Mormon Trolls and Trolling

[Johnnie Cake]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that one thing that might be helpful to remember is that, generally speaking, no thinks they are the bad guy.  Their actions seem rational and reasonable to them.   

So coming at this discussion from the point of view of 'obviously if you do this (or disagree with me about how morally wrong this action is) you are in the wrong' isn't going to get anyone anywhere.  

We sometimes have this idea (that we've probably gotten from the movies we've watched and fictional books that we've read since childhood) that bad guys know they are bad guys.  That's not how people typically work.

Here's an article on the issue written by a psychologist-

Why Bad Guys Think They are Good Guys

In a conflict, each side sees itself as good and justified and the enemy as evil. In fact, you can argue that the only real thing that differentiates a protagonist from an antagonist is that the author is taking the protagonist’s side and showing his or her justifications rather than the justifications of the antagonist.

Being aware of this tendency in ourselves and the person we are having conflict with (the tendency to view ourselves as the obvious good guy in the conflict) might help us to discuss things more effectively and stay off of our high horses (which we all like to get on, on occasion).    

I could have never imagined a discussion on whether one should use a pejorative terms like Troll on another board member was acceptable behavior would run the many courses it has taken today... I'm frustrated...I would have thought that this is one thing we could have all easily found agreement on...

Edited April 26, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

ugggg

I know. I was being a troll, temporarily, just to let other people know what a troll looks like on the internet.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I could have never imagined a discussion on whether one should use a pejorative terms like Troll on another board member was acceptable behavior would run the many courses it has taken today... I'm frustrated...I would have thought that this is one thing we could have all easily found agreement on...

I'm not trying to be trollish when I say this...really I'm not... but there will never be anything everyone will agree on. 

Not even an issue like this.

So always bear that in mind when you discuss anything with anyone. And finding any agreement is rarely easy.

[JulieM]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that one thing that might be helpful to remember is that, generally speaking, no thinks they are the bad guy.  Their actions seem rational and reasonable to them.   

So coming at this discussion from the point of view of 'obviously if you do this (or disagree with me about how morally wrong this action is) you are in the wrong' isn't going to get anyone anywhere.  

We sometimes have this idea (that we've probably gotten from the movies we've watched and fictional books that we've read since childhood) that bad guys know they are bad guys.  That's not how people typically work.

Here's an article on the issue written by a psychologist-

Why Bad Guys Think They are Good Guys

Why does it have to be good guys vs. bad guys? Isn't it just wrong to resort to name calling when discussing anything?

It's kind of a given that each party may think the other person is wrong and that they are right.  Some are more willing to be open and learn from others, but I wouldn't reduce this topic down to saying there is anyone "bad" here.

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by JulieM

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I could have never imagined a discussion on whether one should use a pejorative terms like Troll on another board member was acceptable behavior would run the many courses it has taken today... I'm frustrated...I would have thought that this is one thing we could have all easily found agreement on...

And that's probably why discussions on subjective topics easily get heated.  It's frustrating when what seems so obviously wrong to you doesn't seem that way to the next person.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And that's probably why discussions on subjective topics easily get heated.  It's frustrating when what seems so obviously wrong to you doesn't seem that way to the next person.

So you support referring to fellow posters who hold ideas that conflict with your own as Trolls?

[Johnnie Cake]

I'm done.  I'm going to go home and bang my head into a brick wall...I need to do something that will give me that feeling of accomplishment after posting here all day.

Cheers

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

In other words, you reserve the right to be rude.  Got it.

Doesn't everyone?

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that one thing that might be helpful to remember is that, generally speaking, no thinks they are the bad guy.  Their actions seem rational and reasonable to them.   

So coming at this discussion from the point of view of 'obviously if you do this (or disagree with me about how morally wrong this action is) you are in the wrong' isn't going to get anyone anywhere.  

We sometimes have this idea (that we've probably gotten from the movies we've watched and fictional books that we've read since childhood) that bad guys know they are bad guys.  That's not how people typically work.

Here's an article on the issue written by a psychologist-

Why Bad Guys Think They are Good Guys

In a conflict, each side sees itself as good and justified and the enemy as evil. In fact, you can argue that the only real thing that differentiates a protagonist from an antagonist is that the author is taking the protagonist’s side and showing his or her justifications rather than the justifications of the antagonist.

Being aware of this tendency in ourselves and the person we are having conflict with (the tendency to view ourselves as the obvious good guy in the conflict) might help us to discuss things more effectively and stay off of our high horses (which we all like to get on, on occasion).    

Getting in before Nehor:

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So you support referring to fellow posters who hold ideas that conflict with your own as Trolls?

That is not what she said.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm not trying to be trollish when I say this...really I'm not... but there will never be anything everyone will agree on. 

Not even an issue like this.

So always bear that in mind when you discuss anything with anyone. And finding any agreement is rarely easy.

For once, I agree with you.

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Doesn't everyone?

Ummm, no. Not really...not intentionally, anyway.

Edited April 26, 2017 by ttribe

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

For once, I agree with you.

See! Miracles do happen!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Its an actual area of study...google argumentative theory of reasoning

A general reference to the theory is not specific support for the particular claims you have made.  I would like to see a specific reference for the claim name calling is done to garner respect, deflect discussion, or bully as well as such is a result of fear.

I would like to know if this is your interpolation of the theory or actually part of it.

Add-on:  my apology, that does appear to be what Bluebell was asking for...I otoh would still like to see specific references to those two claims.

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Ummm, no. Not really...not intentionally, any way.

