Don't feed a troll

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:44 pm

phyllo wrote:
"Friends and Foes"
It's not just about ignoring people who you don't want to talk to (for whatever reason).

Part of it is about what a forum is for, what the participants get out of it. Building something useful, interesting, stimulating, informative ...
One can do this AND use the foe feature. It's just a tool. If you notice that you end up in digressions that never come to any resolution and are off topic in threads then it might be better just not to see certain people. So, one doesn't fall for their trolling. Or if one has found that the conversation leads nowhere, enough times to make it seem worthwhile. I generally have gone back after a long break to see if anything is different. But during that time I am less likely to be drawn into interactions that do not lead anywhere and create more noise to signal in the forum. If using foe would do something else for you, or something you think is detrimental to the community, well obviously don't use it. But it is not like the foe function must lead to a worse community. It depends on how it is used and in relation to what patterns.

I mean, irl we don't engage every person. We choose some conversation partners. I have found interesting conversation partners with views very different from mine. There is only so much time. You probabl don't read every online news outlet. Perhaps you do read ones from other political perspectives, but some you likely avoid. Because they are written poorly. Because they write illogically. Because they do no research. Whatever.

Why should online life be different from face to face life or other media. We all choose for a variety of reasons, but we are selective. Now one can create an echo chamber. Or one can weed out people where the conversations are fruitless. And where they are a distraction. And focus on dialogue with people you disagree with but where there is some kind of progress.

'Friend and Foe' doesn't do that. It puts you and other people in boxes.
It might for you. For me it is like, I don't want to hang out with that guy or get coffee with him again. IRL it might be because he tells people private stuff about me. Or it might be because he harranges me about religion or politics and doesn't listen.

We put people in boxes in our private lives. And not just people, but books, movies. We don't randomly pick movies to watch or books from the library or read 300 page books by people who after ten pages have shown themselves to be illiterate or confused. Maybe we try again in a few years. But we all, everyone one of us, avoid some people and spend more time with some.

Even choosing ILP rather than other forums puts those other forums in a box. This forum has some fairly idiosyncratic posting patterns. Even if we post here AND other places, every post here is a not posting somewhere else.

We don't study electrical engineering or we don't study literary critism or agriculture.

We all make choices. I agree that it is important to be challenged, but some interaction are not challenging or no longer are. And stopping them, I think, can make the community have better discussions, where the goals of most of the people are more readily achieved.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:06 pm

So what I’d put forth to people is simple on any board (because every board has a permaban function)

If someone is being treated AS A TROLL or NOT A WORTHY DISCUSSION PARTER...

Then use my challenge on every board.

My challenge is simple:

Go to the debate forum. If the “troll” loses, they are permabanned. If the person treating them like a troll or who “never makes discussions move forward” wins, NOTHING HAPPENS to the accuser!!

What my offer reveals... is actual trolls! Trolls who are trolling just for saying someone else is trolling, and then getting a bunch of friends in a popularity contest (also echo chamber) over time to eradicate unwanted concepts that have the actual capacity to teach.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11051
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Nov 20, 2020 4:42 pm

Ecmandu wrote:So what I’d put forth to people is simple on any board (because every board has a permaban function)

If someone is being treated AS A TROLL or NOT A WORTHY DISCUSSION PARTER...

Then use my challenge on every board.

My challenge is simple:

Go to the debate forum. If the “troll” loses, they are permabanned. If the person treating them like a troll or who “never makes discussions move forward” wins, NOTHING HAPPENS to the accuser!!

What my offer reveals... is actual trolls! Trolls who are trolling just for saying someone else is trolling, and then getting a bunch of friends in a popularity contest (also echo chamber) over time to eradicate unwanted concepts that have the actual capacity to teach.


Edit: I got my binary wrong above:

If the person who declares someone a troll LOSES the debate, nothing happens to them whatsoever.

