Mormon Trolls and Trolling

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

Yeah, I kind of think "IMO" is implicit in anything we post. Isn't it?

Don't you love when people are CFR brow-beaten over expressed opinions? That hasn't happened for a while here, but it has in the past where people are incessantly CFRd over their opinion. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. That is not trollish behavior. Virtually every comment made on a discussion board is aimed at eliciting some kind of response.

I'm sorry if i was confusing.  I didn't mean that attempting to elicit a response is trollish behavior.  I specifically meant that being passive/aggressive is trollish behavior.  As one person recently published on article on trolling said-

"Most people despise Trolls, and for good reason.  Passive-Aggressive behavior is just annoying, and hanging out with people who are Passive-Aggressive is just bad for you, both emotionally and financially."

But I think you've really highlighted why this topic is pretty much impossible to discuss.  No one agrees on what trollish behavior actually is.  What is one person's trolling is another's attempt to be funny.  What is one person's trolling is another's 'honest assessment.'  What is one person's trolling is another's 'etc. etc. etc....'

It will likely spiral into a form of 'my definition of trolling is more accurate than yours' and then it's probably all down hill from there.  

[strappinglad]

Hay.... isn't Shrek a troll ? I like Shrek ( although I really like the Donkey ) . Maybe the user name Shrek can be adopted by some of the most vociferous critics. Shrek 1 , 2 , 3,  etc. if needed.

I think the concept of troll mostly fits the drive by critics who stir up the local hornets. Those posters who have been here a long time and like to throw the odd fast ball high and outside, can be handled with respect most of the time unless there is a sense of " neaner, neaner, " going on.

 I personally get a bit tired of those who will bring up the fact that some GA ties his shoes incorrectly and therefore should not be listened to.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

The attacker rarely even is aware that they have lost their argument by attacking. They attack to gain social status with their peer group, to deflect the arguments being made and to  bully an opponent.

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Actually claiming victory is exactly how one can reset the argument. Here is one suggested approach by this same professor 

Quote

That was a personal attack, so you automatically lose the argument. Sorry. If you'd like to re-offer your last comment without the personal comments then you may still convince me, but otherwise... Thanks for the discussion, and I'll take my win and go home.

Note how this approach calls out the attacker but still offers an opportunity for them to offer augments to support their premises in the market place of ideas....where they will either live or die based on the merits of the arguments and not on the personal attacks

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

 

That doesn't make any sense.  I've seen people, who were demonstrably correct, lose their temper and call someone a name.  It had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the weakness or strength of their argument and was more a sign of the weakness or strength of their character in that moment.

For example, i've seen people call creationists names in online discussions because they were so aggravated.  Surely you recognize though that that does not mean that those espousing evolution were "exposing the weakness of their argument."

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The attacker rarely even is aware that they have lost their argument by attacking. They attack to gain social status with their peer group, to deflect the arguments being made and to  bully an opponent.

Actually claiming victory is exactly how one can reset the argument. Here is one suggested approach by this same professor 

Note how this approach calls out the attacker but still offers an opportunity for them to offer augments to support their premises in the market place of ideas....where they will either live or die based on the merits of the arguments and not on the personal attacks

Or they attack because they are angry and have let the anger take over.  I don't know why we have to make this more complicated than it is.  

To use my previous example, if a creationist said "That was a personal attack, so you automatically lose the argument. Sorry. If you'd like to re-offer your last comment without the personal comments then you may still convince me, but otherwise... Thanks for the discussion, and I'll take my win and go home" no one who disagrees with their beliefs would take them seriously or believe they had won anything.  It's just a way to try to get the last word in on a discussion and everyone knows that.  

Personally declared wins are worthless wins, as the example shows.  They mean nothing except in the mind of the person declaring themselves the winner.

[Garden Girl]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

Hello Happy...

No, it's not necessary for every single post to carry a disclaimer... nor did I even suggest such... did you miss that my objection was not with expressing differing views or respectful debate?  There's ways to post criticism or differing opinions that are acceptable in tone etc... the poster I'm referring to was stating an opinion as if it was very much a flat out hard fact.  And it irritated me because the tone and statement intimated that I was stupid to be a believer... (I didn't say anything at the time but saw this thread so came here to express my criticism of the critic)

GG

[Johnnie Cake]

36 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

We each believe our point of views are correct....so isn't posting these viewpoints on this board actually a good thing?  By doing so, we are putting our ideas out into the market place of ideas to be tested, challenged and exposing them to examination...thereby finding if they are in fact correct and true.  Truth, like cream, has a way of floating to the top 

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

I usually (unless I forget) preface or otherwise qualify my remarks with "I think..." etc. because at some point fairly early on in my posting someone was offended by the implication or authoritative tone that I was stating fact. I do this even when I am stating facts, since they can easily be backed up if necessary.

