Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted April 26, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted April 26, 2017 Internet trolls exist in the Mormon world, just like it does elsewhere on the internet. Usually trolls are outsiders who enter a discussion or group to disrupt the conversation. In the past few days I have witnessed at least 3 accusations of trolling. One was directed at me and two towards others. It's more than I'm accustomed to seeing on this board and I don't know if those making the accusations understand how offensive the term can be. From Wikepedia about internet trolls- Quote In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement. Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll Please note that referring to a person as a troll, or engaging in trolling, is generally accepted as pejorative and can (and often is) seen as an ad hominem attack "suggesting negative motivation." Calling a person a troll is essentially telling them to get out, that they don't belong, and that their statement/position has zero merit. That's not a very healthy accusation to make on a discussion board. Especially when this name calling and accusing is aimed at long-time posters on this board, it feels extremely dismissive and almost always ad hominem. Now I will await my censure for board nannying. 6 Link to comment
Popular Post bluebell Posted April 26, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted April 26, 2017 I agree that it's hardly ever useful to call someone a troll. It doesn't accomplish anything good. For the sake of discussion, I also think it's important to recognize that the term is subjective and also that it can be a valid accusation and is not always an ad hominem attack. I think the problem is that it's often difficult to tell the difference between sincerity and manipulation/deceit. We've had people come to the board in the past and misrepresent themselves and the only way it was discovered was because someone found them on another board laughing and making fun of this one for buying their story. People can be very convincing. And some posters, who remember those rare instances, have a bit of a "once bitten twice shy" mentally that makes them warier than they otherwise might be. 5 Link to comment
mrmarklin Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 There is a person on this site that posts Anti stuff just to get a rise. Ive called him out twice and will continue to do so. Link to comment
JulieM Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Internet trolls exist in the Mormon world, just like it does elsewhere on the internet. Usually trolls are outsiders who enter a discussion or group to disrupt the conversation. In the past few days I have witnessed at least 3 accusations of trolling. One was directed at me and two towards others. It's more than I'm accustomed to seeing on this board and I don't know if those making the accusations understand how offensive the term can be. From Wikepedia about internet trolls- Please note that referring to a person as a troll, or engaging in trolling, is generally accepted as pejorative and can (and often is) seen as an ad hominem attack "suggesting negative motivation." Calling a person a troll is essentially telling them to get out, that they don't belong, and that their statement/position has zero merit. That's not a very healthy accusation to make on a discussion board. Especially when this name calling and accusing is aimed at long-time posters on this board, it feels extremely dismissive and almost always ad hominem. Now I will await my censure for board nannying. It's funny you'd post this as I'd noticed several labeling other posters as "trolls" here recently. Yesterday I even looked up to see what the definition of an online troll was. I found these (link below) to be interesting (and even smiled at the "grammar and spellcheck troll" description ). Here's "10 Types of Internet Trolls You'll Meet Online": https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-internet-trolls-3485894 It seems to be used here recently as an insult or jab and not very effective. Those who've been accused of being a troll didn't fit what I'd thought a troll was (that's why I looked it up!). Edited April 26, 2017 by JulieM 3 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted April 26, 2017 Author Share Posted April 26, 2017 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: I agree that it's hardly ever useful to call someone a troll. It doesn't accomplish anything good. For the sake of discussion, I also think it's important to recognize that the term is subjective and also that it can be a valid accusation and is not always an ad hominem attack. I think the problem is that it's often difficult to tell the difference between sincerity and manipulation/deceit. We've had people come to the board in the past and misrepresent themselves and the only way it was discovered was because someone found them on another board laughing and making fun of this one for buying their story. People can be very convincing. And some posters, who remember those rare instances, have a bit of a "once bitten twice shy" mentally that makes them warier than they otherwise might be. I agree with everything here. It is partly because of the subjectivity of the term that judging someone and labeling them a troll is so problematic. You may have a comparison or a new way of looking at a topic that I don't understand. You share. I don't understand so I call you a troll for derailing in an attempt to shame you into being quiet. That is the problem. It is very rare that there have been legitimate trolls on this board. But calling a regular poster with 5000+ comments and tons of rep points a "troll" is an attempt to censor and poison the well against the poster. 4 Link to comment
