Polly's Thoughts on Future of Our Community

[Parasaurolophus]

If "behaviour" includes making statements that some people disagree with and don't want to hear, then the only non-"problematic" option is for everyone to live in their own non-intersecting bubble chambers and never interact.

That's not what I'm referring to. As you know, I'm all for engaging people who disagree with me. I do it all the time, and have done so for the last 21 years. Hell, I'm professionally employed to disagree with people about stuff we don't necessarily want to hear.

I'm not sure there's much point to my explaining this again, but here goes:

Sea lioning is a type of trolling that involves constant demands to engage in debate. Often, it takes the shape of demands for evidence for any and all claims, including very basic ones. If someone is constantly demanding that others engage them in debate in this way, they are sea lioning, even if they think they're just paragons of Reason made flesh who are Just Asking Questions. One's intentions are perhaps a sufficient, but certainly not a necessary, condition for sea lioning. Sea lioning does not require an intent to sea lion. (It does, however, require an intent to ask for evidence, or demand debate.)

Similarly, you count as driving drunk if you're driving and your blood alcohol content is above the legal limit, whatever that is in your jurisdiction. Your blood alcohol content doesn't care that you only had one beer, or that you don't feel drunk. It is what it is. Identifying intoxicated driving rests on external characteristics of your actions. To my mind, 'trolling' behaviour is the same in this respect. Intention to troll is not a necessary condition for trolling.

[mahagonny]

Intention to troll is not a necessary condition for trolling.

For example posting while not woke would be trolling.

However you define it, when you, Paras think someone's a troll, chances are it's someone who is supplying ideas that are missing (and needed). Writingprof was one.

[Parasaurolophus]

If you think that what's missing and needed are particularly low-quality posts, then yes, I agree: my application of the term 'troll' does indeed reliably track very low-quality posting.

My beef with substantive "non-woke" posts (as you would put it, though I don't care for the term) is different. I think they're by and large wrong, but as long as they're substantive I'm happy to entertain them in a good old-fashioned internet dustup.

But this isn't about me. I've said my piece on the application-conditions of 'troll'.

[lightning]

"Hi! I'm your favorite troll who likes to play Devil's Advocate. I'm here to take up all the oxygen in the fora and exhaust people so that they are too tired to argue when a real threat emerges. Your vigilance is my cue to gainsay and tire you out.

I have no interest in learning; your frustration is my ultimate goal. Your exhaustion with people like me, means you will be too tired to put up a real fight when a real threat emerges like the second coming of MAGA 2022 or 2024.

Let's engage!"

[mahagonny]

OK Lightning. You love to follow me around and snipe. But, sincere question: what do you think of today's social turmoil and climate of accusation, radical reform, distrust of radical reform, urban homicide and polarization, deep in your amply educated heart? I'm honestly curious.

[Caracal]

Sea lioning is a type of trolling that involves constant demands to engage in debate. Often, it takes the shape of demands for evidence for any and all claims, including very basic ones. If someone is constantly demanding that others engage them in debate in this way, they are sea lioning, even if they think they're just paragons of Reason made flesh who are Just Asking Questions. One's intentions are perhaps a sufficient, but certainly not a necessary, condition for sea lioning. Sea lioning does not require an intent to sea lion. (It does, however, require an intent to ask for evidence, or demand debate.)

The tricky part here is that the definition depends on the assumption that the claims are valid. The problem is that people often try to portray their beliefs as obvious truths and then respond incredulously when someone points out that the evidence isn't actually very convincing. For example, I've been screamed at for pointing out on here that it doesn't really make much sense to argue that affirmative action makes it incredibly difficult for white people to get jobs in academia when minorities make up a very small percentage of people getting jobs, or for just pointing out that the number of colleges closing in recent years isn't really as high as people often assume it is.

[Bbmaj7b5]

Hmm...slow day for the fora. It can't be that one wise guy adjunct with no terminal degree like me has such power....??

Well, when you bake the words "liberal elite" into the title of a thread, you're showing your hand.

I have regular meetings at the college level. I get Tucker-Carlson-esque "I'm Just Asking A Question Is That So Wrong?" five times a day. I don't have to engage with that here.

