Moderator: Carleas
Peter Kropotkin wrote:Names?
Kropotkin
Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.
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.
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.Peter Kropotkin wrote:Names?
Kropotkin
MagsJ wrote:_
Lol
MagsJ wrote:Lol again
MagsJ wrote:Lololol!
MagsJ wrote::lol:
MagsJ wrote: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 ; )
MagsJ wrote:_
..or so he thinks ; )
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
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.
Curly wrote: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.
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"!!!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users