The beauty of the idea to me is that it’s embarrassing to those calling someone a troll or unworthy discussion partner if that’s not actually true.

And I’ll tell you. I’ll take the permaban (which I don’t want) if I lose the debate, and if you lose the debate; all you have is being and standing corrected about who the actual troll is (it’s you).
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11051
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:15 pm

One would think that this is manageable without resorting to permabanning.

Sort of taking someone aside and saying "Listen, you're doing something that people find annoying. Please try not do that."
or "That's not an effective way to argue. Try something like this ... "
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:29 pm

phyllo wrote:One would think that this is manageable without resorting to permabanning.

Sort of taking someone aside and saying "Listen, you're doing something that people find annoying. Please try not do that."
or "That's not an effective way to argue. Try something like this ... "


I totally disagree. If people are building alliances to call someone a troll (like me) they should have the balls to debate me about why I am a troll. Nobody on ILP would dare do that to me; even though my offer is: if I lose I’m permabanned and if you lose nothing happens to you.

Even with that lopsided challenge, people are scared shitless of me!

Then the question becomes “who is the REAL troll in ILP?”??!!
Last edited by Ecmandu on Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11051
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:39 pm

If people are building alliances to call someone a troll (like me) ...
Who is doing that?


BTW. You already lost a debate after which you were supposed to be permabanned. Yet here you are.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:45 pm

phyllo wrote:
If people are building alliances to call someone a troll (like me) ...
Who is doing that?


BTW. You already lost a debate after which you were supposed to be permabanned. Yet here you are.


Good memory. That was 6 years ago with uccisore.

He personally thought it was not correct to permaban me. But then again, the debate was a fine point about whether assertions are arguments.

Now I come with moral arguments. This is much more sensitive.

When I state that nobody wants their consent violated ... all the moral nihilists in this board get pissed and ignore me. Fuck them! Debate me for a permaban! Because I’m going to keep saying the same shit in perpetuity. It speaks volumes to me that they think my words are a worthless dead end and the choose to ignore me. Fuck them. Trolls, the whole lot of them!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11051
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:17 pm

phyllo wrote:One would think that this is manageable without resorting to permabanning.

Sort of taking someone aside and saying "Listen, you're doing something that people find annoying. Please try not do that."
or "That's not an effective way to argue. Try something like this ... "
It's hard to imagine you are trying to talk Ecmandu out of his position in favor of permabanning (which I doubt he has) so perhaps this was a response to me. In any case, I don't generally believe in permabanning. I am sure humans could provide me with an individual I would want permabanned, but it's not a function I am trying to get in place.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:59 pm

It was not a response to anyone or aimed at anyone.

It was a general statement (or belief) that a bunch of adults could solve their problems without resorting to permabanning and 'foeing'.

I guess that it's not possible here and now.

Ironically this appears to be a case of Biggus' "conflicting goods". And he is in favor of me using the 'foe' list :o . In other words, I have to adapt to him while he runs around doing things as he always has. Where is his "moderation and negotiation"?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:05 pm

phyllo wrote:It was not a response to anyone or aimed at anyone.

It was a general statement (or belief) that a bunch of adults could solve their problems without resorting to permabanning and 'foeing'.

I guess that it's not possible here and now.


It is online. That's a special, non-mammalian kind of community. In fact I really want to call it a 'community'. If you get flustered, scared, embarrassed, ashamed, realize you messed up, confused....in a real life face to face encounter, it's often visible. Here you can deny that anything bothered you, seemed to have merit, required some new thinking, might have been true, upset you, got to you, made sense, hit home. Then you can construct a good comeback, avoid those parts you would be best to avoid (to save face, to seem smart, to attack best, to not have to show any of those reactions on my first list.)

In a community or club, like say a philosophy club where people physically gathered, you get called on shit, you have look people in the eyes. You really have to believe down to your bones that if a number of people give you the same feedback you know they are wrong, or you are going to show some visible signs from that first life. Great poker faces and sociopaths will still be able to hide all that, but most people will not. Being online allows everyone to act with the freedom a sociopath/psychopath has. Express certainty, deny, lie, distract with no tells.

