Don't feed a troll

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:41 pm

The classic troll is the Aggressive troll who makes it clear what they are up to - after a number of their OPs have been posted - and are, generally, easier to deal with. They say something instantly insulting in their OP or an extreme position they have little interest in. They make little effort to engage in logical argument or to respond to points made but come with more triggering comments

But more insidious, I think, is the passive-aggressive trolls - passive aggression:
Another source characterizes passive-aggressive behavior as: "a personality trait marked by a pervasive pattern of negative attitudes and characterized by passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to complying with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations. Behaviors: learned helplessness, procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible".[5] Other examples of passive-aggressive behavior might include avoiding direct or clear communication, evading problems, fear of intimacy or competition, making excuses, blaming others, obstructionism, playing the victim, feigning compliance with requests, sarcasm, backhanded compliments, and hiding anger.
I would add, not addressing points made. Not reading well but acting as one has (as a pattern). Never conceding. Assuming that others have the onus.

The passive aggressive person is a master at maintaining calm and feigning shock when others, worn down by his or her indirect hostility, blow up in anger. In fact, the person takes pleasure out of setting others up to lose their cool and then questioning their "overreactions."
And interpreting them as signs that fit their theories and never as reactions to behavior. IOW emotional reactions to them are due to other people's weaknesses, not a response to the PA person's behavior. And this assertion never, ever needs to be demonstrated. Perhaps they throw out a disclaimer, after the insult/interpretation that they might be wrong. Which they seem to think means they don't need to justify an assumption they have made for a decade.

Others must justify or even, get this PROVE to everyone their assertions. But the PA trolls need not demonstrate anything.

This is different from the posters here, and they can be boht on the left and right in politics, who instantly label other people in binary terms are on the shifty side when they avoid specific responses, BUT do respond to some things AND own their anger. There is none of the PA coquette bullshit. Peter Kropotikin and Pedro I. Rengel are not trolls. They could improve how they respond to specific arguments, but they have skin in the game and show it. Their posts don't fit ancore aim of triggering people.

Some other traits of PAs in general fleshed out a bit: tendency to sabotage....this fits with hijacking, always they are innocent of this; disguised insults: serious philosophers (sounds like a compliment and notice how it also, along with academic philosophers, has a kind of 'I am a victim' ((mentioned above)) facet it to it. It also includes I know how you feel, I hated it when I had to face...false empathy (read smugness) and also assumes the conclusion. The PA doesn't have to demonstrate that his or her mindreading is correct, but rather goes direct to the mindreading with the assumption the other is experiencing and doing what they say; obstructionist
Passive-aggressive people act passive, but express aggression covertly. They’re basically obstructionist, and try to block whatever it is you want. Their unconscious anger gets transferred onto you, and you become frustrated and furious. Your fury is theirs, while they may calmly ask, “Why are you getting so angry?” and blame you for the anger they’re provoking.
And of course here, then telling you why you are getting angry and their mindreading, amazingly enough, fits their theories and emotional needs.

Somehow it is just not possible that people are annoyed with their behavior. It must be their ideas: read you get angry at me because you have a problem, a problem that fits my theory. And some how the advocate of the power of dasein never seems to consider how much bias might lead him to this conclusion. Tagging on a disclaimer is not considering something. It's just a 'you can't hit me cause I said everything I say might not be true which makes me better than you.'

Now I went into this in part because these are also fairly universal patterns: iow present to some degree in probably most people, but in most people not enough to be a core quality. So, it is going to come up from others and from ourselves. And if you are in a situation where you are dealing with a real and dangerous power, it may be the only option. Kids, anyone singled out for abuse by law enforcement or government agencies, abused partners, trafficked people, sweatshop workers. There passive-aggressive tactics may be the only option.

Ecmandu, hm. I didn't stop engaging with him because he was a troll. I don't know if he is. I defended him, in part, for a while. Tried to show others there was value in some of what he was saying and also that their dismissals were facile. I explored to some degree with him. And then, since I did not agree with everything, he classed me in his usual utterly binary terms. When I told him I'd ignore him then, he told me I would always come back to him. That was an easy assertion to disprove. Guru types, especially ones suffering their own poor choices, can't be hurt by reminders they are not omniscient. I'll take being slapped a few times by someone I've treated well, but then, there's a limit. When I was younger, I would keep coming back for more with people like that.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3451
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:38 pm

When I think about things like this, it’s interesting to me that neglect is a greater abuse than overt abuse.