Johnnie Cake Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) This is my take...coming from someone who has often been the target of these ad hominem trolling charges. While I do not enjoy the charge nor do I feel that it is ever appropriate to sink to name calling on this board, nor is it something I would personally choose to do, although I am sure I am not entirely guiltless, when another poster does resort to throwing out the pejorative Troll in a thread…I consider it a moral victory. It is a sign to me that at least with that one poster I have won the day and my argument or point of view has prevailed. That a fellow poster must resort to name calling instead of arguing the points of my post…is a sign that my argument has prevailed. I like what John Stewart used to do on his Daily Show when confronted with an ad hominem attack…he would merely embrace it and respond "yes, I'm an idiot, and yet even I can see the gaping flaws in your argument. So the question is, why can't you?" But to take a deeper dive as to why some posters resort to ad hominem attacks…a philosophy professor offers 3 reasons: 01. The belief that an argument is a simple competition in which winning or domination is the goal. That Personal understanding is unimportant, and mutual understanding is completely irrelevant; ad hominems are used to dominate the discussion through emotional reasoning. 02. The belief that there is no argument to make, because the absolutely correct position is already known. An ad hominem in this mode at best stiff-arms the discussion, pushing off any attempt to question the unquestionable by knocking over the people trying to do the questioning. At worst it de-evolves to mere trolling: refusing to engage the discussion in any meaningful way, but using the opportunity to annoy, aggravate and harass the other people involved. 03. The belief that arguing is entirely about social positioning; that the only meaningful outcome concerns which person looks best in the eyes of third parties. Ad hominem arguments in this mode are always blatant or subtle efforts to sabotage, undercut or demean the other people involved so that the speaker looks good, right, moral, trustworthy or in other ways better with fellow like-minded posters. Resorting to name calling or ad hominem basically exposes the weakness of the attackers argument, it’s the equivalent of waving a white flag and an admission of defeat. Edited April 26, 2017 by Johnnie Cake 3 Link to comment
JulieM Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I agree with everything here. It is partly because of the subjectivity of the term that judging someone and labeling them a troll is so problematic. You may have a comparison or a new way of looking at a topic that I don't understand. You share. I don't understand so I call you a troll for derailing in an attempt to shame you into being quiet. That is the problem. It is very rare that there have been legitimate trolls on this board. But calling a regular poster with 5000+ comments and tons of rep points a "troll" is an attempt to censor and poison the well against the poster. I'm not sure what's happening on here lately (seemed to start about a week or so ago). But there's been an increase of attacks and insults, etc, on posters who some don't agree with. This seems odd to me because this is a discussion board. It's resulted in some really great (and civil) posters being insulted and hurt. Some seemed emboldened by others doing this and joined in. That may be what happened with calling some regular posters "trolls" who they disagreed with. I'd have to look at the threads again to be sure though. Edited April 26, 2017 by JulieM 2 Link to comment
Rain Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I agree with everything here. It is partly because of the subjectivity of the term that judging someone and labeling them a troll is so problematic. You may have a comparison or a new way of looking at a topic that I don't understand. You share. I don't understand so I call you a troll for derailing in an attempt to shame you into being quiet. That is the problem. It is very rare that there have been legitimate trolls on this board. But calling a regular poster with 5000+ comments and tons of rep points a "troll" is an attempt to censor and poison the well against the poster. I don't think it is often used as an attempt to shame. Rather it is a problem with misunderstanding motive or another person being deceptive about motive. In the first case it will help if the person being called a troll looks at their communication and makes it less offensive and the person reading it assumes that the person is not trying to be trollish. Both have to be willing to look at themselves and make changes. When there really is a troll, even a regular contributer, who is being deceptive I'm not sure what you can do without pointing out the deception (ETA - where the person is bragging somewhere the trouble they have caused). The problem is that is often left to interpretation and causes the moderators to check out where things have been "prooved" to be deception and that be all sorts of headaches for them. ETA Edited April 26, 2017 by Rain 3 Link to comment
