81–90 of 90 posts
for there is no art in what they do. I couldn't disagree more. There is common trolling and there is sublime trolling. The ability to sow the perfect amount of strife to create real change is a thing of beauty. This goes beyond the tactics of information warfare -- for which trolling has its uses -- and reveals truth to those in ignorance. For most true knowledge cannot be learned by the advice of elders alone, but m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mainly because it invites downvotes, ad hominem attacks and general hostility from other parties. For example, this thread from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11654161 I don't think that rational inquiry and trolling are necessarily disjoint sets.
Once again, Isn't that just another way of saying that people do not like being confronted with the fact that their positions are not actually rational at all, rather than that you are "trolling" someone by so confronting them? I agree that the linked thread is a good example of exactly this phenomenon, and I think it's actually a far more common thing here than people would like to admit.
There is the aspect that the confrontation is not always in good faith. The troll knows that those people don't like being confronted, and knows that it is not productive to do so. It's done only for the amusement: because those people don't like it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once again, Isn't that just another way of saying that people do not like being confronted with the fact that their positions are not actually rational at all, rather than that you are "trolling" someone by so confronting them? I agree that the linked thread is a good example of exactly this phenomenon, and I think it's actually a far more common thing here than people would like to admit.
But that confrontation comprises a good bulk of what is actually called trolling. There is the aspect that the confrontation is not always in good faith. The troll knows that those people don't like being confronted, and knows that it is not productive to do so. It's done only for the amusement: because those people don't like it.
If you interrogate someone for their irrational beliefs because you are genuinely curious if they are in fact as irrational as they appear, or you're missing something important, this is not trolling, but if you're well aware that they are definitely irrational, and you're familiar with all of the reasons that people come to believe these kinds of things, then this is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or a better analogy would be someone asking what principle is used to justify white supremacy might be considered a troll. Then again, they might not. I've done exactly this (albeit with white supremacist NRX types) and was merely given rational arguments. It was actually quite interesting - I could explicitly pinpoint the place where I disagreed with them [1]. [1] They appealed to "lifeboat ethics", while I believe…
I would be interested in a link to that discussion if you have it. Also, is a white supremacist NRX type the type that refuses to politely ignore the research on intelligence levels, the heredity thereof, and the observed differences between various races in order to maintain the widely believed fiction that all men are created equal, or are they the irrational, unquestioning tribal kind that just assume clustering t…
That particular white supremacist NRX type is the kind that wants to create a whites-only state because they believe that's the only way to have a proper civilization. It's not that they have any particular hostility towards non-whites, it's just that they believe that (due to the aforementioned differences in intelligence levels and cultural behaviors) a high trust civilization can't be created which also includes them.
As I noted, Singapore certainly seems to be a counterexample to this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that confrontation comprises a good bulk of what is actually called trolling. There is the aspect that the confrontation is not always in good faith. The troll knows that those people don't like being confronted, and knows that it is not productive to do so. It's done only for the amusement: because those people don't like it.
So really you're saying it reduces to the intent of the interrogator? If you interrogate someone for their irrational beliefs because you are genuinely curious if they are in fact as irrational as they appear, or you're missing something important, this is not trolling, but if you're well aware that they are definitely irrational, and you're familiar with all of the reasons that people come to believe these kinds of…
The trolling intent does lead to a persistent, repetitive, long-term behavior: pushing the same buttons to obtain the same response.
There may be an agenda behind it: to keep that topic current and frequent in that forum, so that any newcomer to the forum sees mostly that discussion and nothing else.
The troll says: you are irrational in your beliefs, and I will keep stirring that up month after month, so that the forum is replete with exposure of this fact.
There may be some agenda behind it. Sometimes it is explicit or can be inferred (like promoting something). Sometimes it remains hidden.
