"Trolling"

[swansont]

Well, that was then and this is now. What was lacking then was a history of internet use by which to judge trolling. We now have such a history and that context provides the types of cues that Poe says require smilies and the like. The internet has its own disem-body language every bit as nuanced as body language.

 

No, it's absolutely no different.

[Acme]

No, it's absolutely no different.

We agree to disagree.

[Schneibster]

Amusingly I find myself in a discussion with Bryce Rydow on Daily Banter about trolling at this time. Bryce is a political blogger, so his opinion may be of interest (and a certain amount of credibility, this being his area of expertise) here regarding trolling.

 

He and I are discussing the definition of trolling and he has brought the Urban Dictionary (which is a Pretty Good Source for such things) definition of trolling:

 

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

 

 

I have proposed that there is an element if not of dishonesty, at least of disregard for the truth, involved in trolling. It is this element of essential disregard for the facts that is, in my view, the signature of the true troll. And I believe this is missing from the above definition.

The troll wishes to disrupt and during the disruption gain allies and co-disruptors.

The troll is uninterested in the truth or otherwise of its assertions; the only measure of them is the disruption they cause. Their truth is irrelevant. This is the worst characteristic of the troll.

I have also noted that lately (i.e. this century), trolling is no longer a male monopoly. As many women as men are willing to troll, in my experience. Errr, yay trolling gurgle. I'm totally in favor of equal rights, but I'm not in favor of anyone being an asshole, no matter what their rights are.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Schneibster

[Acme]

Amusingly I find myself in a discussion with Bryce Rydow on Daily Banter about trolling at this time. Bryce is a political blogger, so his opinion may be of interest (and a certain amount of credibility, this being his area of expertise) here regarding trolling.

 

He and I are discussing the definition of trolling and he has brought the Urban Dictionary (which is a Pretty Good Source for such things) definition of trolling:

 

I have proposed that there is an element if not of dishonesty, at least of disregard for the truth, involved in trolling. It is this element of essential disregard for the facts that is, in my view, the signature of the true troll.

Borrowing from Swan, nuh uh. Where's a ROTFLMAO smilie when ya need one.

 

The dishonesty and disregard for truthiness are tools of the trade, but not what defines the troll. The defining nature is the intent to disrupt & annoy, or in the vulgar vernacular of Leave it to Beaver, give people the business. To that end the troll has many tools in their bag. Anyway, roger on Urban Dictionary. If I may be so bold as to quote liberally from your link in support and expansion of my assertion.

 

...

Common examples of trolling:

The long-term troll:

These guys don't mind waiting around for the fun to begin. They may pretend to be an average n00b, and give themselves the stereotypical interest(s) of the average member of said forum, then once having a few posts they will gradually try to spread dissent. This type may even pretend to be pally to the admin and get their msn (and try to crack their account password of course) whilst causing general disruption. May act under other proxies and slate these fake trolls on msn to the aforementioned gullible admin. These people, to be frank, usually have no life and love bringing message boards to their knees by putting considerable time into their carnage. If they crack the admins password the board is doomed.

 

The sophisticated troll:

This type will usually have some sort of distaste for whatever the said message board is discussing and try to cause annoyance as opposed to destructiveness. They will parody the members and see how much they can get over their heads. Subtle pisstaking being their route. They'll usually get banned in the end but will annoy an entire community using this drawn out approach.

 

The faker troll:

A clever troll, the main aim of the game is to, ironically, act really REALLY stupid, this trolls aim is to argue with members incoherently, usually using text speak. This is a ploy, the troll only needs to spend 10 seconds writing the babble when the member wastes 10 minutes writing a much more wordy reply. The troll will reply with a stupid rebuff making the member post as many long replies as possible. Using the members weight against them and wasting their forum time... If they are good then their act will be believable and they probably won't get banned unless the admin is strict on txt tlk.

...

[DiogenesThaDogg]

There is a surprising lack of support for trolling in this thread.

 

There are many different types of trolls. Most of them are useless. Most of what passes as a "troll" nowadays is simply someone playing the part of: unsophisticated pot-stirrer, a relentless contrarian, a shock-jock, or an idiot.

