Don't Feed the Trolls

You wait till I get my pump.

[sorry, end]

 

That was supposed to stay between us.

So much for PRIVATE message. Jeez.

 

Okay so as an ancient internet wizard let me explain this. Tenderiser already explained it pretty well, actually, but to go into the deeper history a little bit:

So the historical, and classic, definition of a troll is someone who would (generally) say things they didn't actually think or believe just to provoke people. Like a lot of those people calling Leslie Jones an 'ape' and 'gorilla' were just trolling, many of them weren't actually racist and didn't actually believe what they were saying (of course you can argue that whether they were 'joking' or not that they were still racists but this is kind of another argument entirely), they were merely saying something that they knew would upset people. So yes, the classic definition of trolling was "pretending to believe something you don't" but for the purpose of trying to provoke and cause problems. Ken M is an example of benevolent and 'friendly' trolling, I guess (also he's fucking hilarious).

In more modern terms, 'trolling' has kind of come to mean provoking people with something you know will negatively provoke them regardless of if you believe it or not. A legitimate alt-righter fascist will go onto NeoPets or FriendlyForums.com or WeLoveHillary.co or something like that and spew their fascist ideas, insulting people and generally being a nuisance. They're basically like the old-school definition of a troll, only they actually do believe what they're saying. Their purpose is still the same, though, it's to bait people and watch them get upset.

This second form of troll is more problematic than the first, not just because they legitimately believe the crap they say, but also because they're trying to use trolling as a form of superior reinforcement. Instead of actually arguing what they think or having a debate of thoughts, they "troll" and piss people off, so to them it's like some kind of righteous antagonizing and proves their point that their opposition is dumb or babies or whatever. A fascist will 'troll' Reddit and then turn to one of his buddies and go "yeah lol my thread about how black people are naturally inclined to crime made those cucks on reddit mad lmao". Instead of offering their opinions to their opponents in a way that provides actual debate or argument, they """"troll""" so that they can preach their thoughts, but without the responsibility of having to actually defend them. It's a logic of "I don't respect those who disagree with me enough to even converse with them, so I'll just 'throw the truth at them' and watch as they get mad."

The problem with the first, classic form of trolling is that 'pretending' to be racist or sexist or whatever only leads to actual racists and sexists noticing you. It didn't take very long for the 'let's troll everyone by calling Leslie Jones a monkey' crowd to turn into the 'we're legitimate racists who saw the Leslie Jones trolling and we think it's all serious and are now seriously contributing to it' crowd. Remember Pepe the cartoon frog? Once upon a time, people made comics and images of him being an alt-right extremist and KKK member as a joke. The absurdity that some stupid cartoon frog meme guy was promoting racial violence and stuff was the joke, but when actual racists saw it, they didn't see it as absurdist humor, they saw it as actual humor and adopted it for themselves.

so there you go i guess

 

Yes, that would be my preferred approach. Just present what you know is the correct information WITHOUT calling the other person some kind of a name, or telling him/her that they are stupid, or putting words in their mouth, or using inflammatory language that's guaranteed to get people all het up. If they respond with name calling or inflammatory language, then report them.

Just being wrong does NOT make you a troll, by the way. Anybody can be wrong, and some people either don't believe they're wrong or struggle to admit they are wrong. This is common to any kind of conversation. If you present your contrasting information in a logical and well-documented way, that's all you really need to do. Let the reader of the thread make up their minds who is right and who is wrong. Engaging in a huge argument, name-calling, insulting, etc does not really help the situation.

And sometimes right/wrong can be in the eye of the beholder as well. Lots of what we discuss on this forum is a matter of opinion and perspective.

 

You've pretty much covered it, in terms of definition. And also that the idea of 'troll' has been evolving. Certainly any site which promotes any kind of political philosopy will be constantly trolled by people from the opposite perspective. I quite like to get an opposite persepective, but not when it's just name calling. I especially get annoyed at the ones which carry on about something pretty unrelated to the topic of a thread, or start giving political figures a bad time because they've only managed to solve a few problems during their 5 minutes in office, and haven't managed to put the entire world to rights yet.

