Don't feed a troll

[Karpel Tunnel]

I know, it's a platitude, but there it is. If your anger is interpreted as the troll's effectiveness by the troll..... If any attention is positively experienced by the troll....then if your goal is to discuss the topic, ignoring the troll is the best move.

Trolls may not know they are trolls. This can contribute to their seeming, potentially, a couple of posts away from realizing you have a point about them.
Trolls may have certain positive qualities. The most effective trolls must have these.

I think 'feeding the troll' is an exceptionally good metaphor. And one is literally feeding the troll oneself: one's time, one's effort to explain, one's energy...

It may look like a discussion, but it's not. I suspect that trolls are empty and this is a kind of emotional feeding. There is nothing that really engages them in life so they can only enjoy trying to hurt others - however differently they frame what they are doing to themselves, perhaps even thinking they are doing something noble and deeply insightful.

But, really, what difference does it make?

If your goal is to discuss the topic, ignore them. If your goal is to get the troll to have an insight about themselves, good luck.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Names?

Kropotkin

[Ecmandu]

Names?

Kropotkin

I’ll be the first one to say that I’m on the list, duh, because Karpel decided not to respond to my posts anymore about 8 months ago.

But am I really trolling these boards by emphatically stating that people who enjoy zero sum realities are the trolls of LIFE ITSELF???

Not really. It’s just a fact.

People cannot handle this brutal truth. Everyone wants a winner and a loser here. Where it hits the hardest is intimate partners. So they go into spin-mode immediately.

I know Karpel can’t beat me in a debate anymore. (He could last year). But not anymore.

There’s a line between “don’t feed the trolls” And “I’m terrified of losing a debate to you if I really engage”

Right? I said no winners or losers? So am I a hypocrite for winning that debate. Karpel thinks so.

You can’t win or lose a debate if the idea is “everyone needs to be winners with no losers”; which is where I go with this.

I’m triggering Karpel because he’s a moral nihilist. Actually, besides me and meno, everyone in this board is a moral nihilist. Interesting that we’re both the most ignored people on ILP. Maybe you want to look in the boards collective mirror someday and realize that nothing I say is about content to people here; it’s about something that shatters their ideology.

What is that shattering? “Nobody wants their consent violated”

Very simple, true for all possible beings. I can go into depth about that, but nobody seems to want to. When I keep bringing it up, people call me a troll.

It’s an objective fact that it’s true for all possible beings in all of existence.

So what does Karpel do? A character attack. He states, “you’re a hypocrite because you violated my or mag’s or any number of posters consent; therefor your idea is full of shit.”

Fine. But take a step back and look at how you visciously teamed up on me last year. Also consider, it takes time to develop argument technology. You folks were talking to me in beta state; now I have the full release.

It’s not consent violation if your purpose is to eradicate it for everyone and that purpose is logically consistent and reasonable (it refers correctly) ; should all these conditions be met; consent violation is actually defined as ignoring and shaming it; that makes you the actual consent violators and not me.

So there.

[MagsJ]

_
Lol

[iambiguous]

I know, it's a platitude, but there it is. If your anger is interpreted as the troll's effectiveness by the troll..... If any attention is positively experienced by the troll....then if your goal is to discuss the topic, ignoring the troll is the best move.

Trolls may not know they are trolls. This can contribute to their seeming, potentially, a couple of posts away from realizing you have a point about them.
Trolls may have certain positive qualities. The most effective trolls must have these.

I think 'feeding the troll' is an exceptionally good metaphor. And one is literally feeding the troll oneself: one's time, one's effort to explain, one's energy...

It may look like a discussion, but it's not. I suspect that trolls are empty and this is a kind of emotional feeding. There is nothing that really engages them in life so they can only enjoy trying to hurt others - however differently they frame what they are doing to themselves, perhaps even thinking they are doing something noble and deeply insightful.

But, really, what difference does it make?

If your goal is to discuss the topic, ignore them. If your goal is to get the troll to have an insight about themselves, good luck.

Oh, and while you're at it, don't feed the Kids either.

[iambiguous]

I know, it's a platitude, but there it is. If your anger is interpreted as the troll's effectiveness by the troll..... If any attention is positively experienced by the troll....then if your goal is to discuss the topic, ignoring the troll is the best move.

Trolls may not know they are trolls. This can contribute to their seeming, potentially, a couple of posts away from realizing you have a point about them.
Trolls may have certain positive qualities. The most effective trolls must have these.

I think 'feeding the troll' is an exceptionally good metaphor. And one is literally feeding the troll oneself: one's time, one's effort to explain, one's energy...

It may look like a discussion, but it's not. I suspect that trolls are empty and this is a kind of emotional feeding. There is nothing that really engages them in life so they can only enjoy trying to hurt others - however differently they frame what they are doing to themselves, perhaps even thinking they are doing something noble and deeply insightful.

But, really, what difference does it make?

If your goal is to discuss the topic, ignore them. If your goal is to get the troll to have an insight about themselves, good luck.

Of course the problem here revolves around noting who is or is not a troll.

To paraphrase him...

But if you come and say God says John Doe is a troll, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves John Doe is troll, I will not override my revulsion to that. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.

So, in determining who is in fact beyond all doubt a troll here, he is able to avoid being "fractured and fragmented" as I am. Instead, he has this" visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" I able to rescue him from all that.

Well, "at least now" he does.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Names?

Kropotkin

Go with whoever you think is a troll. Just encouraging people, who may on some level have realized 'their' troll is going to keep being a troll, to drop their troll. If it's working for them, by their own estimation, to keep going with their troll, well, then keep it up.

