rigorousintuition.ca

dada » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:27 pm wrote:

kool maudit » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:01 am wrote:Trolling is a Trickster aspect. So much effort has been made reclaiming Trickster figures from their Christian demonization that we can forget how profoundly unpleasant and unsettling their antics are when it is one's own morality (anti-discrimination etc.) that is being taunted and toyed with.

A 'troll that taunts and toys with anti-discrimination sensibilities' is okay in your book.

You're aware that's what you're saying here, you know. Something about yourself, not about 'trickster trolls.'

Some trolls stalk people relentlessly, destroy people's lives and livelihood.

Make light of it if you want.

OK? No. I wasn't making a moral justification. I was saying what I think this essentially is. I am not an activist and I don't usually approach things on the level of moral opposition/justification first.

kool maudit » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:21 am wrote:

dada » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:27 pm wrote:

kool maudit » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:01 am wrote:Trolling is a Trickster aspect. So much effort has been made reclaiming Trickster figures from their Christian demonization that we can forget how profoundly unpleasant and unsettling their antics are when it is one's own morality (anti-discrimination etc.) that is being taunted and toyed with.

A 'troll that taunts and toys with anti-discrimination sensibilities' is okay in your book.

You're aware that's what you're saying here, you know. Something about yourself, not about 'trickster trolls.'

Some trolls stalk people relentlessly, destroy people's lives and livelihood.

Make light of it if you want.

OK? No. I wasn't making a moral justification. I was saying what I think this essentially is. I am not an activist and I don't usually approach things on the level of moral opposition/justification first.

Right. The only difference between what we're saying is in the inflection.

You're saying 'you think this is what it essentially is.'

I'm saying 'you think this is what it essentially is.'

That's why I said this reflects on you. All moral justifications and oppositions aside.

That's all. If you're okay with that, I'm okay with that.

dada » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:38 am wrote:

kool maudit » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:21 am wrote:

dada » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:27 pm wrote:

kool maudit » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:01 am wrote:Trolling is a Trickster aspect. So much effort has been made reclaiming Trickster figures from their Christian demonization that we can forget how profoundly unpleasant and unsettling their antics are when it is one's own morality (anti-discrimination etc.) that is being taunted and toyed with.

A 'troll that taunts and toys with anti-discrimination sensibilities' is okay in your book.

You're aware that's what you're saying here, you know. Something about yourself, not about 'trickster trolls.'

Some trolls stalk people relentlessly, destroy people's lives and livelihood.

Make light of it if you want.

OK? No. I wasn't making a moral justification. I was saying what I think this essentially is. I am not an activist and I don't usually approach things on the level of moral opposition/justification first.

Right. The only difference between what we're saying is in the inflection.

You're saying 'you think this is what it essentially is.'

I'm saying 'you think this is what it essentially is.'

That's why I said this reflects on you. All moral justifications and oppositions aside.

That's all. If you're okay with that, I'm okay with that.

I am not sure what you are getting at, but I suppose I am OK with it. I said something I thought was, and think is, true. C'est tout.

kool maudit » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:42 am wrote:
I am not sure what you are getting at, but I suppose I am OK with it. I said something I thought was, and think is, true. C'est tout.

What isn't there to get?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. I'm thinking you're saying something like, 'discrimination is a morality issue.'

Am I wrong, thinking this?

---

"All sorts of parties stalk people relentlessly, only some typically get tagged "trolls"

It's enough to make you feel sympathy for those who have delusions of being gangstalked

And often for those who really are being gangstalked"


This is true. And there's a whole culture, it reinforces and enables some pretty terrible behavior, from stalking to your basic cries for attention.

I hope we can agree that trolling is terrible behavior. If we don't think it's terrible, the trolls really are failing at their job. I mean, that is the whole point, isn't it.

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

dada » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:35 am wrote:

kool maudit » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:42 am wrote:
I am not sure what you are getting at, but I suppose I am OK with it. I said something I thought was, and think is, true. C'est tout.

What isn't there to get?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. I'm thinking you're saying something like, 'discrimination is a morality issue.'

Am I wrong, thinking this?

---

"All sorts of parties stalk people relentlessly, only some typically get tagged "trolls"

It's enough to make you feel sympathy for those who have delusions of being gangstalked

And often for those who really are being gangstalked"


This is true. And there's a whole culture, it reinforces and enables some pretty terrible behavior, from stalking to your basic cries for attention.

I hope we can agree that trolling is terrible behavior. If we don't think it's terrible, the trolls really are failing at their job. I mean, that is the whole point, isn't it.

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.

I'm a troll and I'm a horrible person so I really have no qualms with the core concept of this thread.

If you want nice people, go hang out with farmers.

If you want to use the internet?

You're stuck with us.

I know farmers ...I hang out with farmers ...you sir are definitely no farmer.....although some farmers I know have been affected by Monsanto and are not nice people

I do think we have plenty of foxes and badgers here....thank goodness

http://esl-bits.net/ESL.English.Listeni ... /text.html

Fantastic Mr Fox

written by Roald Dahl
(Illustrated by Quentin Blake, Read by Martin Jarvis)

1
The Three Farmers

Down in the valley there were three farms. The owners of these farms had done well. They were rich men. They were also nasty men. All three of them were about as nasty and mean as any men you could meet. Their names were Farmer Boggis, Farmer Bunce and Farmer Bean.

.......

18
Still Waiting

Outside the fox’s hole, Boggis and Bunce and Bean sat beside their tents with their guns on their laps. It was beginning to rain. Water was trickling down the necks of the three men and into their shoes.
Image
‘He won’t stay down there much longer now,’ Boggis said.
‘The brute must be famished,’ Bunce said.
‘That’s right,’ Bean said. ‘He’ll be making a dash for it any moment. Keep your guns handy’
They sat there by the hole, waiting for the fox to come out.
And so far as I know, they are still waiting.

and you're not fooling anyone here...you are one of the nicest people I have ever encountered on the net

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.

Sounds like a snippet 'Magister Ludi' aka 'The Glass Bead Game (German: Das Glasperlenspiel) by Hermann Hesse.. But what do I know...

dada » Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:58 pm wrote:

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.

If someone trolls or bothers someone because they are a woman, that would be considered sexism. If someone does so because of their race, that would be considered racism. Both isms are widely upheld as moral errors in our culture and are taboo. Thus, trolling on this basis would generally be seen as immoral in this time and place, and condemned as such.

Trolling, or bothering, somebody because they are themselves racist or sexist would likely, in the same context or culture, be seen as justifiable if not entirely moral. This is because the act of bothering somebody guilty of these moral errors would be seen as helping to enforce the taboo against those isms, which again is broadly upheld as moral.

That's what I meant.

Interesting discussion, sorta. I can think of only three types of trolls.The first would be the not-for-profit troll, who could be aligned with others from a group or organization, or just a person with unresolved issues affecting their behavior in a way most would consider negatively. The second would be aligned with a group, but not necessarily sharing its philosophy, which would be the rare exception, and would paid by the group.

The third "horrible" troll would be the militaristic sort, definitely aligned with the site they work, paid or unpaid, and has minor but effective policing powers and spends their time looking for red flags to react & respond to. Some have alleged this third type troll has magical powers to make people disappear forever, so beware.

The first two I feel must be at least a bit unhinged and some believe the third must harbor masochistic tendencies.

We'd do well to be rid of either or both of the first or second types, but that third one, well, he's a keeper.

I think a common mistake is needlessly feeding trolls. Looking over the typical comments section on YouTube, WaPo, or almost anywhere, most of the bazillion responses are about as idiotic as the trolls' antagonisms.

Ignoring trolls can be difficult, and when that doesn't work, I use Troll Spray™ ...a 12oz. can lasts forever.

Agreed. Man! the insults.

I'm mos def not a troll.

Don't have a drop of Tyrolean blood in me veins.

dada » Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:58 am wrote:
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!

i am going to go ahead and troll this thread with off topic media because i saw that this is the last post dada has posted here at RI as of this writing.

i thought dada might enjoy this video below , as it has many evocative sounds that call to mind video games and such.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKPhxN4NHlA

*

the Wombat should get one of these Digitakt thingies, they are wicked fun:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTR_OfGfH40


*