This is proven in study after study. Being frozen out. Being in solitary confinement. Being in a sensory deprivation tank.

Given that, you have to wonder who the sadist really is.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11098
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:57 pm

Karpel, I just read your narrative of your last post.

Here’s the deal, and you might roll your eyes, I had to become hyper-rational to reality orient in hell.

It’s a skill I was forced to hone. When there’s a contradiction, it sets me off.

I once explained this to people, that contradictions hurt my spirit on a soul level, and they casually stated that life is full of contradictions, that must be a huge burden for you.

Not knowing anything about anything I actually endured in hell (and no, nobody else on ILP knows what hell is) they made a statement out of ignorance of what’s required to survive something like that.

I appreciate that you stood up for me in those ways.

What you interpret as “too binary”, is a finely tuned hell survival technique.

I can explain more if you’re interested.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11098
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Meno_ » Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:31 pm

I tend to agree here, as we have come ro a general axiomatic infusion where either and. / or both participants can accuse each other for 'trolling'.A reversed red baiting would duplicates the 'witchunts' for political victims, etc, creating fertile ground to conspire within.

Party affiliation becomes everything and independents can by the same token be characterized and grouped into marginally negative defined categories.

What results is a general sentiment that results in more conducive programs of adoption of political traits which signify lower levels of expressions dealing with favorable/unfavorable schematics.

Why is such trolling more unrated as social norms vindicate more general codes of conduct, as indicated from top to bottom, ? Trolling becomes a sign of opinionated expression , not conforming to partyline's recurrent charges of being out of bound , formal designations, which traditionally set limits between the necessary interpretation between dejure and defacto adjudications.

Traditions , substantially used in procedures have bent , or, are in the process of being constitutionally degutted, and when neither padty acquiesces to take responsibility, victims must be found.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 7661
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:45 pm

Curly wrote:
Larry 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.


Yes, I missed it the first time. Bur not the next time. Allow me to drag this over:

iambiguous wrote:
Curly wrote: 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.


my emphasis

I missed this part.

And it's an important qualifier.

To the extent that anyone is willing to accept that their thoughts and feelings about conflicting goods are embedded existentially in the "here and now", they recognize [more or less as "I" do] that their value judgments might change.

Then it comes back down to the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to do". In other words, some will admit that, given access to new experiences, new relationships, new ideas etc., in the past, they did change their moral narrative and political agenda. But that is only because they were able to come all that closer to the real "real me" here. There is still an objective morality. There is only the question of whether "I" here and now is in sync with it.

So, it seems, for some, there must still be doubts about this alignment.

Others, of course, don't go down this road at all. They might change their minds about something given new sets of circumstances but it all just gets subsumed psychologically into the new "certainty". They merely block out any other explanation more or less consciously.

Again, there are so many individual variables here embedded in so many very different lives that we may or may not fully understand of control, it's easy enough to rationalize just about any aspect of "I" here.


Curly wrote: 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.


No, I agrued that given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas "in the future" there is always the possibility you might change your mind and your behaviors with respect to your value judgments. After all, as a result of just those things, "I" reconfigured from a devout Christian to a Unitarian to a Communist to a Marxist-Leninist to a Trotskyist to a Democratic Socialist to a Social Democrat to an existentialist to a moral nihilist.

Curly wrote: If the voice of God came and told him to rape kids, he would immediately do it.


No, I would endeavour to ascertain what powers this God possessed. Is He omnipotent? Is He able to punish me to eternal damnation in Hell if I refuse to obey Him?

And, if He is, what would you do? Me? Well, I'm not in possession of a "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self to keep the fractured fragments at bay.

Curly wrote: 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, the assumption [mine anyway] was that this deontological assessment was not just something that I could see no flaw in, but one in which there was no flaw to see. Though here, sure, the "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" self is existentially embedded in all of us given the particular life that we lived. Let's call it dasein. And since the logicians and epistemologists don't have the power toss me in Hell, it's a completely different context.

Curly wrote:Blah blah blah.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38688
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:55 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:The classic troll is the Aggressive troll who makes it clear what they are up to - after a number of their OPs have been posted - and are, generally, easier to deal with. They say something instantly insulting in their OP or an extreme position they have little interest in. They make little effort to engage in logical argument or to respond to points made but come with more triggering comments


Okay, let's examine the OP on just some of the threads that I have [mostly] started. Or sustain.

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

So, would this make me the "classic troll"? How about the more insidious "passive-aggressive" troll?
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38688
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:17 pm

Iambiguous wrote :
KT wrote:
If the voice of God came and told him to rape kids, he would immediately do it.



No, I would endeavour to ascertain what powers this God possessed. Is He omnipotent? Is He able to punish me to eternal damnation in Hell if I refuse to obey Him?

And, if He is, what would you do? Me? Well, I'm not in possession of a "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self to keep the fractured fragments at bay.

Allow me to remind you of something that you previously wrote:
Iambiguous wrote :

On the other hand, if a God, the God did in fact reveal Himself to me in a way that could not be doubted, and if He said that pedophilia is good, and, further, that not pursuing it is bad, a sin, punishable by eternal damnation, why would I not pursue it? Who am I as a mere mortal to grasp, to doubt His mysterious ways with Hell itself on the line.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... n#p2778639
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12121
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:40 pm

phyllo wrote:
Iambiguous wrote :
KT wrote:
If the voice of God came and told him to rape kids, he would immediately do it.



No, I would endeavour to ascertain what powers this God possessed. Is He omnipotent? Is He able to punish me to eternal damnation in Hell if I refuse to obey Him?

And, if He is, what would you do? Me? Well, I'm not in possession of a "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self to keep the fractured fragments at bay.

Allow me to remind you of something that you previously wrote:
Iambiguous wrote :

On the other hand, if a God, the God did in fact reveal Himself to me in a way that could not be doubted, and if He said that pedophilia is good, and, further, that not pursuing it is bad, a sin, punishable by eternal damnation, why would I not pursue it? Who am I as a mere mortal to grasp, to doubt His mysterious ways with Hell itself on the line.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... n#p2778639


So? This God does manifest Himself. He's the real deal. He is omnipotent, can send you Hell for all the rest of eternity and commands mere mortals to engage in pedophilia. Now, unlike Karpel Tunnel, I'm unable to command a "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self to keep the fractured fragments at bay.

But!

There are no more fractured fragments, right? God -- a God, the God -- does in fact exist. I can and I must anchor my self to Him or risk eternal damnation. The tortuous agonies of Hell.

But!

Is is all unfolding here and now in a thought experiment. So, what would I do lacking KT's "real me" gut reaction?

How about you?
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38688
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:25 pm

phyllo wrote:KT wrote:
If the voice of God came and told him to rape kids, he would immediately do it.



xxxxxxxxxxxx

Allow me to remind you of something that you previously wrote:

Iambiguous wrote :
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Oh Jeez Phyllo. Now because your posts are visible to me I see Iamb's words. You did a lovely job. I never knew he actually admitted this, it just seemed one could deduce it from his position. And there it is in black and white. But here's the thing Phyllo. He will not admit anything. He'll distract, move goalposts, misinterpret, put the onus on you to prove something else. I doubt he actually responded to my exact position, but one that was easier. I would bet there were slides in meaning or tangents. IRL in some pub we could look at him, and as he denies and flails and gives you some more jobs and responsibility for demonstrating something to him, we'd look each other in eye, shake our heads....IRL it would be much harder to pull whatever evasion he pulls here. Here the embarassement can be hidden.. It's a forever job chasing that possible change that admission that shift in habit..... It's easy to pretend you weren't just caught in bed cheating on your wife or whatever. You don't have to worry about twitches in your eye muscles, the way your hands wave around, the creak in your voice.....