Storm Rider Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 These types of, "Who, me?" or "I have never acted like that before!" said with wide eyes and full of pseudo-innocence. It is never ending and humorous to see so often. There must also be a recorder for these folks because the accusation of everything anyone else says being labeled as an ad hominem attack has become the consistent, unending accusation. To label the behavior of another as trollish MAY be an ad hominem attack, but far more often it is a simple warning to stop feeding the troll. The guilty would like for it to be an ad hominem attack because it sidesteps the reality that their posts are designed to stir up controversy, cause dissension, and simply being piggish. It is not hard to never hear or read the label of being a troll - and it is most certainly effective when others stop feeding the troll - simply stop acting like a troll. The old saying, "If it walks like a duck and it sounds like a duck, it is actually a duck" comes to mind. If I disagree with someone I tell them, but too often of late we have participants that feel entitled to act the troll. I don't like it and I don't accept it - when I see it I typically will either tell people to stop feeding the troll or just leave the site. If the behavior is repetitive and becomes the norm for an individual I place them on ignore and forget about them. I tend to wait a few weeks and then remove the ignore just to see if their behavior has changed, if it hasn't I put them on ignore again and forget about them. No, Johnnie, you obviously are not on ignore. Yes, Happy Jack, you have been on ignore for some time. Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Calling a person a troll is essentially telling them to get out, that they don't belong, and that their statement/position has zero merit. That's not a very healthy accusation to make on a discussion board. Especially when this name calling and accusing is aimed at long-time posters on this board, it feels extremely dismissive and almost always ad hominem. I agree with this. But we do get our fair share of trolls stopping by. 1 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted April 26, 2017 Author Share Posted April 26, 2017 12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: To label the behavior of another as trollish MAY be an ad hominem attack, but far more often it is a simple warning to stop feeding the troll. The guilty would like for it to be an ad hominem attack because it sidesteps the reality that their posts are designed to stir up controversy, cause dissension, and simply being piggish. No, Johnnie, you obviously are not on ignore. Yes, Happy Jack, you have been on ignore for some time. It is ironic that some feel that to combat what they feel is "piggish" behavior that stirs up controversy and cause dissension, is to act "piggish" and cause dissension by name calling. Placing someone on ignore seems like a very reasonable response if you are unhappy with a certain poster's tone or the way they always tend to win the argument, but it seems unreasonable to try to shut them down via name-calling. I find it funny that you are defending name-calling when you feel it is warranted. I'm not perfect in this either. It is unfortunate (for you) you were not able to ignore me sufficiently that you felt the need to respond to me on this thread. Is your ignore function not working properly? Hopefully you can ignore me more effectively so that you can find greater peace on this board. 2 Link to comment
Johnnie Cake Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: These types of, "Who, me?" or "I have never acted like that before!" said with wide eyes and full of pseudo-innocence. It is never ending and humorous to see so often. There must also be a recorder for these folks because the accusation of everything anyone else says being labeled as an ad hominem attack has become the consistent, unending accusation. To label the behavior of another as trollish MAY be an ad hominem attack, but far more often it is a simple warning to stop feeding the troll. The guilty would like for it to be an ad hominem attack because it sidesteps the reality that their posts are designed to stir up controversy, cause dissension, and simply being piggish. It is not hard to never hear or read the label of being a troll - and it is most certainly effective when others stop feeding the troll - simply stop acting like a troll. The old saying, "If it walks like a duck and it sounds like a duck, it is actually a duck" comes to mind. If I disagree with someone I tell them, but too often of late we have participants that feel entitled to act the troll. I don't like it and I don't accept it - when I see it I typically will either tell people to stop feeding the troll or just leave the site. If the behavior is repetitive and becomes the norm for an individual I place them on ignore and forget about them. I tend to wait a few weeks and then remove the ignore just to see if their behavior has changed, if it hasn't I put them on ignore again and forget about them. No, Johnnie, you obviously are not on ignore. Yes, Happy Jack, you have been on ignore for some time. I think the point of this thread is a call to each of us to move to higher moral ground. To attack the Point Of View and not the one making the POV. If someone has a case, make it...but if all one has left is to resort to name calling...they've already lost the argument...they just don't know it. Even throwing out "don't feed the troll" warnings is ad hominem. It's the equivalent of saying "Don't discuss the OP, we don't have any logical argument to counter the OP so let's all retreat from the battlefield while we still can". 2 Link to comment
Johnnie Cake Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 I'd just like to add....that as someone who is often referred to as a critic or worse...please understand that there is a learning curve on how exactly to behave on MD&D. I look at some of my early posts and I can see that my all guns a blazing approach didn't get me very far. Whether anyone recognizes it or not...I personally believe that I've come along way from my early days here....yet I still often feel misunderstood so I guess I still have work to do. 4 Link to comment
Ahab Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 As a general rule I prefer not to refer to anyone by any term that is commonly considered a pejorative term. And I prefer not to be referred to by any pejorative term, as well. I just try to focus on the content of the message and think of anything positive I can say in response, sometimes explaining why I don't agree with someone else's comments, but still focusing on the content of their message and trying to remain positive. The people who frustrate me, without naming names, are the people who accuse me or others of being insensitive, rude, prideful, arrogant, not humble, not a good communicator, etc... anything anyone would usually consider an insult and a negatively personal thing to say. Usually I'll just try to forgive and forget without responding in kind because when any conversation is at that level it is rare to see anything good come out of it. People should consider each other to be equals, in personal terms, with some just knowing more than some others and with those who know more just trying to help to teach those who don't know what they know, without anyone getting negatively personal. 2 Link to comment
Popular Post bluebell Posted April 26, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted April 26, 2017 27 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: This is my take...coming from someone who has often been the target of these ad hominem trolling charges. While I do not enjoy the charge nor do I feel that it is ever appropriate to sink to name calling on this board, nor is it something I would personally choose to do, although I am sure I am not entirely guiltless, when another poster does resort to throwing out the pejorative Troll in a thread…I consider it a moral victory. It is a sign to me that at least with that one poster I have won the day and my argument or point of view has prevailed. That a fellow poster must resort to name calling instead of arguing the points of my post…is a sign that my argument has prevailed. I like what John Stewart used to do on his Daily Show when confronted with an ad hominem attack…he would merely embrace it and respond "yes, I'm an idiot, and yet even I can see the gaping flaws in your argument. So the question is, why can't you?" But to take a deeper dive as to why some posters resort to ad hominem attacks…a philosophy professor offers 3 reasons: 01. The belief that an argument is a simple competition in which winning or domination is the goal. That Personal understanding is unimportant, and mutual understanding is completely irrelevant; ad hominems are used to dominate the discussion through emotional reasoning. 02. The belief that there is no argument to make, because the absolutely correct position is already known. An ad hominem in this mode at best stiff-arms the discussion, pushing off any attempt to question the unquestionable by knocking over the people trying to do the questioning. At worst it de-evolves to mere trolling: refusing to engage the discussion in any meaningful way, but using the opportunity to annoy, aggravate and harass the other people involved. 03. The belief that arguing is entirely about social positioning; that the only meaningful outcome concerns which person looks best in the eyes of third parties. Ad hominem arguments in this mode are always blatant or subtle efforts to sabotage, undercut or demean the other people involved so that the speaker looks good, right, moral, trustworthy or in other ways better with fellow like-minded posters. Resorting to name calling or ad hominem basically exposes the weakness of the attackers argument, it’s the equivalent of waving a white flag and an admission of defeat. I don't know if i agree. I think that resorting to calling someone a name just exposes that the other person is angry. It might mean that they are trying to mask the weakness of their argument by deflection, or it might mean that they are just really angry and feel justified in not "taking someone's crap anymore" (to put it from their perspective). I don't think declaring yourself the victor and assigning thoughts and feelings to the other person (that they secret agree your argument is superior and can't refute it) makes you look much better than the person calling you a troll. It's also kind of interesting that you automatically view someone calling you a troll as an admission of defeat, especially when you read number one above. You've framed the whole disagreement between you and the other poster in terms of who has really "won the day." But according to the philosophy professor you quoted, that doesn't seem like a legitimate way to approach the interaction. 5 Link to comment