 

The useful troll exists. I seen it! (anyone seen FYAD on SomethingAwful.com? extremely talented philosophy-trolls who attempt to repair idiocy) The useful troll is someone who (as was Kierkegaard) is skilled in "the art of taking away".A useful troll is a philosopher at heart, because only philosophers have this irrational, irrepressible urge to "fix" things. This useful troll will always choose her targets carefully.

 

What merit is there in belittling a cancer survivor? None, it's mean-spirited and unfunny. Conversely, what merit is there in belittling someone who, against overwhelming advice, attempted to live on a farm on his own in the middle of the Hawaiian jungle with no agricultural experience and grew sick drinking unfiltered water that pigs splash in, then complained about it to the very people who warned him? A lot. It's funny because it's his own damn fault, and if no one will belittle him, it is entirely possible that he may grow to think his own ineptitude was not to blame for his misfortune and never learn. Similarly, those who watch this episode unfold won't learn an important life lesson if someone does not humorously, obliquely and (most importantly) uniquely creatively humiliate this person.

 

It is essential to show people their missteps. If trolling is the only way to show a group of people how one ought to live, then it would be immoral NOT to troll.

Trolls are bullies that are too weak and cowardly to pick on a person in real life. So they go out and harass people on the internet where they know there is no way the victim can punch them in the face for being a jerk.

 

That's a really limited definition. For example, what if a troll evaluates all potential targets and only seeks out bullies? Is a troll a bully for bullying bullies? Is it trolling to point out others mistakes in a humorous fashion? What is a polite troll? Your definition does nothing to address these important questions.

 

I have proposed that there is an element if not of dishonesty, at least of disregard for the truth, involved in trolling. It is this element of essential disregard for the facts that is, in my view, the signature of the true troll. And I believe this is missing from the above definition.

The troll wishes to disrupt and during the disruption gain allies and co-disruptors.

The troll is uninterested in the truth or otherwise of its assertions; the only measure of them is the disruption they cause. Their truth is irrelevant. This is the worst characteristic of the troll.

I have also noted that lately (i.e. this century), trolling is no longer a male monopoly. As many women as men are willing to troll, in my experience. Errr, yay trolling gurgle. I'm totally in favor of equal rights, but I'm not in favor of anyone being an asshole, no matter what their rights are.

 

How do you know that a troll only cares for the disruption, no matter what? Have you ever trolled anyone? Have you never met a troll with a conscience? You're attacking a strawman, if I may say so.

Edited April 7, 2014 by DiogenesThaDogg

[swansont]

There is a surprising lack of support for trolling in this thread.

 

There are many different types of trolls. Most of them are useless. Most of what passes as a "troll" nowadays is simply someone playing the part of: unsophisticated pot-stirrer, a relentless contrarian, a shock-jock, or an idiot.

 

The useful troll exists. I seen it! (anyone seen FYAD on SomethingAwful.com? extremely talented philosophy-trolls who attempt to repair idiocy) The useful troll is someone who (as was Kierkegaard) is skilled in "the art of taking away".A useful troll is a philosopher at heart, because only philosophers have this irrational, irrepressible urge to "fix" things. This useful troll will always choose her targets carefully.

 

What merit is there in belittling a cancer survivor? None, it's mean-spirited and unfunny. Conversely, what merit is there in belittling someone who, against overwhelming advice, attempted to live on a farm on his own in the middle of the Hawaiian jungle with no agricultural experience and grew sick drinking unfiltered water that pigs splash in, then complained about it to the very people who warned him? A lot. It's funny because it's his own damn fault, and if no one will belittle him, it is entirely possible that he may grow to think his own ineptitude was not to blame for his misfortune and never learn. Similarly, those who watch this episode unfold won't learn an important life lesson if someone does not humorously, obliquely and (most importantly) uniquely creatively humiliate this person.

 

It is essential to show people their missteps. If trolling is the only way to show a group of people how one ought to live, then it would be immoral NOT to troll.

 

That's a really limited definition. For example, what if a troll evaluates all potential targets and only seeks out bullies? Is a troll a bully for bullying bullies? Is it trolling to point out others mistakes in a humorous fashion? What is a polite troll? Your definition does nothing to address these important questions.

How do you know that a troll only cares for the disruption, no matter what? Have you ever trolled anyone? Have you never met a troll with a conscience? You're attacking a strawman, if I may say so.