[mahagonny]

Hmm...slow day for the fora. It can't be that one wise guy adjunct with no terminal degree like me has such power....??

Well, when you bake the words "liberal elite" into the title of a thread, you're showing your hand.

I have regular meetings at the college level. I get Tucker-Carlson-esque "I'm Just Asking A Question Is That So Wrong?" five times a day. I don't have to engage with that here.

Well, there's nothing to be gained. The forum is already hard left. But not through and through.
BTW, I'll reiterate: I didn't author that thread. It was reposted by one or more of the forum managers. I posted my remarks on the 'it's been two years' discussion. It's not a big deal, and I haven't been that temperate anyway so no position to complain much.
I am very frightened by where our society is headed and in particular as regards the recently enacted hoops one must jump through to maintain employment.
One of the things that's easy to notice about the tenure culture from the outside is everything said has been preceded by an habitual 'radar out' calculation of 'how is the comment going to be received.' If you didn't know how to do that, you would have been running a big risk of not getting tenure. Accordingly, people who do that clumsily or don't even bother with it are not respected or at the very least not real members of the community. Accordingly, the political sensibility of the majority is a big deal.

Re: your workplace
Let me take a guess. There question was something like 'why is it appropriate to say "justice was not served by the Chauvin verdict; justice would be George Floyd at home with his kids" when we know that Floyd did not choose to live with his kids?' (Heck, he's rumored to have fathered five children, but the media, who so loves the 'George Floyd, family man' narrative can only name three -- where are the rest?) And the answer is "so that means he deserved to be suffocated on the pavement."  They could have said 'all right; it's true, Floyd was not a family man in the way that the media are portraying him.' And Carlson would give them credit for admitting that. There's a reason people listen to Carlson. He sees the same bullshit they see. Y'all don't have to give him so much power.
'George Floyd the devoted family man' would be harmless flattery and hyperbole if it weren't for the fact that these things are quickly and willfully used to sort us into one camp or another and then draw swords. They become an ultimatum. 'You but this or you are a racist right wing kook.'

[Sun_Worshiper]

What to do if a certain poster ruins the forum by turning every thread (including this one) into a white grievance thread with posts that are redundant, evidence free, and often unrelated to the thread subject?

Sometimes when my dog is wound up I let her zoom around the yard until she's tired out; but we also don't let her on the nice furniture. Perhaps there is a parallel here: Forumites should collectively agree to let wound up posters with nothing interesting to say run around until they run out of steam, but perhaps there should be some rules as well to contain these posts in the parts of the forum where they are appropriate.

[eigen]

Hmm...slow day for the fora. It can't be that one wise guy adjunct with no terminal degree like me has such power....??

Well, when you bake the words "liberal elite" into the title of a thread, you're showing your hand.

I have regular meetings at the college level. I get Tucker-Carlson-esque "I'm Just Asking A Question Is That So Wrong?" five times a day. I don't have to engage with that here.

To be fair, that title was on me. I was splitting those posts out of a thread where they didn't belong, and that seemed like the most applicable title based on the first post.

[eigen]

What to do if a certain poster ruins the forum by turning every thread (including this one) into a white grievance thread with posts that are redundant, evidence free, and often unrelated to the thread subject?

Sometimes when my dog is wound up I let her zoom around the yard until she's tired out; but we also don't let her on the nice furniture. Perhaps there is a parallel here: Forumites should collectively agree to let wound up posters with nothing interesting to say run around until they run out of steam, but perhaps there should be some rules as well to contain these posts in the parts of the forum where they are appropriate.

Just a reminder to our gentle forum users that the ignore feature is a thing that exists.

If particular posters raise your blood pressure, you can ignore them.

You can also choose to just read on past what they say.

I do wish that some of our community members would stick to thread topics a bit more rather than disrupting with whatever their pet topic is, but honestly it takes multiple people to disrupt a thread. If everyone ignores disruptions rather than responding to it, the disruption is minimal.

So as convenient as it is to blame a specific person as a "troll".... The disruption occurs when we let ourselves be trolled by responding. If you feed the trolls, you're continuing the issue.