A face to face community can really call people out on stuff and it is much harder to seem unmoved, confident etc.

Ironically this appears to be a case of Biggus' "conflicting goods". And he is in favor of me using the 'foe' list :o . In other words, I have to adapt to him while he runs around doing things as he always has. Where is his "moderation and negotiation"?
Maybe he really wants to hijack more threads, dismiss even more of what people say with condescending labels and psychoanalyze all disagreement as fear of losing comfort (psychic claims that generally come first before people 'make him the issue' IOW after they where made the issue and labled as objectivists or serious philosophers or avoiding discomfort, etc.). IOW maybe he already feels like he has compromised. Ah, just kidding. Social mammals, humans included do care what other people say. But those people without faces, as just words on a screen, where the first person can pretend all sorts of stuff and never have to look someone in the eye when called out on stuff. Even a narcissist will get flustered when confronting a few people. A psychopath will move to where no one realizes what he or she is up to. Online, no need. Or vastly less need.

And imagine the degree of face saving already invested in. This is a pattern that has gone on for more than a decade without, I think, a single admission of merit in any criticism of behavior.

I truly wish there were some other option. I tried as many tacks as I could and have with other trolls who at least were smart and seemed, I say seemed, to engage in a discussion.

But please let me know if you or someone else has some kind of breakthrough or gets and admission of anything regarding behavior. And link me to it. I'd be happy actually.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:07 pm

phyllo wrote:Ironically this appears to be a case of Biggus' "conflicting goods". And he is in favor of me using the 'foe' list :o . In other words, I have to adapt to him while he runs around doing things as he always has. Where is his "moderation and negotiation"?


My conflicting goods is derived from Barrett's "rival goods":

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us.

Seems reasonable to me, perhaps not to you.

And I was merely pointing out that here at ILP foeing is an option when confronting posters that rub you the wrong way...for any reason.

To foe or not foe? For each of us, how is that not embodied in dasein?

And one way in which we can explore "moderation, negotiation and compromise" in regard to the accusations you hurl at me over and over and over and over and over again is to take them to a particular context involving conflicting goods.

And if your own rendition of that hasn't worked in the past, okay, but, still, what's the alternative for all practical purposes but to try, try again?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38547
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:21 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Maybe he really wants to hijack more threads, dismiss even more of what people say with condescending labels and psychoanalyze all disagreement as fear of losing comfort (psychic claims that generally come first before people 'make him the issue' IOW after they where made the issue and labled as objectivists or serious philosophers or avoiding discomfort, etc.). IOW maybe he already feels like he has compromised. Ah, just kidding. Social mammals, humans included do care what other people say. But those people without faces, as just words on a screen, where the first person can pretend all sorts of stuff and never have to look someone in the eye when called out on stuff. Even a narcissist will get flustered when confronting a few people. A psychopath will move to where no one realizes what he or she is up to. Online, no need. Or vastly less need.

And imagine the degree of face saving already invested in. This is a pattern that has gone on for more than a decade without, I think, a single admission of merit in any criticism of behavior.

I truly wish there were some other option. I tried as many tacks as I could and have with other trolls who at least were smart and seemed, I say seemed, to engage in a discussion.

But please let me know if you or someone else has some kind of breakthrough or gets and admission of anything regarding behavior. And link me to it. I'd be happy actually.


So, how does he know all of this about me is true? How is he not "fractured and fragmented" as "I" in regard to value judgments such as this?

Consider:

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

At least for now.

As for hijacking treads, my method of choice is actually to create them:

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
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38547
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:03 pm

And one way in which we can explore "moderation, negotiation and compromise" in regard to the accusations you hurl at me over and over and over and over and over again is to take them to a particular context involving conflicting goods.
If you can't "explore "moderation, negotiation and compromise"" in the context of posting in an internet forum, then you certainly can't do it in the context of something much more complicated like abortion, gun control or capital punishment.

