Silly me ((facepalm))
Thanks
having a conservative view point is NOT trolling in my opinion.
I would welcome a civil conservative here. I welcome civil debate. I think it's healthy and makes me think out my positions much more fully. And it takes me out of my comfort zone. In fact as I have posted before I want to recruit a certain person I know well to be just such a member in the Hive. He's no troll, he's my brother-in-law. On the other hand there are certain people who do qualify as ...well... disruptive and don't contribute to the Hive.
Ah yes...
Yup! Even I have been rightfully accused of that and I'm a commie pinko. Maybe that's my problem. Hahahahaha.
~OGD~
I don't see you as a troll.
EG in his many many incarnations is a troll of the worst kind.
Hugh .....yes ....but he can think at least. I'm seriously put off by his over the top opinion of himself and how he treats others.
Both need therapy
Look. drail is a troll. I called him on it. You engage trolls the way you like, and I do it my way. From my point of view, talking about the troll in the thread and arguing about whether they should have been called a troll is pretty much the reaction they want.
I was comparing Scalia to 'drail'. I thought it was pretty good.
Let's all shine a bright light on name calling and taunting. You go first.
1 Like
It can be hard to distinguish a hard right ideologist from a troll. The same could be said for almost anyone with just one issue they really care about. The range of opinions here, just among those who self-identify with Liberals or Independents is wide enough to bring out the worst in us when we feel bullied or marginalized. There is not a fine line to this, it is a broken, zig zaggy line. We are people who are more likely to respond with a post to someone who has made statements that make us boil, otherwise we just push the like button, as if it was enough to balance the discussion. The like buttons would probably not exist without Facebook and G+. I am as guilty as anyone of such phoney, lazy interaction. If the heart icon (which does not mean I like, but I love, no?) was not there it would likely add to the real balance of opinion in discussions.
Words are symbols that, without accompanying voice expression and body language, are usually misunderstood.
Know what I mean 
1 Like
To be clear, you are correct, having a differing viewpoint is not trolling. However, posting clearly incendiary rhetoric merely for the purpose of being combative is borderline. Incivility, from either side, is frowned upon and if a poster ignores warnings, they will face a suspension.
Thanks for the clarification . . .
As I posted over in that Scalia thread...
Oh... and by the way... @drail came back and left the following:
~OGD~
True, this is the litmus test. We should be open to and welcoming those with differing opinions.
3 Likes
I have no compunction about calling a troll a troll. It was pretty easy to spot drail about a week ago. This is the first time he's replied to me directly. I think it somewhat dishonest not to be up front when talking to someone who has established themselves as a troll in my mind. I feel an obligation to let them know where I stand. I did not say what I said in the vacuum of a single post.
It's one of those things where I don't know how else to say it. I wasn't trying to be rude. I called Hugh a troll to his face, and he did not mind. The voicing isn't meant to be inflammatory. It's meant to be descriptive. If I choose not to pretend I'm in a civil discussion, I make a shot across the bow. It's the most direct and honest way I know of establishing what I think are obvious boundaries to the discussion.
1 Like
Didn't drail say he was a troll? I seem to remember reading that earlier today (it's been a long day for me).
That's why I post under my real name. It keeps me honest ( I might need the help (
)
1 Like
Surely not at the start of a conversation. In my mind where a hard right ideologue crosses over is when they ignore counter arguments and facts as if they don't exist.
I did that until I was threatened during a conversation with an idiot with "I can find out where you live very easily".
1 Like
I hear you and understand.
Some things I've learned: You can generally talk politics safely but you can never mention gun control or abortion without threats to life and limb.
Crap. Now I'm in trouble.
2 Likes
Another way to think of it is that all of us, including he who shall go unnamed, need each other's company in the end. Think Dawkins and Gould, or Mookie Wilson and Bill Buckner, or Carter and Reagan and Bush and Obama. Just by being here, we are members of a self selecting club. Sometimes things can get heated, and sometimes the frustration becomes personal when it should not - human nature - , but everyone wants to be in the conversation. He who shall not be mentioned is an outlier, but even he wants to talk politics, which puts him in the minority in this country. Even though they disagreed intensely, in the end Freud and Jung probably didn't have too many people who could understand them the way they understood each other.
1 Like
He who isn't named right now I expect thinks he can do quite nicely w/o all the "liberals" over there at TPM who just don't understand his humor. He doesn't need us. He is superior.
I never did "get" the joke.
Of course he can do without us and we an do without him. What I mean is that he would rather be talking politics with people who know something about it, even if he denies that they know something about it, than talking home appliances with people who know something about that. Or at least he does not find home appliances worth trolling about. In the end he kind of does need us to make himself feel whole. He can't feel superior if he doesn't engage on occasion.
One of the struggles that I have with the issue of "trolling," is there seems often to be a fairly subjective invocation of the label.
Your comment "It can be hard to distinguish a hard right ideologist from a troll. The same could be said for almost anyone with just one issue they really care about" appears to touch on that issue (and, in turn triggers an internal concern about how I can confidently avoid becoming such a presence in the discussions in which I engage).
The central issue in the concern about the roll of trolls in internet discussions of the phenomenon seems to revolve primarily around the emotions that are stirred up in others by their activity.
The problem with that perspective, in my view, is that while I can witness a wide variety of trigger events, the emotions I experience regarding those triggers are wholly determined by the meaning that I attach to them, not by any meaning inherent in their existence. The meaning I attach is a product of my history, attendant belief systems, values, etc., through which I filter my perceptions, and all of which I can examine, and often re-understand.
If I am indeed correct about that, then trolls only become disturbing to me if I allow them to disturb me, and if their sole objective, as seems to be the general belief, is to stir up emotions, then they only succeed when I allow them to succeed. So if I, and others like me, don't let them succeed (an admittedly heavy lift in the aggregate), then they self-extinguish. And, if as I suspect, others have more difficulty in resisting the bait than I do, then I can just scroll past that content.
The problem with that approach, as I see it, is that sometimes in the discussions triggered by trolls, there can be some good stuff, perhaps generated by both sides, that I might not want to miss, all things being equal.
I suppose that's why the role of moderator can be so valuable, although I confess that I would have a hard time responsibly performing that function.
If this sounds like I'm muddled, I think it's probably because I am.
Ah... but here's the rub: if name-calling is bad, then calling someone a troll is, in fact, name-calling, which is bad.
But seriously, here's probably a better way of doing it: describe the behavior, not the person. "You are trolling" has a softer impact, than "You are a troll". I try to keep in mind that the other person over there is not "a troll", but a human being. Not always easy to do, of course. But, the point is that nobody likes to be called a name or labeled, and I don't see how it serves any purpose to tell someone they're a troll, as if by doing so, something positive will come of it:
"Oh, my goodness... you're right! I am a troll. I'm so disappointed in myself. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I will now crawl under my desk in shame for a period, and then after having had time to reflect upon my bad behavior, I will seek out therapy for my neurotic tendencies. I don't know how I shall ever be able to face my mother again. Dear me! I beg your forgiveness! Oh, the shame..."
Not. Gonna. Happen.
For me, @David_E_Brown nails it here:
These days, I mostly laugh at trolls and keep scrolling.
2 Likes