I have never known someone who has not been rude and did not feel at sometime it was appropriate to do what they did.  I think it is remarkable if you have.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

See! Miracles do happen!

They do.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

In other words, you reserve the right to be rude.  Got it.

Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode having something to do with reserving a car.

Anyone can reserve, or take a reservation.

The important part is the holding. So it will be there when you need it.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have never known someone who has not been rude and did not feel at sometime it was appropriate to do what they did.  I think it is remarkable if you have.

Well, let me be more specific, since I'm really not referring to a generalization across all scenarios and all people.  I'm referring, specifically, to a discussion on the topic at hand; namely, a discussion centering on the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught and administered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  What I find remarkable is that certain defenders of the faith seem to think that the *Golden Rule* doesn't apply to them as long as they are defending their truth.  I also find it remarkable that certain defenders of the faith behave as if the admonition in Matthew 22:39 may be suspended as long as they are defending their truth; as if the ends justify the means.  Finally, I find it remarkable that certain defenders of the faith willfully ignore the statement in Matthew 5:5 in favor of aggression and disrespectful conduct toward other children of God.

The principal reason I find all of that remarkable is because, at one time or another, I was guilty of each of those infractions in my efforts on this very board.  I feel very ashamed of that fact.

But, hey, any such defender can feel free to ignore my little rant.  After all, I'm a *known* nanny around here.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Why does it have to be good guys vs. bad guys? Isn't it just wrong to resort to name calling when discussing anything?

It's kind of a given that each party may think the other person is wrong and that they are right.  Some are more willing to be open and learn from others, but I wouldn't reduce this topic down to saying there is anyone "bad" here.

 

I think it's wrong to resort to name calling.  But your question implies that everyone obviously should see it like we do and that those who don't see it like us are in the wrong (they are the bad guys in that issue).  The people who don't believe it's always wrong to resort to name calling believe that they are morally right and you and are morally in the wrong and they respond to us according to that point of view.

What's also interesting is that people who say that calling people names is wrong then sometimes feel justified in doing it themselves (like when HJW states that calling people a troll is wrong and then sarcastically calls SR "classy", which is a pejorative, right?)  Why do they feel that when someone else does it it's wrong but when they do it's o.k.?  Because in their minds they are the good guy and the other person is the bad guy in the discussion.  In their perception, the other guy's use of name calling was obviously wrong, but their's is justified.  Or at least it was in the moment.  Our perceptions often change as we get some distance.

(Not trying to pick on HJW, his post was just a handy example).

My post wasn't about saying that anyone is a bad person.  It's about recognizing that people often see themselves as moral right and those who disagree as morally in the wrong and that knowing that can help us understand each other better.  

I think that being able to see an issue from someone else's point of view is what creates the most productive discussion.  I'm not always very good at doing that but I can see that it's beneficial.  Understanding this issue can help us do that better.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, let me be more specific, since I'm really not referring to a generalization across all scenarios and all people.  I'm referring, specifically, to a discussion on the topic at hand; namely, a discussion centering on the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught and administered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  What I find remarkable is that certain defenders of the faith seem to think that the *Golden Rule* doesn't apply to them as long as they are defending their truth.  I also find it remarkable that certain defenders of the faith behave as if the admonition in Matthew 22:39 may be suspended as long as they are defending their truth; as if the ends justify the means.  Finally, I find it remarkable that certain defenders of the faith willfully ignore the statement in Matthew 5:5 in favor of aggression and disrespectful conduct toward other children of God.

The principal reason I find all of that remarkable is because, at one time or another, I was guilty of each of those infractions in my efforts on this very board.  I feel very ashamed of that fact.

But, hey, any such defender can feel free to ignore my little rant.  After all, I'm a *known* nanny around here.

That makes sense.  Thank you for taking the time to explain.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's wrong to resort to name calling.  But your question implies that everyone obviously should see it like we do and that those who don't see it like us are in the wrong (they are the bad guys in that issue).  The people who don't believe it's always wrong to resort to name calling believe that they are morally right and you and are morally in the wrong and they respond to us according to that point of view.

What's also interesting is that people who say that calling people names is wrong then sometimes feel justified in doing it themselves (like when HJW states that calling people a troll is wrong and then sarcastically calls SR "classy", which is a pejorative, right?)  Why do they feel that when someone else does it it's wrong but when they do it's o.k.?  Because in their minds they are the good guy and the other person is the bad guy in the discussion.  In their perception, the other guy's use of name calling was obviously wrong, but their's is justified.  Or at least it was in the moment.  Our perceptions often change as we get some distance.

(Not trying to pick on HJW, his post was just a handy example).

My post wasn't about saying that anyone is a bad person.  It's about recognizing that people often see themselves as moral right and those who disagree as morally in the wrong and that knowing that can help us understand each other better.  

I think that being able to see an issue from someone else's point of view is what creates the most productive discussion.  I'm not always very good at doing that but I can see that it's beneficial.  Understanding this issue can help us do that better.

Thanks for clarifying and explaining your views.  I agree with you!!

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So you support referring to fellow posters who hold ideas that conflict with your own as Trolls?

Two or three different times on this thread i specifically said that I don't support that at all JC.  Given that, how can you reasonably ask this question?  

All I said was that it's frustrating when what seems obviously correct to you (general 'you' not you personally) isn't obviously correct to someone else.  And because this is a subjective matter (which HJW states right in the OP) it's bound to cause a lot of frustration.

That's a pretty basic fact and not at all a controversial statement to make.

 

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Getting in before Nehor: