rigorousintuition.ca

Hammer of Los wrote:
But you know, slurs go on all the time around here. I myself have been slurred and I bloody well didnt like it one bit.

Hey man, if you are refering to the whole AGW thing think about this. Where we live that shit has been happening for years and has real effects. Thats all there is to it. Its no Ulronic delusion. And for years the people who made the most hanging shit on the idea were big rich polluting oil fuckers. And nothing has changed and seriously, if you can't see the difference between a slur and someone else's exasperation for you being a useful idiot thats a pity.

So put it down to frustration and antipodean rudeness and everything will be fine.

Jeff wrote:

Hammer of Los wrote:I never saw any evidence that vigilant was anti semitic, although I grant I may be wrong about that. But unless you can substantiate that statement, its a slur.

I don't like talking about people who aren't here to defend themselves, but since vigilant is probably here anyway in another sock, I'll say we're not flippant about charges of anti-semitism, and no, it wasn't a slur.

Apologies, then, I hadn't intended to drag Prof. Pan into this. I'm assuming vig. is around in one form or another.

The new "ignore" function is the death of this "discussion" board, and of every other "discussion" board that offers it. (See DU.) It is an open invitation to laziness, evasiveness, wilful ignorance, cowardice and dishonesty.

No wonder 17Breezes has so quickly become such a fervent fan of it.

MacCruiskeen wrote:The new "ignore" function is the death of this "discussion" board, and of every other "discussion" board that offers it.

I agree with Mac. Coming to a discussion board to ignore people does seem odd.

I would rather people heap scorn upon me than ignore me.



give it to me, eye can take it!

Jeff wrote:Moderating isn't about judging popularity contests. Perhaps less evidently, trolling is more than simply posting contentious opinion. ..

It is, and wouldn't it be great to have a working definition of trolling. Bad behaviour that no-one is allowed to name is sure to run rampant.

I think repeatedly posting claims unsupported by any real evidence and not at least admitting when they are unsupported by evidence is trolling. People can have whatever opinion they like, but when they falsely claim their opinion is supported by evidence they can't be bothered to post or defend, again and again and again, then that is trolling, and anyone who can show the trolling underway should be allowed to call the troll a troll.

That behaviour also lacks rigor and dilutes the Rigorous Intuition brand. You'll never get to run that global chain of subversive coffee shops if you don't preserve your brand!

wintler2 wrote:You'll never get to run that global chain of subversive coffee shops if you don't preserve your brand!

A slogan for the future Rigorous Intuition™ brand of subversive coffee:

“Brewed intuitively, and with such rigor it’ll wake the neighbors.”

wintler2 wrote:...and wouldn't it be great to have a working definition of trolling.

The finest vintage trolling is virtually imperceptible, though. A master trollista will create a swirling gyre of havoc and distrust all around himself, appearing all the while as the only calm, responsible, clear-headed poster in the bunch. The trolls around here rarely display such skillz, as evidenced by the current Concerning the Jews by Mark Twain aka Samuel Clemens thread, which is presented by chump as a "jewel" (get it?) under the guise of promoting a serious discussion. This is a classic, if obvious, attempt to rile certain posters, who have thus far generously avoided taking the bait. In this manner, it constitutes a failed troll, although you can sort of discern the snickering of the original poster as he carefully cut and pasted away the introduction included in the unlinked-to posting on Truthseeker, written by Henry Makow:

(Editor's Note- People are individuals and should be judged as such, yet clearly the behavior of certain Jews taints all. I wish more Jews had the courage to speak up and condemn this behavior. There is no self reform without self criticism. Also, as you know, I believe this behavior (greed, social irresponsibility) now extends far beyond Jews. This extract from Twain's 1898 essay puts the current investigation into Wall Street practices in perspective.)

Trolling is really done just to stir shit for the sake of shit stirring. You can't really believe what you troll about, which is why 17breezes doesn't really qualify. He is obviously under the very real impression that Jews have to be watchful of anti-semitism, and there is some truth to that as we all are aware. And most of the time it doesn't seem as if he's even looking for a response, while for a true troll, the response is everything.

wintler2 wrote:I think repeatedly posting claims unsupported by any real evidence and not at least admitting when they are unsupported by evidence is trolling.

That's a pretty fine line in this particular venue. I mean, how many times have you posted some semi-rigorous point about an extremely marginal fringe topic X, only to be followed up by the classic response of, "Yeah, you're probably right, but I still know that X is true/false." Now that person may be trying to get your goat, or - hey, you know what? - maybe they really were abducted by mantis-headed zenomorphs from a homemade crop circle, but they have little fallback beyond the truth of their own experience. Evidence around the topics we examine here can be scantier than Lady Gaga's thong, but that's what's so tantalizing about it all.

barracuda wrote: Now that person may be trying to get your goat, or - hey, you know what? - maybe they really were abducted by mantis-headed zenomorphs from a homemade crop circle,..

Or both.

wintler2 wrote:I think repeatedly posting claims unsupported by any real evidence and not at least admitting when they are unsupported by evidence is trolling.

If that's the whole definition it would mean there are millions of trolls. Think about it. This is one attribute of the troll, but not a sufficient proof in itself without other indicators.

People can have whatever opinion they like, but when they falsely claim their opinion is supported by evidence they can't be bothered to post or defend, again and again and again, then that is trolling, and anyone who can show the trolling underway should be allowed to call the troll a troll.

They should be allowed to call that something bad, maybe even worse than trolling, like stupidity or close-mindedness.

However, I define trolling more narrowly as the practice of visiting a board solely to promote an agenda, with no deviation from this central purpose and really no other reason to be there, AND without admitting this openly.

The agenda might be anything, including elaborate and stupid jokes (or "ARGs" as per the jargon).

The trolling consists in having no limits on the means employed (e.g., hit-and-run ridicule, strawmanning, personalizations, snitchjacketing, etc.) AND in lying about why you're there.

Either you've appointed yourself an agent, or you've been "hired" as one, or you've joined a believers club who want to go on a little e-Inquisition (JREF, Ickeans, little Nazi shits, DLC cops, economic libertarians, Freepers, etc.). But you don't sway from your selected point and you don't admit that you're acting as part of a strategy.

IanEye wrote:

MacCruiskeen wrote:The new "ignore" function is the death of this "discussion" board, and of every other "discussion" board that offers it.

I agree with Mac. Coming to a discussion board to ignore people does seem odd.

I would rather people heap scorn upon me than ignore me.



give it to me, eye can take it!

Discussion board is the key phrase. Mac has turned it into his personal playground where he can hurl obscenities unchecked with no fear of sanction. Fuck that shit. He's got nothing to say that I find worthy of even using as kitty litter. I put him on ignore so that he can spew his filth all he wants and I won't be tempted to reply in kind and get turfed. That seems to be his and others' plan but I'm not playing.

170Lies wrote:I put him on ignore

You're a liar. You're a craven liar. You're such an obvious liar too! You're a brute and an arselicker and a sneaky mendacious powerworshipper. And you are as thick as mince.

This is an anti-fascist board. Or at least it used to be, until you turned up.

barracuda wrote:You can't really believe what you troll about, which is why 17breezes doesn't really qualify.

Like, wow. That definition is nothing if not sophisticated! So sincere fascists are incapable of trolling, right? That wil be welcome news to sincere fascists. In fact it already is, which is why 17Breezes feels so wonderfully comfy and well-protected here.

- Don't bother replying, barracuda: I've put you on "ignore". (The board just keeps on getting better and better.)

MacCruiskeen wrote:This is an anti-fascist board. Or at least it used to be, until you turned up.

Because what could be more inimical to the proper anti-fascist mindset than a plurality of opinions?

MacCruiskeen wrote:So sincere fascists are incapable of trolling, right?

That's correct with regards to their field of interest, which is not to say they are incapable of breaking other rules of the board, such as wanton flaming, or advocating fascism. And they might troll about some subject they could care less about. But trolling is not an activity which is performed in sincerity. It's just about the lulz.

- Don't bother replying, barracuda: I've put you on "ignore". (The board just keeps on getting better and better.)

That hurts. I myself never use the "ignore" function. I worry I'd miss all the fun.

17breezes wrote:Discussion board is the key phrase. Mac has turned it into his personal playground where he can hurl obscenities unchecked with no fear of sanction. Fuck that shit. He's got nothing to say that I find worthy of even using as kitty litter. I put him on ignore so that he can spew his filth all he wants and I won't be tempted to reply in kind and get turfed. That seems to be his and others' plan but I'm not playing.

I will say, this post doesn't bring much to the table, dude. I suggest both of you try to figure out a way to stay within the board guidelines with your he-said she-said, 'cause ultimately it's just disruptive. And drop-dead dull.