I'll shift to a different metaphor from the flypaper

Viruses need the hosts to replicate themselves.....
A virus is a tiny, infectious particle that can reproduce only by infecting a host cell. Viruses "commandeer" the host cell and use its resources to make more viruses, basically reprogramming it to become a virus factory. Because they can't reproduce by themselves (without a host), viruses are not considered living.
[/quote]

Now this isn't a perfect analogy. He can go on posting in his own threads and the threads of others without needing us as hosts. But it's not quite life. If people ignored him: 1) a common path to his replication is gone 2) less disruption of threads OR at least if he does then hijack with more posts, it will be all, clearly his responsibility. Even a moderationless place like this might intervene. 3) He might get bored and move on the forums with hosts that are not yet immune.

Now he's not just a virus, obviously, and I am being snarky. I think he is interested in what he claims to be....also, in addition to whatever is driving him. He can write actual on-topic posts on politics and probably on other topics, without instantly talking about his working class childhood and objectivists. But there is a viral, troll core to his participation that many people seem to find counterproductive to what they came here to do. If they ignored him, he might find another way to post. Or, more likely, simply be a reduced presence. And no longer a parasite because threads wouldn't be hijacked. It'd be an occasional passing jet, so the conversation pauses, and then continues.

Pardon the mixed and gliding metaphors.

Anyway it would be great if you ignored him, from my perspective, and even better if you encouraged, with me, others to. But maybe you get some kind of use out interacting with him. And I do understand your horror that it might be the only solution.

I'll avoid posting in my own thread, here, for a while. Some people aren't using enough hand disinfectant. I think we have a viral breach!!!!!! :o :D
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3451
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:38 pm

So? This God does manifest Himself. He's the real deal. He is omnipotent, can send you Hell for all the rest of eternity and commands mere mortals to engage in pedophilia. Now, unlike Karpel Tunnel, I'm unable to command a "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self to keep the fractured fragments at bay.

But!

There are no more fractured fragments, right? God -- a God, the God -- does in fact exist. I can and I must anchor my self to Him or risk eternal damnation. The tortuous agonies of Hell.

But!

Is is all unfolding here and now in a thought experiment. So, what would I do lacking KT's "real me" gut reaction?
I suspect that the "real you" would find some reason why the "real deal God" is fake. That way you would not feel compelled to obey.

Just as the "real you" would find "irrefutable" arguments to be unconvincing.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12121
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:46 pm

Curly wrote:
Now this isn't a perfect analogy. He can go on posting in his own threads and the threads of others without needing us as hosts. But it's not quite life. If people ignored him: 1) a common path to his replication is gone 2) less disruption of threads OR at least if he does then hijack with more posts, it will be all, clearly his responsibility. Even a moderationless place like this might intervene. 3) He might get bored and move on the forums with hosts that are not yet immune.

Now he's not just a virus, obviously, and I am being snarky. I think he is interested in what he claims to be....also, in addition to whatever is driving him. He can write actual on-topic posts on politics and probably on other topics, without instantly talking about his working class childhood and objectivists. But there is a viral, troll core to his participation that many people seem to find counterproductive to what they came here to do. If they ignored him, he might find another way to post. Or, more likely, simply be a reduced presence. And no longer a parasite because threads wouldn't be hijacked. It'd be an occasional passing jet, so the conversation pauses, and then continues.

Pardon the mixed and gliding metaphors.

Anyway it would be great if you ignored him, from my perspective, and even better if you encouraged, with me, others to. But maybe you get some kind of use out interacting with him. And I do understand your horror that it might be the only solution.

I'll avoid posting in my own thread, here, for a while. Some people aren't using enough hand disinfectant. I think we have a viral breach!!!!!! :o :D


Uh oh.

Here he is forced to acknowledge there are parts of me at ILP that don't fit into his serial "troll" accusations. Instead, it seems the "troll" is at the core. Still, despite all the substantive threads and posts of mine relating to the sort of things one would expect to find in a philosophy venue...things that are somehow able to rise above this "core" troll...nothing really changes.

Others here are encouraged to avoid reading this part of me...

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

...because the "core" troll will be encouraged as well.

One day...maybe...he will finally admit to himself just how pathetic his attacks on me are. Especially considering what I construe to be the far greater danger to ILP: the Kids, the yak yak yak social media types and the pinhead "liberals are scumbag" reactionaries.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38688
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:48 pm

Anyway it would be great if you ignored him, from my perspective, and even better if you encouraged, with me, others to. But maybe you get some kind of use out interacting with him. And I do understand your horror that it might be the only solution.
I don't have that much left to say. I'm down to two or three line "rebuttals". (As if two or three page "rebuttals" would change anything)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12121
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:57 pm

Larry wrote:
So? This God does manifest Himself. He's the real deal. He is omnipotent, can send you Hell for all the rest of eternity and commands mere mortals to engage in pedophilia. Now, unlike Karpel Tunnel, I'm unable to command a "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self to keep the fractured fragments at bay.

But!

There are no more fractured fragments, right? God -- a God, the God -- does in fact exist. I can and I must anchor my self to Him or risk eternal damnation. The tortuous agonies of Hell.

But!

Is is all unfolding here and now in a thought experiment. So, what would I do lacking KT's "real me" gut reaction?
I suspect that the "real you" would find some reason why the "real deal God" is fake. That way you would not feel compelled to obey.

Just as the "real you" would find "irrefutable" arguments to be unconvincing.


There is no "real me" here though. I'm unable to channel a "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self...either in a God or in a No God world.

Or, if there is in fact both a Real Me and a God, I'm not able to connect the dots to them. Existentially as it were. Here and now.

What about you? Having accepted that your own life is essentially meaningless [or at least possibly so], do you have anything that is the equivalent of Curly's gut reaction Self?
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38688
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:04 pm

Phyllo wrote:I don't have that much left to say. I'm down to two or three line "rebuttals". (As if two or three page "rebuttals" would change anything)
Well, you were always more concise than me. I just to be clear: when I say encourage others to ignore him, I only mean, when they end up expressing frustration, or end up not stopping him from hijacking and thus are part of digressions. Not some general campaign. And obviously no foe function is needed for that. I am also interested in the general issue. If everyone stopped responding to people they considered trolls. Or in general stopped doing that, what would the communication be like? The option of making one post noting what the person is doing is also a potential middle ground, with no engagement after that in that instance. Even if I disagree about whom they consider trolls, it still might make threads flow better. If you consider someone a troll, or a hijacker or whatever, and you do not engage, perhaps that reduces the noise here. Perhaps. One could look at this positively also. Instead of engaging with people posting in ways one does not like, engage with people who one can have an on topic dialogue with. Where does one put one's energy? It's limited so perhaps finding the person who you disagree with but who stays on topic is a better use of time. And for me this still allows discussions with people I disagree with. IOW a number of political positions are held by non-hijackers, non-trolls, etc. One can still meet disagreement and challenges to one's ideas.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3451
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:10 pm

There is no "real me" here though. I'm unable to channel a "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self...either in a God or in a No God world.

Or, if there is in fact both a Real Me and a God, I'm not able to connect the dots to them. Existentially as it were. Here and now.

What about you? Having accepted that your own life is essentially meaningless [or at least possibly so], do you have anything that is the equivalent of Curly's gut reaction Self?
Looking from the 'outside' at your posting, I see a "real you". (Which is very unfractured.)

I have the same reaction that KT expressed in the pedophilia quote. My revulsion would also not go away instantly when presented with an argument or a command from God. I guess that's the "real me" at that point in time. (Which is all there is.)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12121
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:10 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Phyllo wrote:I don't have that much left to say. I'm down to two or three line "rebuttals". (As if two or three page "rebuttals" would change anything)
Well, you were always more concise than me. I just to be clear: when I say encourage others to ignore him, I only mean, when they end up expressing frustration, or end up not stopping him from hijacking and thus are part of digressions. Not some general campaign. And obviously no foe function is needed for that. I am also interested in the general issue. If everyone stopped responding to people they considered trolls. Or in general stopped doing that, what would the communication be like? The option of making one post noting what the person is doing is also a potential middle ground, with no engagement after that in that instance. Even if I disagree about whom they consider trolls, it still might make threads flow better. If you consider someone a troll, or a hijacker or whatever, and you do not engage, perhaps that reduces the noise here. Perhaps. One could look at this positively also. Instead of engaging with people posting in ways one does not like, engage with people who one can have an on topic dialogue with. Where does one put one's energy? It's limited so perhaps finding the person who you disagree with but who stays on topic is a better use of time. And for me this still allows discussions with people I disagree with. IOW a number of political positions are held by non-hijackers, non-trolls, etc. One can still meet disagreement and challenges to one's ideas.


