy, especially: the same heated irrelevancy, over and over, preventing discussion (even "inflamed" discussion) of many different thread topics.

The examples were of one common trick of that. Another was immediately supplied in post #2. The idea is that there are only a few such tricks, being worked over and over on this forum, and a catalog of them might provide leverage against them as well as clarifying the issue of trolling in general.
 
GeoffP said:
Sam didn't get one. Anyway...I just don't know about the case. Some of her arguments are very apt, others kind of veer, in my opinion. I do hate the acrimony, although I can certainly get my blood up.
Click to expand...

She just said she was getting one.
 
I think she might have said she might be getting one. Dunno. But she's still posting.
 
Trolling is a vague word and it is often misused . If a certain mod does not like your comment he just labels it as trolling . Some people can say tons of silly words of non sense and some are watched like under investigation . Come on peole we are all adults and we should all be treated the same way . Thanks ........:D:D....!,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top