There was a lot of stuff on Facebook over the past few days pertaining to the Florida shooting, gun control, etc. Then somebody chimes in with 'well, what about the umpteen babies that get killed by abortion every year?' Well, hey. And what about the children of Yemen who are being gunned down as we speak. And what about the children who get caught in the crossfire during gang wars in Columbia? And what about the children who don't get enough to eat in a famine area? And what about the children who don't have...whatever... you get the picture. These kinds of people are derailing threads. If they feel the two issues are connected, they need to make that connection, not just drop a statement like this and walk away. Which is what that person did. Fortunately, nobody responded to him.

Not responding to trolls is the best way to deal with them, in my opinion. But there are so many good folk out there who can't resist rising to the bait. And this just keeps trolls going, doesn't it?

 

Yeah, exactly. These days, people treat forums and facebook and stuff like YahooNews comment sections. Instead of really posting their thoughts or their ideas, they just kind of one-off slap down something they normally know is going to be controversial or rousing and then walk away, either ignoring or silently observing people's reactions. It's this dismissive "I say it how I think" attitude that eventually develops into people doing it for the more or less reason of 'trolling'.

 

Back in the glory days of icanhascheezburger we had a sticky post on the various sorts of Internet trolls. Unfortunately the site has changed so much I can't find it. It included deliberate troublemakers, as @TheRealStegBlog describes, but also those who were so intensely focussed on their own cause or concern that they seemed determined to derail what the thread was about. E.g., the Care Troll, who couldn't see a meme with a kitteh behind the wheel of a car without going on a rant about how dangerous that was and how cats in automobiles should always be in carriers, etc., etc. Maybe people like that were just trying to stir up trouble. Regardless, the the common verdict on all varieties of Troll was Don't Feed 'Em.

Oops, found it, now reposted at Cheezland.org: Troll Guide. It's in LOLSpeke, but that shouldn't give anyone here much trouble.

 

Priceless. Dey need tu add de Fake News troll tu de list, thow.

 

I have to admit I don't understand this. In the example you cited, the connection should be obvious. While that sort of comment is definitely a kind of trolling, and convinces nobody of anything, I'd see it as calling out hypocrisy, the ugliest form of dishonesty.

 

Well, my immediate question would be: what has abortion got to do with gun control? It's up to the person who introduces the tangent to relate it to the original topic. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it wasn't done. And what might look like hypocrisy to one person simply doesn't add up to another person. Fair enough, if this person saw the connection ...he should have pointed it out. But it dropped into the conversation as if it was a little firecracker put there just to derail the train. If you're going to make a point, you need to actually make it. Not just hint at it.

 

How can one link abortion and gun control? That is a horrifying thought to even
imagine how to fabricate the correlation of the two.

 

Hmm. Well they’re both fundamental Constitutional rights in the U.S., so I suppose one could use them to illustrate disparate treatment of fundamental rights by a person—an example of picking and choosing which part of the Constitution an individual deems worthy of support. That’s one way

 

Fetuses should not have access to assault weapons, under penalty of early termination,

 

I can, in at least two ways, but this isn't the Debate Room ...

 

I was taught in my early teens how to safely handle and use firearms, and to appreciate their danger. My kids were given the same training, and so have my son's kids. No unsupervised access. No touching any unattended weapon. Takes the mystique and "forbidden fruit" aspects out of firearms, as well as showing how destructive they can be.

Ignorance is the real killer. Active parenting passes along values and builds responsibility.

 

From trolls to gun control, this is going to go well.

 

I agree with a lot of this, but then the issue extends a bit further. Even if someone is a responsible gun owner, what happens if they get manically depressed or suffer from other severe mental issues and eventually have that 'one bad day' that ends up with someone getting shot by a gun? What happens if a home intruder steals one of your firearms and uses it in a violent crime?

The real respect for guns, I think, is that they're highly powerful weapons and all you have to do is pull a trigger (assuming the gun is loaded and prepared for firing properly). Accidents or lapses of rationality happen in all aspects of life, but when they occur with guns, the results can be very bad. I guess it comes down to how you personally weigh the freedom to own and use a firearm versus the potential for human error/misuse to result in tragic outcomes.

 

Nop

Nope. It’s not going to go anywhere, actually. This isn’t even remotely the correct section for this discussion. One would need a General Products Hull and a Pierson’s Puppeteer to even get started to get there from here.