[Ecmandu]

_
Lol

Laugh all you want. Your get along with men more than women. You are a closeted misogynist. I have no doubt in my mind about this with you.

[MagsJ]

Lol again

[Ecmandu]

Lol again

You can’t keep up with the men. And that makes you angry. You hate the women and you can’t keep up with the men. You feel lost. That’s fine. Zero sum realities are fucked up. You just can’t admit it yet.

[MagsJ]

Lololol!

[Ecmandu]

Lololol!

It’s ironic that I’m feeding a troll in this very thread.

I know your type mag.

You have more male friends than female friends. You’re more comfortable around men —. Because *bah-dum*. You are deep inside - a closeted misogynist. Which means you have latent self hatred.

Am I off the mark? No.

[MagsJ]

[Ecmandu]

:lol:

You don’t admit to being a tomboy?

I call bullshit.

[MagsJ]

Bye bye knowledge seeker.. find your own way!

..there’s many of you’re kind here on ILP, and I only have one or two personal favourites ; )

[Ecmandu]

Bye bye knowledge seeker.. find your own way!

..there’s many of you’re kind here on ILP, and I only have one or two personal favourites ; )

You bathe in the POWER of non transparency ...

Why? Because you’re afraid.

I wear my heart and my philosophy on my sleeve.

You?

“LOL!!!”

You’re a scared little woman.

[MagsJ]

_
How others choose to utilise ILP is their choice, and me mine.

What a ridiculous thing to say, or even expect.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Interesting:
1) more than one person pm-ed me, wondering if they were the person I had in mind. They weren't nor did I consider either of them a troll.
2) Other people seem to have assumed that a troll is anyone you disagree with strongly or hate or won't read.

I think of a troll as something specific: that at root the posting is not intended to join a discussion but has some other purpose: generally emotional, and generally to upset other people. That the actual topics are of no real interest and one does not see it necessary to engage with points made.

[Ecmandu]

Mag,

I know your type. You don’t want to have a type.

I met a gay dude with a dick who wore dresses and wanted to always be called they or them.

He’s ashamed of his label.

I know this about human sexuality:

There are only 3 sexes: male, female, hermaphroite.

That’s it.

There are only 12 genders. One of the genders is marrying a fucking wall on the freeway in south Berlin.

Do you get it?

You all have labels.

Don’t pull this bullshit and say I can’t define you. Because I can.

Your LOL’s speak volumes, and not in the way you intend.

[MagsJ]

_
..or so he thinks ; )

[Ecmandu]

_
..or so he thinks ; )

I know you so well now. You think you’re a ‘trickster spirit’. I already know the game. Zero sum realities don’t work. You have no ability to trick me anymore. Your arguments against me are baseless.

[iambiguous]

I think of a troll as something specific: that at root the posting is not intended to join a discussion but has some other purpose: generally emotional, and generally to upset other people. That the actual topics are of no real interest and one does not see it necessary to engage with points made.

Ah, a troll as an intellectual contraption! No need to name names then.

As for specificity, lets go back to this:

"But if you come and say God says John Doe is a troll, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves John Doe is troll, I will not override my revulsion to that."

If God tells us who the trolls are here, is that specific enough? If philosophers or scientists discover the whole rational truth about them, is that specific enough? Or does it always come down to his "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self/Soul telling him who they are?

But think about it: he is so sure that he is right about trolls here, that even if God, science or philosophy was able to demonstrate otherwise, he would still fall back on his own rendition of the "real me"!!!

[Karpel Tunnel]

For example: on the beauty thread. Some people requested that one poster remain on topic. This degenerated first into a discussion of whether this actually happened, then into James Saint and how he handled the poster, then into disagreements over James Saint's positions and personality.

And hey, been there myself. I get it.

But if you grab flypaper with one hand to pull off a fly...

hm, that metaphor doesn't quite work.

Shit, you know what I mean.

I mean, maybe we just want a forum where everyone gets to finally say whatever they deep down wanted to people they dislike or whose positions they dislike.

Though I don't think Magnus Andersson wanted that. I think he actually wanted to discuss some ideas related to beauty.

[iambiguous]

For example: on the beauty thread. Some people requested that one poster remain on topic. This degenerated first into a discussion of whether this actually happened, then into James Saint and how he handled the poster, then into disagreements over James Saint's positions and personality.

I'll take a wild ass guess here: he means me. And "some people" is Magnus. And I invite others here to go there and note the entirety of my exchange with him: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=196115

Decide for yourself if this justifies my being called a troll.

Also, decide for yourself who makes the most convincing arguments.

Also, where am I being a troll on these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=170060
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=195930
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196100
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196110
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195600
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175006
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=186929
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195614
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195964
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Oh, and when is he going to get around to responding to this:

But if you come and say God says John Doe is a troll, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves John Doe is troll, I will not override my revulsion to that. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.

If God tells us who the trolls are here, is that specific enough? If philosophers or scientists discover the whole rational truth about them, is that specific enough? Or does it always come down to his "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self/Soul telling him who they are?

But think about it: he is so sure that he is right about trolls here, that even if God, science or philosophy was able to demonstrate otherwise, he would still fall back on his own rendition of the "real me"!!!

He claims that in regard to his own value judgments, I am wrong to suggest that he is able to avoid feeling "fractured and fragmented" by inventing this "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self that he grounds his own moral and political prejudices in.

Apparently it's something else instead. He just won't or can't tell us what that is.

[phyllo]

If it happened rarely, then you would get the benefit of the doubt.

But it's a regular occurrence.

Consider this thread ... you managed to squeeze value judgements and feeling "fractured and fragmented" into it.