[Johnnie Cake]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Or they attack because they are angry and have let the anger take over.  I don't know why we have to make this more complicated than it is.  

To use my previous example, if a creationist said "That was a personal attack, so you automatically lose the argument. Sorry. If you'd like to re-offer your last comment without the personal comments then you may still convince me, but otherwise... Thanks for the discussion, and I'll take my win and go home" no one who disagrees with their beliefs would take them seriously or believe they had won anything.  It's just a way to try to get the last word in on a discussion and everyone knows that.  

Personally declared wins are worthless wins, as the example shows.  They mean nothing except in the mind of the person declaring themselves the winner.

Anger is a secondary emotion grounded in fear and is used to protect ones closely held beliefs when they are challenged and one has no other logical defense to protect them.

the point of this debate tactic that you've quoted from my post is to get the attacker to refocus the debate back on the discussion in the OP and away from resorting to personal attacks

Edited April 26, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

We each believe our point of views are correct....so isn't posting these viewpoints on this board actually a good thing?  By doing so, we are putting our ideas out into the market place of ideas to be tested, challenged and exposing them to examination...thereby finding if they are in fact correct and true.  Truth, like cream, has a way of floating to the top 

I'm not so sure about that, especially if we are seeking (at least expecting) our ideas to be tested, challenged and exposed to examination. I think even as an ice-breaking tactic, expressing one's view as his own opens up the dialogue tremendously, especially if it is in clear criticism or opposition to another view.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Anger is a secondary emotion grounded in fear and is used to protect ones closely held beliefs when they are challenged and one has no other logical defense to protect them.

the point of this debate tactic that you've quoted from my post is to get the attacker to refocus the debate back on the discussion in the OP and away from resorting to personal attacks

Yeah, i'm sure that's why i've seen evolutionists angry at creationists before, because they were afraid and needed to protect their closely held beliefs and they had 'no other logical defense' to protect them.  

Actually, no, i don't think that was the reason. 

But if that's the point of the debate tactic, then it can easily be made without pretending to have won something to try to goad the person into changing their behavior (or just goad them for the sake of goading them).  You could easily say "Sorry. If you'd like to re-offer your last comment without the personal comments then we can continue the discussion, otherwise, i'm done."  

[Garden Girl]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

We each believe our point of views are correct....so isn't posting these viewpoints on this board actually a good thing?  By doing so, we are putting our ideas out into the market place of ideas to be tested, challenged and exposing them to examination...thereby finding if they are in fact correct and true.  Truth, like cream, has a way of floating to the top 

Good morning Johnnie...

You, too, seem not to have noticed that my objection was not to the expressing of differing views or to respectful debate... yes, they can be a good thing... my objection was the tone and wording of the viewpoint or opinions expressed made it seem that testing, challenging, or exposing of such was unnecessary.  And don't forget, cream has a way of curdling if not careful...

GG 

[Calm]

1 hour 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.

It may not even be anger, but just frustration.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

It may not even be anger, but just frustration.

I agree.  I tend to see frustration (when it manifests itself as name calling, for example) as just a subset of anger but maybe they are more different than i see them.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  I tend to see frustration (when it manifests itself as name calling, for example) as just a subset of anger but maybe they are more different than i see them.

I can be very frustrated while not being angry, an obvious example would be frustration having to deal with a baby with diarrhea.

That is actually not a bad example because at odd times, that is what some posts read like to me.

But a lot of anger is a result of frustration, definitely agree with that.  But not all, just as I don't see all anger as a result of fear except maybe on a very, very fundamental, nonrational, programmed back in childhood level that isn't really useful for discussion.  People are complicated.

[JulieM]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

It may not even be anger, but just frustration.

I think it's both (or can be either too of course).  I also see it happening from both sides of different topics. It's not just those calling critics "trolls" that are guilty of resorting to name calling or insults.  

I think most on here are able to discuss things civilly even if they strongly disagree.  There are just a few who always do seem angry or frustrated (at least much of the time).  I tend to skip their posts a lot since there's not much substance once someone reaches that point, IMO

Edited April 26, 2017 by JulieM

[Storm Rider]

39 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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".

That is your perspective and I understand it.  However, I don't share it and I disagree that warning others not to feed the troll is an ad hominem attack; yes, there are ad hominem attacks, but I don't think hanging your hat on that accusation works in an the absolute manner in which you are trying to force on others.  It has become a nice catch phrase to throw out, but it is rarely accurately applied.  Just reading the definition should tell you that calling someone's behavior that of a troll "CAN" be, not IS an ad hominem attack.  