 

Not all mockery is trolling. Trolling, by the definition with which I am familiar, is deliberately stirring the pot with no other goal in mind, i.e. it's completely selfish. You've described some sort of activism.

 

(I would be interested, at this point, for Acme to declare whether someone who posts what you did in your first line is a troll or not)

[Phi for All]

I have also noted that lately (i.e. this century), trolling is no longer a male monopoly. As many women as men are willing to troll, in my experience.

 

While the drive towards controversy is present in both genders, I'm not sure your experience here can be applied generally. There is a tendency for men to question the logic of women, and most of the responses can seem like trolling if you already think women have faulty (or at least different) logic.

 

I think women have a more strategic outlook where men tend to think tactically. If a man says, "The forest is on fire, we need to put it out", and a woman responds with, "Maybe it's best to let it burn", the man might likely think the woman is trolling/crazy. Maybe she is, or maybe she's thinking about the more long-term health of the forest.

[Acme]

...

 

(I would be interested, at this point, for Acme to declare whether someone who posts what you did in your first line is a troll or not)

Well, you put me on some thin ice by couching your comment so generally, but trolling is as trolling does. I read the post when it appeared and chose not to feed it.

[swansont]

Well, you put me on some thin ice by couching your comment so generally, but trolling is as trolling does. I read the post when it appeared and chose not to feed it.

 

To me that says that you think the poster does not actually believe what s/he posted.

[Acme]

To me that says that you think the poster does not actually believe what s/he posted.

 

No; it says/means just as you said/meant in/by your reply to the poster. Paraphrasing, trolling is deliberately stirring the pot with no other goal in mind.

[Schneibster]

How do you know that a troll only cares for the disruption, no matter what? Have you ever trolled anyone? Have you never met a troll with a conscience? You're attacking a strawman, if I may say so.

 

Good question. +1.

 

I believe your first statement is correct: the aim of the troll is to disrupt, annoy, irritate, and create drama.

 

But I think your hypothetical "good troll" is not truly a troll. I'm not saying they're not trolling; they might be. But they're not there to be a troll. The true troll thrives on watching other people fight.

 

if you already think women have faulty (or at least different) logic.

 

 

I don't. I think there is a cultural tendency to encourage them to think and behave in accordance with their emotions rather than their rational thoughts; some (most, unfortunately, in my generation; this seems to be changing) succumb to it, some do not. Independent dispassionate thought is certainly not the sole province of men, and no more is irrational, herd-driven, emotional reaction the sole province of women.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Schneibster

[Dekan]

 

 

 

I think women have a more strategic outlook where men tend to think tactically. If a man says, "The forest is on fire, we need to put it out", and a woman responds with, "Maybe it's best to let it burn", the man might likely think the woman is trolling/crazy. Maybe she is, or maybe she's thinking about the more long-term health of the forest.

 

Aren't women biologically predisposed to think tactically. They've got a baby to care for. So, when confronted by a forest-fire, they panic and scream: "My baby will get burned by the fire, so put it out right now!"

 

Whereas a man takes his time, and thinks more strategically: "Well, even if the fire destroys the present baby, it can be replaced,in 9 months. And the replacement baby will benefit from the burning.of the forest. The burning will clear the land, Thus providing space to create fields. And these fields, when plowed and sown, can used to grow crops, which will provide food to support many future babies. Therefore, let the fire burn!"

 

Isn't it good that this cool male strategic reasoning prevailed in human history - and enabled us to develop farming?

[davidivad]

i agree.

if it were not for burning babies, we would not be who we are now.

if it were not for the troll, we would have nobody to blame at all.

[Dekan]

The male troll is necessary. Otherwise, we'd all be agreeing with each other all the time, Especially the women. Can you imagine a Science Forums with all-female participants?

 

They'd be talking about scientific formulas for recipes, and fashions, and hair-do's.

 

I don't believe there are any real female trolls. Women are in general too nice to be trolls Only males have the vital disruptive element, which lies at the core of original thinking. Thinking by males has energised art and science throughout history. Women just trail along. That's not to disparage them, they can write good detective stories. But even those stories are quite well-mannered, which is as it should be, for a lady.

[Acme]

... That's not to disparage them, ... But ...