If you can't change a lightbulb, then you aren't going to rebuild the engine of your car.
And if your own rendition of that hasn't worked in the past, okay, but, still, what's the alternative for all practical purposes but to try, try again?
Isn't insanity "doing the same thing and expecting different results"?

If something isn't working, stop doing it.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:20 pm

The only person I advocated for permabanning on an administrative level was that weird math guy...

He would say weird shit like 1+1=2 two is the number of satan... etc... crazy as fuck. Didn’t bother me one bit.

But then he went somewhere I’ve never seen on a message board...

He used the quote function to make up shit I never said, and then started debating it.

It’s fine to me if people mindread, or forget who said what... but this was fucked up shit he was doing.

I brought it to Carleas, and even he couldn’t believe it!

I’m laughing as I think about it right now... it was really fucked up shit
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11051
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:35 pm

phyllo wrote:
And one way in which we can explore "moderation, negotiation and compromise" in regard to the accusations you hurl at me over and over and over and over and over again is to take them to a particular context involving conflicting goods.
If you can't "explore "moderation, negotiation and compromise"" in the context of posting in an internet forum, then you certainly can't do it in the context of something much more complicated like abortion, gun control or capital punishment.


But that's built right into the way ILP works. Imagine if everyone here was required to read every post by every member. Either because those in power demanded and enforced it [might makes right] or because it was decided by all that, objectively, this is the right thing to do [right makes might]. Instead, we can participate or not participate with others by either accepting an exchange as they would prefer it or as we would prefer it. Or by at least attempting to meet each other half way.

On the other hand, things like abortion, gun control and capital punishment are much more serious. After all, the consequences of choosing might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise in regard to them can be considerably more dire.

phyllo wrote: you can't change a lightbulb, then you aren't going to rebuild the engine of your car.


Note to others:

A little help with this please.

And if your own rendition of that hasn't worked in the past, okay, but, still, what's the alternative for all practical purposes but to try, try again?


phyllo wrote: Isn't insanity "doing the same thing and expecting different results"?

If something isn't working, stop doing it.


That can be true, sure. But, here, what else is there? Not understanding another's position after a few exchanges doesn't mean that you won't come closer to it on the next attempt. Given a new context, things might become clearer.

But at least with a much discussed "newsworthy" context precipitating conflicting behaviors rooted in conflicting goods, the words are more likely to describe things more substantively.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, just out of curiosity, what do you think of this:

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

He seems to be suggesting that in regard to his thinking about me he never reaches the point that I do in regard to my thinking about him: fractured and fragmented,

That, instead, there is this "real me/core self" that somehow "at least now" comes to the rescue.

He says that's not it. It's something else. But what could it be then?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38547
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:45 pm

Iambiguous,

You have a chew toy from Karpel. You’ve used it 6 times now. You’re not going to let it go. The one time you have dirt on Karpel, and you’re going to make sure nobody on ILP forgets it.

Actually, you think you have dirt of every being in existence “no stable self and conflicting goods in dasein”

I can appreciate that! I have the goods on everyone as well ... zero sum realities don’t work, consent violation is the only wrong; in a zero sum world, it’s impossible to not violate consent.

We have different approaches on having the goods on everyone.

Like I’ve told you many times: your problem is a subset of my problem.

Your consent is violated because conflicting goods and an unstable self exists.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11051
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:48 pm

#-o
---------------------------------------
Also, just out of curiosity, what do you think of this:

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

1. KT didn't write that, you did.

2. I already explained to you what I thought KT meant in the original quote. (Which was about pedophilia)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby MagsJ » Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:58 am

phyllo wrote:
But then those, with an ability to research and understand, need not worry about that.
You can research and understand on your own or some other place where you're not going to be called a liar or moron by a bunch of closed-minded egoists.