If someone has a trolling intent, but fizzles away after one round, then we can't externally tell whether that was a would-be troll or someone genuinely curious. The behavior has to define it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be interested in a link to that discussion if you have it. Also, is a white supremacist NRX type the type that refuses to politely ignore the research on intelligence levels, the heredity thereof, and the observed differences between various races in order to maintain the widely believed fiction that all men are created equal, or are they the irrational, unquestioning tribal kind that just assume clustering t…
It was a private conversation, so I can't link to it. That particular white supremacist NRX type is the kind that wants to create a whites-only state because they believe that's the only way to have a proper civilization. It's not that they have any particular hostility towards non-whites, it's just that they believe that (due to the aforementioned differences in intelligence levels and cultural behaviors) a high tru…
Yes, I'm familiar with the type, and agree with your rebuttal. Singapore unfortunately is the exception rather than the rule, so I predict that these people are only likely to gain in volume and use large parts of the rest of their word as case in points for their position, with some worryingly recent trends in certain northern european countries with refugee issues acting as jet fuel on the fire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So really you're saying it reduces to the intent of the interrogator? If you interrogate someone for their irrational beliefs because you are genuinely curious if they are in fact as irrational as they appear, or you're missing something important, this is not trolling, but if you're well aware that they are definitely irrational, and you're familiar with all of the reasons that people come to believe these kinds of…
No; we can't define trolling by referring to intent. It's a behavior. The trolling intent does lead to a persistent, repetitive, long-term behavior: pushing the same buttons to obtain the same response. There may be an agenda behind it: to keep that topic current and frequent in that forum, so that any newcomer to the forum sees mostly that discussion and nothing else. The troll says: you are irrational in your belie…
This sounds a lot like the behaviour of someone who is genuinely offended by a certain kind of irrationality which is prevalent in a particular forum, they might not be refuting that irrationality and confronting the holders of it for their personal amusement, but rather a sense of believing that irrationality is terribly harmful and needs to be destroyed/exposed for what it is lest it gain prevalence and support and position to cause further harm.
I view the state and political authority in exactly this light, support for this idea and institution is practically ubiquitous despite its terrible consequences, and when I say so, I am not trying to amuse myself in any way.
It seems by some measure the above would be trolling, because largely, people really do not like being confronted with the facts on the subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment relies on a misunderstanding of what Aristotle - or his proxie here - means by the term "art". In modern usage, something that has no art to it is base, simple, and requires no effort to achieve. However, art meant something more nuanced to Aristotle (that nuance is why people still make a living arguing over the implications of what he said). For Aristotle, an art was something that pointed to the Good.…
Regardless of what definition of "art" you follow, I feel like trolling as described by labster can certainly be used for good. Labster himself describes the use of trolling in tricking the reluctant apprentice into learning, or using it to sow strife to further policy making and bring about social change. "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, but I could certainly consider some of those things to be good some of the…
IF THERE IS NO ART IN BANKSY, THEN WHY DO PEOPLE PAY MILLIONS FOR HIS ART? HAHAHAHAHAH..........
metatrolling in this comment by dual useage of the word 'art' fully intended.
but what banksy does seriously is not easy. and if you don't believe me, please watch 'exit through the gift shop', a truly sublime documentary, itself fake , but SO TRUE, totally worth watching twice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of what definition of "art" you follow, I feel like trolling as described by labster can certainly be used for good. Labster himself describes the use of trolling in tricking the reluctant apprentice into learning, or using it to sow strife to further policy making and bring about social change. "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, but I could certainly consider some of those things to be good some of the…
EXAMPLE; BANKSY. IF THERE IS NO ART IN BANKSY, THEN WHY DO PEOPLE PAY MILLIONS FOR HIS ART? HAHAHAHAHAH.......... metatrolling in this comment by dual useage of the word 'art' fully intended. but what banksy does seriously is not easy. and if you don't believe me, please watch 'exit through the gift shop', a truly sublime documentary, itself fake , but SO TRUE, totally worth watching twice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So can puns, but that doesn't make them socially acceptable either.
What, like dad jokes? > I have a fear of speed bumps. Im slowly getting over it. Dad jokes are one of those things were people shake their heads and sigh, as if they're displeased, but internally they're laughing their butts off. ... Or maybe I only think that because I'm a dad?
Sadly, I have an affliction where I can resist no opportunity to pun. Or dad joke.
It's a problem.