In my experience such phraseology means exactly the opposite. If you want to start that kind of trouble, start a new thread and don't derail this one. (Unless of course you meant to be clever and posted that as an example of trolling in the trolling thread. Even so, it is lame.)

[swansont]

The male troll is necessary. Otherwise, we'd all be agreeing with each other all the time, Especially the women. Can you imagine a Science Forums with all-female participants?

 

They'd be talking about scientific formulas for recipes, and fashions, and hair-do's.

 

I don't believe there are any real female trolls. Women are in general too nice to be trolls Only males have the vital disruptive element, which lies at the core of original thinking. Thinking by males has energised art and science throughout history. Women just trail along. That's not to disparage them, they can write good detective stories. But even those stories are quite well-mannered, which is as it should be, for a lady.

 

(emphasis added)

 

Disparaging them is just a perq, then? I can tell you're not trolling, because you've brought up this sexist crap elsewhere. It's this kind of attitude within science that drives many capable women out. Having to constantly deal with such neanderthal attitudes in addition to doing science has got to be exhausting.

 

Your entire argument is based on a premise that you haven't shown to be valid. Since it's a stereotype that assumes all women are pretty much identical, it's hard for me to even provisionally accept it.

[CharonY]

Indeed. I would like to see him thrown into a meeting with some leading female scientists and watch his evisceration by these overly nice people...

Nice example of trolling, though.

Edited April 9, 2014 by CharonY

[Schneibster]

I didn't even dare respond to that.

 

I know a senior VP Dekan should meet for the improvement of attitude. She's a redhead.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Schneibster

[tar]

Thread,

 

Well if I might...the bringing up of male and female in the context of who is liable to troll is interesting in regards to the being able to join the club or not. The value of, or faults of testosterone could be debated, but it is difficult for females to have it, understand it, and use it, as well as a male. That is it is not easy for a female to join the testosterone club, or for a male to join the estrogen one.

 

On the playground, it was found that females tend to play cooperative games that have no winners and losers, while males tended to play games that had teams and winners and losers.

 

Such things as T-ball makes some high degree of sense to the moms, and absolutely no sense to the dads. Imagine, playing baseball, without 9 man teams, and strikes and balls and outs, rules, consequences, winners and losers. Does not fit with the testosterone based reasons to play the game in the first place.

 

So, in terms of trolling, it is perhaps more likely to be engaged in by a male, because a male would be more likely to enter a village, look for the king, identify the king, and challenge the king for supremacy rights, than would a female, who would more likely come into a village, identify the king and seduce him so that she could have princes and princesses as children.

 

For someone to enter a club (talkboard) with the sole purpose of disruption, sowing discord, unseating the king, or queen, or ruling parties, and replacing them, with themselves, they are probably going to be testosterone driven, to do such a thing. Lone wolves who don't mind choosing themselves captain of a team of one. Something I am quessing I could understand as a male, that a woman would see no value in, whatsoever.

 

In the animal kingdom (a club we are already members of) Alpha male is a role more understood and aspired to by males than females. On the school yard, men choose captains, who choose teams, who then compete for victory.

 

Who is being more tactical, and who is being more strategic is beside the point. It depends more on whose team you are on, and whether you are captain or not, and whether you are playing baseball or T-ball to decide when a troll has entered the encampment.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

In the animal kingdom (a club we are already members of) Alpha male is a role more understood and aspired to by males than females. On the school yard, men choose captains, who choose teams, who then compete for victory.

 

… and, by extension, women do not compete, and therefore do not play sports. Riiiiiight.

 

Can we get away from the 1950s stereotype sexism and back to reality (and the discussion of the OP)? Or are you just giving an example of trolling?

[Marshalscienceguy]

There is a surprising lack of support for trolling in this thread.

 

There are many different types of trolls. Most of them are useless. Most of what passes as a "troll" nowadays is simply someone playing the part of: unsophisticated pot-stirrer, a relentless contrarian, a shock-jock, or an idiot.

 

The useful troll exists. I seen it! (anyone seen FYAD on SomethingAwful.com? extremely talented philosophy-trolls who attempt to repair idiocy) The useful troll is someone who (as was Kierkegaard) is skilled in "the art of taking away".A useful troll is a philosopher at heart, because only philosophers have this irrational, irrepressible urge to "fix" things. This useful troll will always choose her targets carefully.