Ah, the "general description intellectual contraption" trolls! :lol:
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38688
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Meno_ » Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:22 pm

I disagree as to the imprrfections, or fissures and fractures to be found being a near perfect analogy-to sustain the ambiguity that it is a sine qua non , near this side of who 'i am ' really , for in that depth, where ever and whatever that comes from. That kind of hold, can not disguise the disjuncture to be be sustained.

And Heidegger's purposefully sustenance of this appearent difference , is ground to the basic question of feeding this whole endless cycle: there is always 'method' in this maddening mind-game.

It is a recently evolved game-intuitively. and/ or purposive ly, to project an evolving series of future outcomes.

This internal dialogue is not only necessary to the tune of setting absolute limits, in order to eschetologically reduces them to phenominal glimpses ( eigenblick); but to invert the essentially manifested duplicity, within the values and identifiable characteristics swirling about each other.

That was the basic arrangements of a King with the jester ( Curly), to pretend the mind games, as being really real, ( in the sense of merely existing)

The winner comes up validated by lesser contentious powers, that can overcome the latter by showing this version of the better understood version of the game: mind over matter, the matter that qualifies as that 'part' of the mind that is differentiated, as the brain.

That is perhaps why, simulation is deemed to subordinate AI as consisting in artificial brain, rather then artificial mind.

The man in the machine is somewhat more equipped to solve such riddles then the other way around.

That is the same problem here, of, at least similar, because the man insides the mind implies the kind of all inclusion that ambiguity tides to reduce to mere metaphors, within brackets.

Such brackets are conditional to the same logical
structures suggested by archaic levels as in simply looking but highly abstract notions of resemblance.


To alienate by ignore the substantive elements, points to a phenomenally inadequate reductive effort , to not only ignore the phenominal brackets or situ, within which that effort is dressed, but to deny the missed essential connections, by reason of detail the insensible content of such, where those details are intentionally left out, suggesting an effort to deny the very method to acquire a 'non-rational ' but contentious basis , on the very least fragile periphery of any supposition that might entertain such adverse contention.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 7661
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:27 pm

phyllo wrote:
There is no "real me" here though. I'm unable to channel a "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self...either in a God or in a No God world.

Or, if there is in fact both a Real Me and a God, I'm not able to connect the dots to them. Existentially as it were. Here and now.

What about you? Having accepted that your own life is essentially meaningless [or at least possibly so], do you have anything that is the equivalent of Curly's gut reaction Self?
Looking from the 'outside' at your posting, I see a "real you". (Which is very unfractured.)


We'll need a context of course.

phyllo wrote: I have the same reaction that KT expressed in the pedophilia quote. My revulsion would also not go away instantly when presented with an argument or a command from God. I guess that's the "real me" at that point in time. (Which is all there is.)


Okay, your core self/soul is revulsed. But do you risk the eternal agony that is the embodiment of Hell itself to act on it?

And how on earth is any individual's intuitive, visceral "self" not in turn an existential contraption rooted subjectively and subjunctively in dasein? Given the trajectory of the life that he or she lived out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially?

Unless of course there are actual specific genes one comes into the world with that do constitute a Real Me in reacting to God commanding one to be a pedophile.

But then that get's all tangled up in the fact that God created the genes in the first place. And then the part about reconciling human autonomy with God's omniscience.

And my whole argument is that to focus in on what you construe to be the Real Me "at that point in time" fails to grasp the manner in which, from the day you are born, "I" is shaped and molded by thousands upon thousands of existential variables you will only ever have so much understanding and control over.

Right?
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38688
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Meno_ » Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:42 pm

Iambigious : ignoring me , in concert with a series of supporters is the paradigm example of what regarded philosophers are constantly reminded of as ' not being understood'

And that can be modified by another proposition , that mutual understanding has to require some intermediary who can redeem appearently contradictory contexts., while contradiction at times merely begs a question of degrees of semblance.( within the simulated contrast between the aforementioned pre-modern, and that what's requisite within expected or general objectives which do transpire some requisite nexus.


