Re: OT:Identifying Internet Trolls
Posted: Tue May 14, 2019 8:31 am
OP forgot something.
I thank OP for the glorious explanation from some rube with a Phd telling me what they think a troll is, I will have to respectfully disagree.
I live in an online environment. It is part of my job. I monitor people, including "trolls", along with actual hateful and violent people. Again, part of my job. I vehemently disagree with the findings of that article, which as far as I can tell, is nothing more than someone who doesn't understand why "trolls" do what they do, and instead just lump them into groups, such as "sadists" and "psychopaths".
Both the OP and the phd person would be termed a "normie" in my world, because they don't get it. Culture has changed right underneath their feet and they're lost.
"Trolls" are fairly normal people, usually younger, that engage in conduct that simply makes them laugh. Nothing more. They mean no long term harm and simply enjoy taking people out of their comfort zones. They are not members of hate groups, terror organizations, or psychopaths. Let me say again, OP and that phd clown simply do not understand the younger generations, so they are quick to label something they don't understand as something that makes sense to them.
With that said, it's all for naught, as the majority of the people here that the OP is claiming are "trolls", aren't. Palerider, AKA Public Enemy numero uno is NOT a "troll". How do I know this? Because Palerider, AKA Public Enemy numero uno, actually provides extremely helpful and relevant information. "Trolls" do no such thing. Also, we have to consider motive. The pure motive for "trolls" is jollies, whereas Palerider very well may just be sort of an ass, and that's ok, I like him anyway. He has no real motive, he just tends to speak what's on his mind, and I can respect that.
Anyway, OP, you're wrong, the phd person you used as some form of an appeal to authority fallacy is wrong, and your entire conclusion is wrong. Step out of the bubble and you'll see that.
Edit: It seems that society has taken a liking to immediately label someone who simply disagrees with them as a "troll". In that case, I am a "troll" in their world, as is my 15 year old daughter, because she regularly engages in conversations and deliberations in which she disagrees with people and astutely argues her point - because I taught her critical thinking skills. The reality of it is, the people who are unwilling to even engage in conversation act in ways that closely resemble the actions of a fantasy "troll": attack first, think later.
I thank OP for the glorious explanation from some rube with a Phd telling me what they think a troll is, I will have to respectfully disagree.
I live in an online environment. It is part of my job. I monitor people, including "trolls", along with actual hateful and violent people. Again, part of my job. I vehemently disagree with the findings of that article, which as far as I can tell, is nothing more than someone who doesn't understand why "trolls" do what they do, and instead just lump them into groups, such as "sadists" and "psychopaths".
Both the OP and the phd person would be termed a "normie" in my world, because they don't get it. Culture has changed right underneath their feet and they're lost.
"Trolls" are fairly normal people, usually younger, that engage in conduct that simply makes them laugh. Nothing more. They mean no long term harm and simply enjoy taking people out of their comfort zones. They are not members of hate groups, terror organizations, or psychopaths. Let me say again, OP and that phd clown simply do not understand the younger generations, so they are quick to label something they don't understand as something that makes sense to them.
With that said, it's all for naught, as the majority of the people here that the OP is claiming are "trolls", aren't. Palerider, AKA Public Enemy numero uno is NOT a "troll". How do I know this? Because Palerider, AKA Public Enemy numero uno, actually provides extremely helpful and relevant information. "Trolls" do no such thing. Also, we have to consider motive. The pure motive for "trolls" is jollies, whereas Palerider very well may just be sort of an ass, and that's ok, I like him anyway. He has no real motive, he just tends to speak what's on his mind, and I can respect that.
Anyway, OP, you're wrong, the phd person you used as some form of an appeal to authority fallacy is wrong, and your entire conclusion is wrong. Step out of the bubble and you'll see that.
Edit: It seems that society has taken a liking to immediately label someone who simply disagrees with them as a "troll". In that case, I am a "troll" in their world, as is my 15 year old daughter, because she regularly engages in conversations and deliberations in which she disagrees with people and astutely argues her point - because I taught her critical thinking skills. The reality of it is, the people who are unwilling to even engage in conversation act in ways that closely resemble the actions of a fantasy "troll": attack first, think later.
Jim