bluebell Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: It is ironic that some feel that to combat what they feel is "piggish" behavior that stirs up controversy and cause dissension, is to act "piggish" and cause dissension by name calling. Placing someone on ignore seems like a very reasonable response if you are unhappy with a certain poster's tone or the way they always tend to win the argument, but it seems unreasonable to try to shut them down via name-calling. I find it funny that you are defending name-calling when you feel it is warranted. I'm not perfect in this either. It is unfortunate (for you) you were not able to ignore me sufficiently that you felt the need to respond to me on this thread. Is your ignore function not working properly? Hopefully you can ignore me more effectively so that you can find greater peace on this board. The above bolded portion seems like a passive/aggressive way to make someone who puts anyone on ignore look bad because you basically implied that SR has you on ignore because he can't beat you in an argument. That doesn't seem like a fair or reasonable statement. Did SR (or someone else) say that was one reason the ignore button might be used or is it just your perspective? I've haven't read the whole thread and might have missed something; i'm trying to understand the origin. I think we have to be really really careful not to resort to passive/aggressive statements or anything that can look passive/aggressive. I can do it with the best of them but trying to get a dig in at someone while looking like you aren't is the definition of trollish behavior (even if the poster themselves isn't a troll). 4 Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) The best action I have found is to not respond and don't let your feelings get hurt. If someone calls another a troll, etc. and feelings get hurt, offense is taken, then the name caller has won the day. On the other hand, if one takes Johnnie Cake's attitude, that a moral victory has been won and refrain from responding in kind, that aspect of a debate is short circuited. I have long advocated the "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" approach. Now, that is a difficult thing to do, to school your thoughts and emotions, but I feel I do pretty well in that aspect, or maybe it is just that I no longer have the energy to get riled up. Just wanted to add, no one ever wins an argument. One of my sons loved to argue and would amass a mountain of facts to throw at his less prepared siblings in any of their chronic "debates." Mike just about always came out feeling victorious, but he still came out not having left his opponent more angry than convinced. Mike has subsequently modified his debating tactics, somewhat, but can still be a bit dogmatic. Glenn Edited April 26, 2017 by Glenn101 An additional thought 3 Link to comment
CV75 Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Calling a person a troll is essentially telling them to get out, that they don't belong, and that their statement/position has zero merit. That's not a very healthy accusation to make on a discussion board. Especially when this name calling and accusing is aimed at long-time posters on this board, it feels extremely dismissive and almost always ad hominem. CFR where someone was illegitimately called a troll.. Just kidding! Edited April 26, 2017 by CV75 1 Link to comment
Ahab Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: It is very rare that there have been legitimate trolls on this board. But calling a regular poster with 5000+ comments and tons of rep points a "troll" is an attempt to censor and poison the well against the poster. Maybe instead of calling someone a troll it is better to think of trolling as an action that anyone can do, sometimes, even if they have made 5000+ comments and have thousands of rep points. But, still not a good thing to accuse someone of doing, so nevermind. 1 Link to comment
CV75 Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: Maybe instead of calling someone a troll it is better to think of trolling as an action that anyone can do, sometimes, even if they have made 5000+ comments and have thousands of rep points. But, still not a good thing to accuse someone of doing, so nevermind. As fishers of men I think we should be "trawl" instead. Link to comment
Ahab Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, CV75 said: As fishers of men I think we should be "trawl" instead. Yeah I like fishing, even though some people consider that to be a bad thing. Link to comment
