tapitsbo » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:42 am wrote:Depends on who you mean by trolls
Really good trolls get more dignified epithets
I'm alright with that. It's terrible to only have one word for thoughts that bother you
It's fun to play with words sometimes. Sometimes it's just a waste of time, though. I guess it's up to everyone to decide for themselves which is which.
'Trolls' works for me. I don't mind making a sweeping generalization in this case. Total war, I say!
----
"Yes, I do think discrimination is a moral issue. It has, in fact, been erected as the central moral issue in post-World War Two Western society for obvious reasons.
Trolling (and by this I mean relentlessly bothering people over their identities or stances) is a tactic that is amoral in and of itself; its morality derives from the target. In a society like our own that prioritizes anti-discrimination, one might feel able to make a moral argument for trolling bigots or fascists or the like (some RI posters make this argument). In other societies, one might have felt able to make one for trolling Calvinists or Aten-worshippers or whatever other breachers of the central taboo.
In all societies, the relentless bothering of those who generally abide by the central taboo is looked down upon.
As for myself, I really don't like to bother people at all, and I certainly don't enjoy being bothered."
So let's say discrimination is a moral issue, since we can both agree on that. I would argue that it can be looked at in other ways as well. Socially, politically, psychologically. But let's take morally for the sake of discussion.
Morals, meaning a system of right and wrong, good and bad. That's how I'm guessing we're using the term 'moral,' it's pretty standard. Of course a useful, workable system of morality will not draw a timeless, immovable line between black and white. A workable morality system is flexible, the person using it understands that every situation can best be judged on its own merits.
The person trolling has a workable morality system. Obviously, since to know where to do 'wrong,' to 'transgress,' to be a troll, you'd have to have some idea of what you think 'right' and 'wrong' might be. The troll must judge the situation and draw a line, if they want to cross it.
If the troll decides to transgress by making a comment discriminating against another, (again I think this can be looked at on other levels, it has social, political, psychological implications as well as moral, but just to discuss it morally) they are making a moral choice to do the wrong thing, according to their own system of morality. Taking their best guess at what will be considered discrimination by others.
But you don't judge things on a moral level, so I don't imagine that you'd care about all this. Those were some thoughts I had yesterday, though. Guess I just felt like sharing them.
Edited to add:
"Trolling (and by this I mean relentlessly bothering people over their identities or stances) is a tactic that is amoral in and of itself; its morality derives from the target."
If a person is trolled because they are a woman, or because they aren't white, is the morality of that derived from the target's identity? Would you say that it's the targets fault? When a person is targeted because of their race or sex, that's pretty much the definition of racism and sexism.
I don't know, this whole 'not judging things on a moral level' morality system seems very inflexible to me. That's only my opinion, though, I know.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.