Random Thoughts Anew

[mamselle]

Just want to say how impressed I am with the local public school system.

My student who's been thrashing about with their gender ID, name choice etc. (they said 3 weeks ago they were bi/female, but then had to take some time to give that birth) decided on their new name last weekend, their mom told the school, the school made the necessary name and pronoun assignment changes in the computer system, done.

Smoothed the way for what was once a life-threatening issue no end.

And I like the new name: blends the first part of the old name with a different end, it's lovely.

Gratitude.

M.

[mahagonny]

'Life-threatening?'
I don't believe you.

[mahagonny]

con't

Whoever this young student is, best wishes for health, success to you!

[FishProf]

Do trolls always know they are trolling?  Is it sometimes genuine and they just can't help themselves?

[marshwiggle]

Do trolls always know they are trolling?  Is it sometimes genuine and they just can't help themselves?

It depends on how you define "troll". It's one of those terms applied pejoratively by people to someone they disagree with. If by "troll" you mean someone who says something they know will be unpopular, then probably most know that is likely. If by "troll" you mean someone who says something just because it will be unpopular, then that will be a much smaller group. (And if you mean people who say something even if they know it's untrue but say it anyway because it will be unpopular, then that's an even smaller group. That's the only group I would apply the term to, personally.)

[FishProf]

What about the people who persist in saying things that are rejected (nearly) unanimously.  Those who just double down in the face of all argument.  Is that a form of trolling.

I guess the question should be clarified:  When determining if someone is a troll, does intent matter?

[marshwiggle]

I guess the question should be clarified:  When determining if someone is a troll, does intent matter?

I would argue that it does.

Another distinction I would make is between a troll and someone with a hobby horse. Just because someone has a hobby horse, which they ride frequently, doesn't (in my mind) make them a troll. The fact that the audience is annoyed doesn't make it trolling; it's when annoying the audience is the intended (and *only) objective that makes it trolling (in my opinion).



*lots of discussion techniques involve saying things to "provoke" an audience; usually the point is to raise some sort of contradiction that the audience hasn't previously considered so its purpose is to make them rethink their position, rather than just to be upset.

[mahagonny]

*lots of discussion techniques involve saying things to "provoke" an audience; usually the point is to raise some sort of contradiction that the audience hasn't previously considered so its purpose is to make them rethink their position, rather than just to be upset.

I'm not hoping to get anyone to rethink their position. Although it's fine if that happens. I'm just having random thoughts. If anyone doesn't like it, they have a problem I guess.

[marshwiggle]

*lots of discussion techniques involve saying things to "provoke" an audience; usually the point is to raise some sort of contradiction that the audience hasn't previously considered so its purpose is to make them rethink their position, rather than just to be upset.

I'm not hoping to get anyone to rethink their position. Although it's fine if that happens. I'm just having random thoughts. If anyone doesn't like it, they have a problem I guess.

Sure. My point was that even some situations where a person's intent is to provoke, it still isn't what I would call "trolling".

[mahagonny]

*lots of discussion techniques involve saying things to "provoke" an audience; usually the point is to raise some sort of contradiction that the audience hasn't previously considered so its purpose is to make them rethink their position, rather than just to be upset.

I'm not hoping to get anyone to rethink their position. Although it's fine if that happens. I'm just having random thoughts. If anyone doesn't like it, they have a problem I guess.

Sure. My point was that even some situations where a person's intent is to provoke, it still isn't what I would call "trolling".

Most of the time when people here mention trolling, what they convey to me is their frustration with not being able to control what is posted or allowed.

[marshwiggle]

*lots of discussion techniques involve saying things to "provoke" an audience; usually the point is to raise some sort of contradiction that the audience hasn't previously considered so its purpose is to make them rethink their position, rather than just to be upset.

I'm not hoping to get anyone to rethink their position. Although it's fine if that happens. I'm just having random thoughts. If anyone doesn't like it, they have a problem I guess.

Sure. My point was that even some situations where a person's intent is to provoke, it still isn't what I would call "trolling".

Most of the time when people here mention trolling, what they convey to me is their frustration with not being able to control what is posted or allowed.

That's the strange part, especially in a setting populated by academics. In middle school, being surrounded by a group of people who all (appear to) think exactly alike is desirable; among intellectuals it used to be seen as stifling (and naive). Now it's "enlightened".

[FishProf]

The fact that the audience is annoyed doesn't make it trolling; it's when annoying the audience is the intended (and *only) objective that makes it trolling (in my opinion).

Why only?

[marshwiggle]

The fact that the audience is annoyed doesn't make it trolling; it's when annoying the audience is the intended (and *only) objective that makes it trolling (in my opinion).

Why only?

As someone said, "If two people agree on everything, then one of them is redundant." What's the point of a discussion where every time someone says something everyone else says, "Me Too!"?
The discussion only becomes interesting when someone says something like "but what about.....".

[FishProf]

The fact that the audience is annoyed doesn't make it trolling; it's when annoying the audience is the intended (and *only) objective that makes it trolling (in my opinion).

Why only?

As someone said, "If two people agree on everything, then one of them is redundant." What's the point of a discussion where every time someone says something everyone else says, "Me Too!"?
The discussion only becomes interesting when someone says something like "but what about.....".

I'm sorry, I didn't follow that response at all.

Are you saying it's trolling when the goal is to be annoying, and it ceases to be trolling if there is also another goal? 

[marshwiggle]

The fact that the audience is annoyed doesn't make it trolling; it's when annoying the audience is the intended (and *only) objective that makes it trolling (in my opinion).

Why only?

As someone said, "If two people agree on everything, then one of them is redundant." What's the point of a discussion where every time someone says something everyone else says, "Me Too!"?
The discussion only becomes interesting when someone says something like "but what about.....".

I'm sorry, I didn't follow that response at all.

Are you saying it's trolling when the goal is to be annoying, and it ceases to be trolling if there is also another goal?

Yes, that's how I would define it. Trolling (IMHO) is being offensive purely for the purpose of being offensive. Stating an unpopular and or controversial point of view may offend a lot of people, but if the point is to fuel a serious discussion then it's not trolling (in my view). Otherwise basically any political debate would qualify as trolling.