[Sun_Worshiper]

What to do if a certain poster ruins the forum by turning every thread (including this one) into a white grievance thread with posts that are redundant, evidence free, and often unrelated to the thread subject?

Sometimes when my dog is wound up I let her zoom around the yard until she's tired out; but we also don't let her on the nice furniture. Perhaps there is a parallel here: Forumites should collectively agree to let wound up posters with nothing interesting to say run around until they run out of steam, but perhaps there should be some rules as well to contain these posts in the parts of the forum where they are appropriate.

Just a reminder to our gentle forum users that the ignore feature is a thing that exists.

If particular posters raise your blood pressure, you can ignore them.

You can also choose to just read on past what they say.

I do wish that some of our community members would stick to thread topics a bit more rather than disrupting with whatever their pet topic is, but honestly it takes multiple people to disrupt a thread. If everyone ignores disruptions rather than responding to it, the disruption is minimal.

So as convenient as it is to blame a specific person as a "troll".... The disruption occurs when we let ourselves be trolled by responding. If you feed the trolls, you're continuing the issue.

You are right that it takes two to tango and that it is the problem is exacerbated when posters feed the troll. But people seem not to be able to help themselves.

And my blood pressure is fine these days. I was just making a suggestion about how a little modding could improve the forum experience. But if the mod philosophy is laissez-faire here then so be it - that approach has its merits.

[marshwiggle]

So as convenient as it is to blame a specific person as a "troll".... The disruption occurs when we let ourselves be trolled by responding. If you feed the trolls, you're continuing the issue.

You are right that it takes two to tango and that it is the problem is exacerbated when posters feed the troll. But people seem not to be able to help themselves.

One thing I do when I feel I'm getting overly sucked into a slanging match with someone else is to forbid myself responding until at least one other person has responded. Then, if there are only two of us who actually care enough to argue, it will stop at that point.

[eigen]

What to do if a certain poster ruins the forum by turning every thread (including this one) into a white grievance thread with posts that are redundant, evidence free, and often unrelated to the thread subject?

Sometimes when my dog is wound up I let her zoom around the yard until she's tired out; but we also don't let her on the nice furniture. Perhaps there is a parallel here: Forumites should collectively agree to let wound up posters with nothing interesting to say run around until they run out of steam, but perhaps there should be some rules as well to contain these posts in the parts of the forum where they are appropriate.

Just a reminder to our gentle forum users that the ignore feature is a thing that exists.

If particular posters raise your blood pressure, you can ignore them.

You can also choose to just read on past what they say.

I do wish that some of our community members would stick to thread topics a bit more rather than disrupting with whatever their pet topic is, but honestly it takes multiple people to disrupt a thread. If everyone ignores disruptions rather than responding to it, the disruption is minimal.

So as convenient as it is to blame a specific person as a "troll".... The disruption occurs when we let ourselves be trolled by responding. If you feed the trolls, you're continuing the issue.

And my blood pressure is fine these days. I was just making a suggestion about how a little modding could improve the forum experience. But if the mod philosophy is laissez-faire here then so be it - that approach has its merits.

Mod policy here is based on the will of the community, it's not a "top down" approach where mods decide what the rules are. There seems to be no consistent interest in more active moderation, and quite a bit of distrust of it- so we have a laissez-faire approach. If the community as a whole decides they want that to change, we will change accordingly.

The rule discussions are open to the whole board, as is the moderation policy discussion.

[eigen]

So as convenient as it is to blame a specific person as a "troll".... The disruption occurs when we let ourselves be trolled by responding. If you feed the trolls, you're continuing the issue.

You are right that it takes two to tango and that it is the problem is exacerbated when posters feed the troll. But people seem not to be able to help themselves.

One thing I do when I feel I'm getting overly sucked into a slanging match with someone else is to forbid myself responding until at least one other person has responded. Then, if there are only two of us who actually care enough to argue, it will stop at that point.

That's a really good strategy. There's another forum I'm a part of that pops up a notification if you respond to the same person 3 times in a row, suggesting that if you're only going back and forth with one person, private messages is more appropriate than a forum discussion.