Indeed :lol:

Going off, and reading up on matters of personal interest regularly, is more conducive to personal growth, than arguing with the ignorant and egotistical will ever be.

A lot of the threads are not even discussions ... it's somebody on a soapbox. And often someone full of hostility.

There’s a lot of ‘blowing off steam’ happening, but it’s not conducive to those that don’t need to.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20890
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:04 am

phyllo wrote: #-o


Right, as though the points I raised above warrant a dismissive reaction of this sort.

Also, just out of curiosity, what do you think of this:

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


phyllo wrote:1. KT didn't write that, you did.

2. I already explained to you what I thought KT meant in the original quote. (Which was about pedophilia)


Did he or did he not note this in regard to pedophilia:

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

I merely imagined his reaction to an existing God noting that pedophilia is good, or an actual philosophical, logical, rational proof that it was good.

He'd reject them both. Why? Because he'd accept only what I called his "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self that just knows that pedophilia is repulsive.

Then I merely substituted myself as a troll in the place of pedophilia.

And here's your explanation from my thread:

He still feels revulsion.

"A logical argument" doesn't take away his revulsion. Why would it?

"An omniscient and omnipotent God" doesn't take away his revulsion.


And you're sticking with it aren't you? It really explains almost nothing given the points that I raised.

So, I responded to you thusly:

Okay, one could then argue that Nazis feeling revulsion for Jews and Jews feeling revulsion for Nazis, what, cancel each other out?

Clearly, based on the evolution of biological life on planet Earth, each one of us comes into the world able to feel revulsion...and, as well, many other deep-seated subjunctive states.

But, historically, culturally and circumstantially how does this innate capacity become manifested and embodied in any particular individual? I take a stab at this in my signature threads. Intellectual contraptions that we would have to "situate" out in particular contexts and examine our own "I" in regard.

And the extent to which others would "care" about my arguments is no less rooted subjectively in dasein. I'm certainly not suggesting that all rational men and women are obligated to.

Instead, I always focus on the extent to which "I" can be construed as the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to do". And the manner in which the moral and political objectivists among us insist they they are in sync with a core self/soul and that they are able to divide the world up between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys].

With Karpel Tunnel my interest revolves around the extent to which he construes what I construe to be his "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self, as or as not fractured and fragmented. Given that I deem the subjunctive "I" to be no less rooted in dasein. It just gets trickier here because the subjunctive "I" is closer to the "mammalian" portion of the human brain:

"Next is the limbic system, also called the paleomammalian complex; the mammalian brain; or the midbrain. This part of the brain is unique to mammals. According to MacLean, the limbic system of this mammalian brain is the center of emotion and learning."

And that is right around the corner from the reptilian part of the brain, right?

Then, in turn, the murky junctures where the conscious brain becomes entangled in the subconscious and the unconscious brain functions.

Ever and always this part:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

But, come on, if there is an omniscient and omnipotent God then at least we know that however we may squabble over these things, there is a "transcending font" that has all the answers.


Bottom line [my own]:

Ever and always the gap between my attempt to assess my frame of mind at length and your own three or four line "rebuttal".

What's yours?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38547
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:51 am

Everybody wants to win.

That simple.

So the only way winning makes sense is a plan where everyone does win.

I always say this to people:

In a zero sum reality, when you win, you lose, and when you lose, you definitely lose.

Refute that. Go ahead. Prove I’m a troll and not you for ignoring me by “ignoring the troll”

I’m not looking for adulation here; I just happen to hate illogic when people are trying to presumably make logical threads and hold themselves up as bastions of reason incarnate and then call reason a method of trolling.

I know everyone on ILP is scared shitless of an objective morality.

Triangles exist outside the mind. Nobody wanting their consent violated exists objectively outside the mind.