 

What merit is there in belittling a cancer survivor? None, it's mean-spirited and unfunny. Conversely, what merit is there in belittling someone who, against overwhelming advice, attempted to live on a farm on his own in the middle of the Hawaiian jungle with no agricultural experience and grew sick drinking unfiltered water that pigs splash in, then complained about it to the very people who warned him? A lot. It's funny because it's his own damn fault, and if no one will belittle him, it is entirely possible that he may grow to think his own ineptitude was not to blame for his misfortune and never learn. Similarly, those who watch this episode unfold won't learn an important life lesson if someone does not humorously, obliquely and (most importantly) uniquely creatively humiliate this person.

 

It is essential to show people their missteps. If trolling is the only way to show a group of people how one ought to live, then it would be immoral NOT to troll.

 

That's a really limited definition. For example, what if a troll evaluates all potential targets and only seeks out bullies? Is a troll a bully for bullying bullies? Is it trolling to point out others mistakes in a humorous fashion? What is a polite troll? Your definition does nothing to address these important questions.

How do you know that a troll only cares for the disruption, no matter what? Have you ever trolled anyone? Have you never met a troll with a conscience? You're attacking a strawman, if I may say so.

Than you have made a terrible error. You do not troll a troll. That only makes it worse. Trolls thrive for attention and so you would be as they say "Feeding the trolls" and that is never a good thing.

[Schneibster]

I know a man who thinks womens' college basketball is the ultimate distillation of the game. I'm not sure I disagree; I have rooted for the Stanford women numerous times. They nearly went to the Big Dance this year and they are perennially close. I spent a night on vacation once upon a time, with the Schneibsteress who is an inveterate sports fan, in the hotel room watching the Stanford game, Elite Eight or Final Four, I don't recall which, because they closed down the bar and turned off the TV before it was over. Furthermore, Naismith originally developed it for college. It's respectful of the game.

 

And I cheered myself hoarse for Brandy Chastain. And I think she should be able to take off her jersey if she wants. Girls with big knockers walk around in bikinis all the time. Pretty outrageous bikinis, on occasion, too. She was just being elated, and what she did justifies that. I would never criticize. I might get a bit sarcastic about it if she took off all her clothes. Just her sports jersey? Get over it. Good for her.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Schneibster

[tar]

Swansont,

 

No, my 50s sexism was not meant as an example of trolling. But it does bring up a point about the OP or the trolling topic and Poe's law and all that, in that it is said to be impossible to distinquish between genuine extremism and feigned extremism on a board, especially without smilely faces.

 

Reality is, when it comes to TAR, I am the genuine article. Kooky no doubt, but not feigning anything for effect. Just registering my opinions, for the sake of conversation, and for the sake of adding my two cents in the hopes that somebody is collecting pennies.

 

I have faith that the bad pennies will be tossed and the good ones put in the bank...eventually...but any bad pennies I offer, are offered in good faith, and are not intentionally offered as bad pennies.

 

Not that many of my opinions are not flawed, or partially sexist, or homophobic, or racist, or brash, or uncaring of this or that person's feelings, but I attempt to be honest and ethical in the presentation of my opinions.

 

To be sexist or homophobic or hold the beliefs and opinions I have and NOT express them honestly would be unethical.

 

But here we are back to the problem in identifying a troll, since it is SO difficult to tell the difference between genuine holders of non-mainstream, extremist beliefs, and a parody of them.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

Swansont,

 

No, my 50s sexism was not meant as an example of trolling.

 

OK, then you're just blatantly wrong about women. Fortunately, that's correctable.

[CharonY]

 

In the animal kingdom (a club we are already members of) Alpha male is a role more understood and aspired to by males than females. On the school yard, men choose captains, who choose teams, who then compete for victory.

 

And again extrapolation of ignorance rears its ugly head. Alpha as term is used in specific contexts (and sometimes wrongly) and it is well known that they can be either female or male and in some species there are alpha male as well females (i.e. in cases where there is separate rankings in either sex. In both, females and males their roles have been extensively studied in a variety of species. This includes the studies of de Waal on rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees, for example. Then there are species which are dominated by females (such as hyena) in which the lowest ranking female outranks the highest ranking male (technically the alpha male).

 

Essentially a faulty appeal to nature based on ignorance.