Post your asides here

[FishProf]

Do you intend your questions to be so condescending?  Or is it unintentional?  Like a gift?  Like, say, an asshole savant?

[little bongo]

(possibly unrelated)

So, another thread withers and dies. In this case, the post-mortem is pretty straightforward. Someone engaged with two people in particular who ought never to be engaged with, because these two people represent two distinct types of trolls.
1) the troll anticipated by Jean-Paul Sartre when he wrote about anti-Semitism: "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

Now, this thread was not about anti-Semitism, nor is there evidence that this troll is indeed an anti-Semite. But he does know his remarks are frivolous, he is amusing himself, and he does not have to use words responsibly. I almost envy this guy--it must be great to traipse through life amusing yourself without anything resembling a serious thought in your head. But here's the thing: any time you choose to ignore this troll, and you don't, troll wins. And the self-amusement continues. It's not a great crime, I suppose, but it does nothing to advance a discussion.

2) I used to think the second troll was part of the set of first trolls--indeed, there are times when he uses language irresponsibly to get a rise out of those who would engage. But there's more: this fellow has gone full-on "Monsters are Due on Maple Street" with his rants. There's some real fear and paranoia there. (He's partly right, of course, he's just misidentifying who the monsters are.) "They're after our syllabi!" "They're after our teaching methods!" He's looked into the window of the billiard parlor, seen the pool table, and is convinced we've Got Trouble.

I guess Hegemony had the right idea--a quick "tsk tsk" and move on. But in the end, what should "the fora" be?

[Parasaurolophus]

Well said.

[mamselle]

Yes, we need to revive <<DNFTT>> signalling.

And Fiona.

M.

[mahagonny]

(possibly unrelated)

So, another thread withers and dies. In this case, the post-mortem is pretty straightforward. Someone engaged with two people in particular who ought never to be engaged with, because these two people represent two distinct types of trolls.
1) the troll anticipated by Jean-Paul Sartre when he wrote about anti-Semitism: "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

Now, this thread was not about anti-Semitism, nor is there evidence that this troll is indeed an anti-Semite. But he does know his remarks are frivolous, he is amusing himself, and he does not have to use words responsibly. I almost envy this guy--it must be great to traipse through life amusing yourself without anything resembling a serious thought in your head. But here's the thing: any time you choose to ignore this troll, and you don't, troll wins. And the self-amusement continues. It's not a great crime, I suppose, but it does nothing to advance a discussion.

2) I used to think the second troll was part of the set of first trolls--indeed, there are times when he uses language irresponsibly to get a rise out of those who would engage. But there's more: this fellow has gone full-on "Monsters are Due on Maple Street" with his rants. There's some real fear and paranoia there. (He's partly right, of course, he's just misidentifying who the monsters are.) "They're after our syllabi!" "They're after our teaching methods!" He's looked into the window of the billiard parlor, seen the pool table, and is convinced we've Got Trouble.

I guess Hegemony had the right idea--a quick "tsk tsk" and move on. But in the end, what should "the fora" be?

I see. You are a mind reader. You know people's motives for posting comments. Do you also tell the future?

[marshwiggle]

(possibly unrelated)

So, another thread withers and dies. In this case, the post-mortem is pretty straightforward. Someone engaged with two people in particular who ought never to be engaged with, because these two people represent two distinct types of trolls.

This sounds kind of like a psychology experiment, where everyone is "sure" they know to whom these are referring, but if you did an anoymous survey, the list of people that it was "surely" referring to would have dozens of names on it.

I actually have two questions:

• Is it just me, or do many people wonder if you may be the one this refers to?
• Is it just me, or has the definition of "troll" changed in the last decade or so? Specifically, it seems to me that "trolling" used to refer more to how the person communicated on the forum, whereas now it refers more to the opinions the person expresses on the forum?

[Parasaurolophus]

• Is it just me, or has the definition of "troll" changed in the last decade or so? Specifically, it seems to me that "trolling" used to refer more to how the person communicated on the forum, whereas now it refers more to the opinions the person expresses on the forum?

I think it's just you. It still looks to me like it pertains to function. We've just expanded the relevant range of functions.

[polly_mer]

• Is it just me, or has the definition of "troll" changed in the last decade or so? Specifically, it seems to me that "trolling" used to refer more to how the person communicated on the forum, whereas now it refers more to the opinions the person expresses on the forum?

I think it's just you. It still looks to me like it pertains to function. We've just expanded the relevant range of functions.

No, it's pretty clear that some world views just aren't welcome here, regardless of language employed or how legitimate the question would be in different venues.[/list]

[polly_mer]

Do you intend your questions to be so condescending?  Or is it unintentional?  Like a gift?  Like, say, an asshole savant?

It depends.  I certainly mean to be condescending when it's the same person on the same topic for the nth time in a short period of time with no evidence of learning anything.

[Parasaurolophus]

No, it's pretty clear that some world views just aren't welcome here, regardless of language employed or how legitimate the question would be in different venues.

I don't think that's what people, even here, mean by 'trolling'. There are different ways of trolling, but what makes it trolling is its presentation and function in context, not its content. I can see how one might be confused if all or only the people presenting one type of content are accused of trolling, but it's clear to me that the designation still hinges on the presentation and function.

I think most forumites are perfectly okay with good-faith discussion and disagreement. What's in question is whether everyone is actually coming to and participating in the discussion in good faith.

(Okay, sorry. I'll not derail your asides further!)

[apl68]

You know the world has moved on when you talk in public on a real-life version of the communicator on "Star Trek," and yet everybody else now thinks you're behind the times.

[downer]

Trolling:
--fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat.
--In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community

What I see are people who, when triggered by certain topics, go on and on and on about their views with little interest in listening or dialog. If there is dialog, it reminds of of Beckett dialogs. And of course, Godot never arrives.

Seems to be many people would be happier if they took up more productive hobbies.

[mahagonny]

'Trolling' as I understand it is intentionally mischievous activity where you're posting not to have a conversation but only to disrupt or provoke. But I usually find the accuser presumptuous. He doesn't know the thought process of the poster. Could be that the poster does not have any sincere reactions to pick from that would blend with the prevailing attitudes in that particular forum. To me it's informative just to find out there's someone reading who looks at things differently.

[polly_mer]

I think most forumites are perfectly okay with good-faith discussion and disagreement. What's in question is whether everyone is actually coming to and participating in the discussion in good faith.

That's not what I'm observing.  What I'm observing is people who insist that holding certain views means that one cannot possibly be discussing in good faith because only morons and trolls have certain views.

I learned the term "sea lion" recently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

What I'm seeing is accusations of sea lioning under the more general "trolling".  I don't see too much actual sea lioning, but I'm definitely seeing people who only want to have open discussion on things that don't really matter like food or television.  When it really matters, certain people here are quick to be dismissive and many others just leave the thread entirely ensuring there isn't any discussion.

[FishProf]

And of course, Godot never arrives.

Hey, Hey! Spoiler alert!