Both would always be the case even if there were no minds. When minds come, they are always discovered.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11051
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:13 am

Right, as though the points I raised above warrant a dismissive reaction of this sort.
As though the points people raise warrant your dismissive reactions : intellectual contraption, general description, abstract, in the clouds, in your head, ... (And that's the short list)
Did he or did he not note this in regard to pedophilia:

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

I merely imagined his reaction to an existing God noting that pedophilia is good, or an actual philosophical, logical, rational proof that it was good.

He'd reject them both. Why? Because he'd accept only what I called his "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self that just knows that pedophilia is repulsive.

Then I merely substituted myself as a troll in the place of pedophilia.

And here's your explanation from my thread:
I gave my opinion in that original thread and that's it. Done.

How many times have you paraded this out with either the original text or one of your imagined versions? Five times? Ten times? In multiple different threads.

I consider it trolling. Dragging things from one thread to another, over and over. Trying to provoke KT so he will talk to you.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:44 am

phyllo wrote:
Right, as though the points I raised above warrant a dismissive reaction of this sort.
As though the points people raise warrant your dismissive reactions : intellectual contraption, general description, abstract, in the clouds, in your head, ... (And that's the short list)


Again, I'll "drag" over the points I raised with you above:

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
And one way in which we can explore "moderation, negotiation and compromise" in regard to the accusations you hurl at me over and over and over and over and over again is to take them to a particular context involving conflicting goods.
If you can't "explore "moderation, negotiation and compromise"" in the context of posting in an internet forum, then you certainly can't do it in the context of something much more complicated like abortion, gun control or capital punishment.


But that's built right into the way ILP works. Imagine if everyone here was required to read every post by every member. Either because those in power demanded and enforced it [might makes right] or because it was decided by all that, objectively, this is the right thing to do [right makes might]. Instead, we can participate or not participate with others by either accepting an exchange as they would prefer it or as we would prefer it. Or by at least attempting to meet each other half way.

On the other hand, things like abortion, gun control and capital punishment are much more serious. After all, the consequences of choosing might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise in regard to them can be considerably more dire.

And if your own rendition of that hasn't worked in the past, okay, but, still, what's the alternative for all practical purposes but to try, try again?


phyllo wrote: Isn't insanity "doing the same thing and expecting different results"?

If something isn't working, stop doing it.


That can be true, sure. But, here, what else is there? Not understanding another's position after a few exchanges doesn't mean that you won't come closer to it on the next attempt. Given a new context, things might become clearer.

But at least with a much discussed "newsworthy" context precipitating conflicting behaviors rooted in conflicting goods, the words are more likely to describe things more substantively.


Others here can decide for themselves if that is accurately encompassed in your accusations.

Did he or did he not note this in regard to pedophilia:

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

I merely imagined his reaction to an existing God noting that pedophilia is good, or an actual philosophical, logical, rational proof that it was good.

He'd reject them both. Why? Because he'd accept only what I called his "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self that just knows that pedophilia is repulsive.

Then I merely substituted myself as a troll in the place of pedophilia.

And here's your explanation from my thread:


phyllo wrote: I gave my opinion in that original thread and that's it. Done.


Yes, I included it above. Along with my reaction to it.

phyllo wrote: How many times have you paraded this out with either the original text or one of your imagined versions? Five times? Ten times? In multiple different threads.


That's ridiculous. I participate or start or sustain any number of threads in which little or nothing is "paraded" from thread to thread.

But given the "retorts" that I often get from you in regard to what I do post, I feel it is warranted in reminding others of just how little you do provide in the way of substantive arguments. Comparing and contrasting my own efforts with yours.

phyllo wrote: I consider it trolling. Dragging things from one thread to another, over and over. Trying to provoke KT so he will talk to you.


Provokingt KT?!

He is the one who began this thread. Or are you going to pretend his troll isn't me. And then this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 6&t=195958

Sure, I am curious about his reaction to me. His, at times, obsession with me. Never in all of the years that I have posted on philosophy boards have I ever come across a reaction to me like his --- except from the objectivists.