And that is why, You require constant reaffirmation by others when confronted.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 7661
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:51 pm

embodiment of Hell itself
I don't believe in hell, salvation, omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence. Therefore, I have nothing to say about it. You need to find someone else.
And my whole argument is that to focus in on what you construe to be the Real Me "at that point in time" fails to grasp the manner in which, from the day you are born, "I" is shaped and molded by thousands upon thousands of existential variables you will only ever have so much understanding and control over.

Right?
The "real me at that point in time" is the product of all experiences built on a foundation of genes. It seems to cover everything.

I imagine you have some particular idea about what the "real me" is or what it should be. Maybe somehow detached from random experience? Not sure how that would work.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12121
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Meno_ » Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:03 pm

The memetic idea of detachment does seem to be able to modify such detsrminancy, even as conflicting gods and ideas of 'trollship' revolved around such abstract considerations.


The absolution of a a troll:


What is the difference between jokes, memes and trolls?
Have you ever googled yourself? Do a “deep search” instead.
A joke has humorous intent,and is not meant to be taken seriously.

Meme is a word coined by Dr Richard Dawkins to represent an idea,that spreads from person to person within a culture—conveying a meaning

Gene:Life::Meme:Culture

An Internet meme is a viral idea,which modifies as it spreads.Popularly it takes the form of a movie clip or scene with added subtext which has an altered context.

A Troll on the other hand is used sarcastically, usually to embarrass or shame.

A joke could be a story or a prank or a meme.

A meme need not be funny. Ir could be an astounding idea.

A troll intends to insult,It doesn't have to be a joke or a meme.

The iconic brand in floor care you trust.
Joke:

Joke means a scenario that makes us laugh.

Meme:

Meme is a photo content that is rewritten to makes us laugh without hurting anyone…

Troll:

Troll means a content that is intentionally created to something or someone to be teased…

This is just my view about jokes,memes,trolls…

Joke :

You narrate an incident that is hilarious or the narration and the creativity to explain the story in a hilarious way.


Meme:

You compare your hilarious incident with an image or a video that's popular on internet.

Example :


Troll: making a continuous joke on someone or some incident




Memes have now become a very common and popular thing (like what it now means : is the ultimate Schrödinger’s Joke: it’s a joke if you disagree.,


So anyone can get paranoid about being of becoming a troll, and certainty can be gained to tying it to Husserl-Heidegger indeterminancy based on the Schridinger cat analogy.

So on that basis I may safely assume an intended analogy, one way of another.

Why, I canresist the temptation to self incrimination. Whew! Glad that's off my mind
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 7661
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:44 pm

Phyllo,

I’m not fucking with you when I say this:

Hell exists.

It’s not what you think it is. It’s much worse.

That’s all I have to say on it for a person like you.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11098
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Meno_ » Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:52 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Phyllo,

I’m not fucking with you when I say this:

Hell exists.

It’s not what you think it is. It’s much worse.

That’s all I have to say on it for a person like you.





Don't worry Ec, You will be corroborated as not being elevated to 'Trollship' Phylo will answer You.




But if, that is the only criteria, then it becomes more of a memetic phenomenon, then a genetic disposition.

Alfred E Newman says:


What me worry about that?


Even Biggy spent time in The Dingeon, if my memory serves me correctly




Hell is a dungeon, and the only reprieve is, you'll find you'r best friends there to keep you company.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 7661
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:22 am

Meno,

That’s insulting... I’d never want to find my best friends in a dungeon.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11098
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Don't feed a troll

Postby phyllo » Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:19 am

Hell.

My reasoning is simple.

I'm skeptical of personal accounts like Ecmandu's.

The holy books are contradictory.

If there are no personal gods, then there seems to be no reason for hell.

If there are just personal gods, then hell would be an unfair punishment. So it can't exist.

If there are unjust personal gods, then I can't avoid hell by being a 'good boy' because I can't trust that the gods will reward my efforts. Therefore, hell is not a valid factor in my decisions. I don't worry about it.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12121
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users