Again, if the shoe fits wear it.  If it doesn't ignore it.  Each of you are grown ups and I refuse to think that your feelings are so tender that there is any damage when you are called on it.  

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Again, if the shoe fits wear it.  If it doesn't ignore it.  Each of you are grown ups and I refuse to think that your feelings are so tender that there is any damage when you are called on it.  

Yes, and we're also grown up enough that we don't need to be warned or told not to "feed the troll".   

It's fine if you choose to disengage, but I think you should just let everyone decide for themselves if they want to discuss a topic with any other member here.

Edited April 26, 2017 by JulieM

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Truth, like cream, has a way of floating to the top 

That's not the only thing that has a tendency of floating to the top.   Just sayin'!

Truth doesn't always prevail on discussion boards unfortunately, sometimes sh** wins the day.

 

[Calm]

 

"So isn't posting these viewpoints on this board actually a good thing?  By doing so, we are putting our ideas out into the market place of ideas to be tested, challenged and exposing them to examination...thereby finding if they are in fact correct and true.  Truth, like cream, has a way of floating to the top"

This appears to have been edited, but I think it is useful to point out posting of viewpoints isn't always a particularly good thing if the person posting the idea could care less about the challenges and doesn't take them seriously or take the time to examine their arguments in that light and instead dismisses them as attacks.  There are plenty of people who think they have won an argument before they even post and so pretty much refuse to consider any constructive comments.  You can see this happening when what is responded to is the more emotional in appearance side commentary rather than the actual critique.  Iow, look for a few lines addressing the few posters making snide or similar comments and not the ones who take the time to thoughtfully reply.

There are a lot of things that float to the top.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think it's both (or can be either top of course).  I also see it happening from both sides of different topics.  It's not just those calling critics "trolls" that are guilty of resorting to name calling or insults.  

I think most on here are able to discuss things civilly even if they strongly disagree.  There are just a few who always do seem angry or frustrated (at least much of the time).  I tend to skip their posts a lot since there's not much substance once someone reaches that point, IMO

I see pretty much everyone engaging in passive aggressive or trolling or gotcha or pulpit thumping (using this atypically for people who post more to 'hear themselves speak' than to create conversation, if there is a phrase for this please enlighten me) at some time.  However there are individuals who make habits of these behaviors.  I don't see ideology as determining who is more prone to this.  It is a personality trait, not an ideological community trait in general (I do know of communities that are prone to these behaviors, but their members don't tend to hit this board).

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's not the only thing that has a tendency of floating to the top.   Just sayin'!

Truth doesn't always prevail on discussion boards unfortunately, sometimes sh** wins the day.

 

You are a bit more explicit than I am, but great minds and all...

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.

I basically received a thinly veiled ad hominem attack when delving into some politics - I knew this would draw the ire of some on the board - but that was not the point of my post. But since then it seems the board really slowed. I'm not saying this was the cause by any means, but yeah that was about a week ago. The thread got closed or when I came back to it, I would have probably added more to support my case, and responded in a not terribly nice way. My critic was adding all kinds of stuff I didn't say or think, in order to build this straw-man he could attack, and implicate me in. Anyway, things like this put a bad taste in people's mouths. Maybe it was just an immediate drop in my interest, but apparently not since you seem to be noticing it too. I think this kind of thing can have a board-wide impact. I don't really consider that trolling either. It was just an unwarranted attack imho, by a poster who is usually likable. However, about that time one or two other threads got closed too.

I don't see a whole lot of what I consider trolling on this board. For the most part I consider the guests/visitors on this board to be honest debaters and those who are genuinely sincere or questioning. I have been on boards where posters show up simply intent on attacking posters or raising cain. Those types of trolls are truly damaging, and can quickly destroy the quality of a board if left unchecked. This board has that potential as some ex-Mos merely want to reek havoc or cause damage rather than engage in honest debate. I've never viewed Happy Jack as a troll. To me he seems to post sincerely questioning points. Just because someone doesn't agree with the usual Church doctrine/dogma/etc, doesn't make them a troll. Although name calling can be harmful, isolated instances of it don't make the case for a troll either. People get mad about politics, and sometimes religion. I get that I was stepping on this person's politics, but that again, was not my intent - politics is just one of those areas people tend to have strong opinions about.

So anyway, i hope whatever is the deal over this last week, we can forgive one another, apologize where we know we were offending someone else, and return the board to its usual friendly environment to discuss things LDS.

[RevTestament]

Double posted

Edited April 26, 2017 by RevTestament