Here's a guy who seems to share my conviction about No God and religion, about objective morality. A guy who also seems to share many of my own political prejudices. And my narrative in regard to the Deep State.

Yet he clearly seems to loathe me. Why? Now, my suspicions revolve around the extent to which he does not want to construe his own "pragmatic" moral and political values from the perspective of a "fractured and fragmented" sense of "self". That this disturbs him in some way.

But he tells me my speculations about him here are wrong. Okay, so in regard to a particular set of circumstances in which conflicting behaviors are derived from conflicting goods, how does he understand his own identity then.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38547
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:41 am

A search shows Biggus posting some variation of that quote 17 times. :shock:

Why? Why??
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:11 am

phyllo wrote:A search shows Biggus posting some variation of that quote 17 times. :shock:

Why? Why??


Like I said:

Ever and always the gap between my attempt to assess my frame of mind at length and your own three or four two line "rebuttal".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38547
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:49 am

phyllo wrote:A search shows Biggus posting some variation of that quote 17 times. :shock:

Why? Why??
It doesn't matter. He probably fails to read my 'at least now' (which is there in the quote you quote) and thinks he has a smoking gun of some kind. Perhaps he does think we are infinitely malleable AND instantly malleable. That he himself is seconds away from raping children, eating glass, becoming straight or gay, today. If the voice of God came and told him to rape kids, he would immediately do it. Or if someone online came with an argument he couldn't see the flaw in, out he would go and rape kids if the argument demonstrated that it was a moral obligation. No genetics, no tendencies...instantly malleable. We can just hope he doesn't encounter a clever pedophile online or that day he may rush out and starting raping children, instantly via words overcoming his current sexual tendencies and revulsions.

Why? Why? you ask. And also I would add How? How? How can someone seemingly intelligent.......`? and there were many endings to that question.

It is tantalizing. That was part of the flypaper. But it's only flypaper. It is not a discussion. And it wasn't over ten years ago on those other forums, those places he did respect and got the same feedback he gets here.

And yes, perhaps someday he will be able to have a discussion and/or actually be able consider negative feedback. And perhaps the battering husband will someday change. This does happen. But each person must make a decision when enough is enough and head to the car with the kids. To say someone is a battering husband is a kind of oversimplification, sure. They are more than that, more complex than that. But when it comes to making decisions it is a highly useful term for the battered woman, who is also more complex than that, especially when she decides to leave a toxic situation. Toxic given what she wants out of life and what life forms tend to want out of life. That's a very extreme metaphor, intentionally used to highlight a pattern.

Everyone needs to decide what they want. If one wants to engage a troll - iow someone who cannot concede points and is pleased and considers it a victory when the other person is triggered (and there's a good deal of evidence of self-congratulatory posts like that) - then doing it is a good idea for that person.

Because right now what I see is people engaging with what they consider trollish behavior posters, and this leads to long digressions between those people, often quite rightly pointing out patterns, which makes for a more complicated hijacking of the thread, and since these people quote the trolls, the trolls ideas are actually getting copied, and this may draw in people who skip over the troll...and so on.

And obviously I have engaged in this a lot myself. And given that I quote more than you do, I have added to the proliferation of evasions and accusations and distractions and misinterpretations these posters are making and which bother me.

What is the goal? What is my behavior doing to achieve that goal?

Now interacting with someone can have lots of goals. I did learn a lot from engaging with trolls, the less blunt ones, that is. But in the end I was not longer doing anything I wanted and I certainly was not reducing the effects of the trollers.

I don't see it reducing the effects, if anything it seems to enhance them.

Which is, I assume, the root intention/insight of 'do not feed a troll.'

Since they cannot show they themselves are affected by negative feedback (perhaps privately annoyed or vengeful) AND their goal is to irritate upset take revenge make others feel what they feel be sadistic, the more responses of ANY kind, the more they are getting what they want.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users