Garden Girl Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 I've never referred to anyone as a troll, in spite of some of the trollish posts that are put forth... what I really object to are critics, some who have been posting regularly for quite some time, who state their criticism or view against the Church, doctrine, or our leaders as if what they say is absolutely flat out true. I don't have objection to opposing views or respectful debate, and understand there are parts of history or doctrine, etc. that can have differing views... my objection comes when such posters do not have the courtesy to say (on this a Mormon board) "in my opinion"... but trash something or someone outright as if we are stupid for believing in things we hold dear... this has happened several times this past week. GG 4 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted April 26, 2017 Author Share Posted April 26, 2017 26 minutes ago, bluebell said: The above bolded portion seems like a passive/aggressive way to make someone who puts anyone on ignore look bad because you basically implied that SR has you on ignore because he can't beat you in an argument. That doesn't seem like a fair or reasonable statement. I was trying to be funny by addressing the quote with a sentiment shared by Johnnie. Attempting to reduce name calling doesn't mean we need to lose our sense of humor (even if it is pretty lame ) Did SR (or someone else) say that was one reason the ignore button might be used or is it just your perspective? I've haven't read the whole thread and might have missed something; i'm trying to understand the origin. SR had been making comments about how some people are piggish. He then said he set me to "ignore". If you're asking if SR admitted to calling people trolls simply because he lost an argument I am pretty darn confident he has never said such a thing. I think we have to be really really careful not to resort to passive/aggressive statements or anything that can look passive/aggressive. I can do it with the best of them but trying to get a dig in at someone while looking like you aren't is the definition of trollish behavior (even if the poster themselves isn't a troll). No. That is not trollish behavior. Virtually every comment made on a discussion board is aimed at eliciting some kind of response. It's a "discussion". There is back and forth. Claiming that any statement that is "passive/aggressive", flippant, harsh, (add any adjective you want) is also trolling is a bit silly. Is calling an idea silly "trolling"? If so, it is impossible to have any discussion without trolling. Therefore the term has no meaning so it shouldn't be used. But I think we all know that "trolls" and "trolling" are much harsher than someone making a provocative statement or floating an unorthodox idea. 1 Link to comment
Johnnie Cake Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't know if i agree. I think that resorting to calling someone a name just exposes that the other person is angry. It might mean that they are trying to mask the weakness of their argument by deflection, or it might mean that they are just really angry and feel justified in not "taking someone's crap anymore" (to put it from their perspective). I don't think declaring yourself the victor and assigning thoughts and feelings to the other person (that they secret agree your argument is superior and can't refute it) makes you look much better than the person calling you a troll. It's also kind of interesting that you automatically view someone calling you a troll as an admission of defeat, especially when you read number one above. You've framed the whole disagreement between you and the other poster in terms of who has really "won the day." But according to the philosophy professor you quoted, that doesn't seem like a legitimate way to approach the interaction. I disagree. In philosophical arguments, which is what we are engage in here at MD&D...one of the key indicators in recognizing a weak argument or logical fallacy is the use of pejoratives. So when someone resorts to this kind of attack, they are in fact exposing the weakness of their argument and in effect conceded defeat to the person that they have attacked. Keep in mind that this only applies to that poster stooping to name calling. If I am the target of that pejorative attack, it does not mean that I have won the argument in my OP, that is not what I was suggesting, only that I can claim moral victory over that one particular poster using the pejorative. This is Argumentation Theory 101. Edit to add: of course the attacker will never agree with their own moral defeat...that is the nature of an attacker...even when they have lost they don't know it. Edited April 26, 2017 by Johnnie Cake 2 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted April 26, 2017 Author Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Garden Girl said: I've never referred to anyone as a troll, in spite of some of the trollish posts that are put forth... what I really object to are critics, some who have been posting regularly for quite some time, who state their criticism or view against the Church, doctrine, or our leaders as if what they say is absolutely flat out true. I don't have objection to opposing views or respectful debate, and understand there are parts of history or doctrine, etc. that can have differing views... my objection comes when such posters do not have the courtesy to say (on this a Mormon board) "in my opinion"... but trash something or someone outright as if we are stupid for believing in things we hold dear... this has happened several times this past week. GG GG- by this requirement every single post would need to start out with an "In My Opinion- IMO" disclaimer. Sounds a little burdensome. Isn't it reasonable for me to think that anything GC says is GC's opinion and not necessarily hard fact? We all express our opinions here without expressly stating every time that it's an opinion. BTW- what is good for the critic is also good for the critic of the critic. Or should only certain people be required to explicitly state their posts are opinions while another group gets to claim their opinions as facts? Edited April 26, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts