Anybody who's frequented the forums and chatrooms of the internet for very long have become acquainted with personalities usually referred to as 'trolls'. In short, these folks do everything within their power to disrupt the flow of conversation. Some do it for the sheer, perverse pleasure of seeing people off balance, as they respond emotionally to the purposeful incitations fashioned to provoke strong, and usually negative, feelings. Other trolls are motivated by their lack of cogent arguments for what they believe, and so they create diversions in order to draw everyone into a 'flamewar', bringing attention to the personalities instead of the actual discussion. It's a case where everyone loses; though of course, the troll actually sees such a ruckus as a personal gain. The gain in short-lived, however, since trolling is really based in narcissistic and obsessive tendencies which need to be constantly fed. And so, the troll bounces from one blog to the next- banned here, restricted there, always seeing himself as the martyred victor, yet needing the constant reinforcement of new 'victims' to feed the deep, dark hole in his own self-confidence (as well as his confidence in his own belief system), which is his hidden secret (sometimes hidden, for the most part, even from himself). Ultimately, I think it's all about control, and about manipulating others so the troll can feel in control.
So, that's my piece, but I thought I'd leave a couple of links which I think further outline the scope of the problem, and far more thoroughly than I have.
Here and
here.
Enjoy!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletecl-
ReplyDeleteCalling names, or making a reasonable diagnosis? You'll interpret things as you always seem to, I suspect. Feel free!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletecl-
ReplyDeleteOf course, you're diverting from the O.P.; no big surprise there. However, there are TONS of empirical evidence to back up my MMP remark, as any objective observer of your ubiquitous hijinks has surely noted.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhen we can't beat 'em, we can always demonize them, right? Even though you and I disagree strongly about certain things, I think you're a well-intentioned, articulate guy. I'd never accept the intellectual cop-outs of name-calling that you delight in.
ReplyDeleteDisagreement doesn't entail that one's opponent is an... nevermind - I'm wasting my time.
cl-
ReplyDeleteAll 'opinions' are subjective. Subjectivity is inferred in the word 'opinion'. Many opinions can be either validated or rejected through the weighing of empirical evidence. This really isn't as hard as you're trying to make it.
To answer your question...yes.
cl-
ReplyDeleteI call 'em like I see 'em, and I find you to be intellectually dishonest. My assessment has absolutely nothing to do with our disagreements. It has to do with the way you dishonestly parse information, and the tactics you use to try and gain debating advantage. I'm not in it to win at any cost, but it's obvious to me that you are. Have fun with that, but don't expect any contrition from this side of the fence.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletecl-
ReplyDeleteThis comment is disingenuous, and yet another example of what I'm talking about. I say this-
"My assessment has absolutely nothing to do with our disagreements. It has to do with the way you dishonestly parse information, and the tactics you use to try and gain debating advantage."
and you reply with this-
"That's fine if you wish to judge me based on your own feelings..."
I'm not magically 'intuiting' your bad faith; it's right there on the page for all to see. And trying to have any kind of substantive dialogue under these circumstances is futile. I've explained this to you several times, and in several ways. Nothing gets through, man. Ok, you disagree. I get it!
This IS warfare to you, cl. Duncan pointed this out, and you've as much as admitted it. It's all about the contest of wills with you, and about who backs down first. Read this slowly- I'M...NOT...INTERESTED! If you ever choose to approach a subject as real dialogue, let me know, and maybe we can get our heads together. But as of this date, I don't believe you're capable of that. No big deal; you can write it off as a conflict fetish, or even intellectual dishonesty, or whatever facet of your own personality issues you wish to project onto me. But let me make this perfectly clear...I CAN FOLLOW THE BOUNCING BALL. Convolution doesn't make me lose track, nor a hundred sidetracking expeditions. And you might note that I pay attention to language, and recognize an underplayed polemic when I see it. I may be many things foul and base in the sight of the Lord, but stupid I am not.
I'd invite you once again to go get your fix of 'warfare' from somebody else, cl. This is just intellectual and writing exercise for me, and I'm not interested in beating anybody. I'll admit I was very disappointed when I realized you were a sophist. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt for some time, even after it was clear to me. But, hey...the world is full of disappointments, and you're by far one of my lesser ones.
We won't see eye to eye, cl. Stop trying.