+10
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL

No Troll left behind!

Some people here just can't resist the temptation to respond to an obvious troll. I wish there was a way to fix that.

Hoping this is the first step to most problems - education. And then to remind folks until they can break the habit.

It's also possible that people are just really bad at rhetoric and critical evaluation and aren't intentionally being trolls. Not exactly big topics in schools these days. But the pattern seems otherwise.

As an aside, "The Dark Tetrad" would be a great band name.

I'm imagining guys in long, black robes playing goth metal versions of the Tetris music.

I thought that was kylembitch?

I can't prove that it isn't.

You do know that the surest way to attract trolls are to start a "ignore the trolls" thread, don't you?

+10 troll?

Trolls sound a lot like narcicists in real life. No debate, just fucking people around.

funny how you triggered the trolls with this one

Constructing the cyber-troll: Psychopathy, sadism, and empathy

Highlights

•

Trolling is an online antisocial behaviour with negative psychological outcomes.
•

Current study predicted trolling perpetration from gender and personality.
•

Trolls more likely to be male with high levels of trait psychopathy and sadism
•

Trolls have lower affective empathy, and psychopathy moderates cognitive empathy.
•

Results have implications for establishing education and prevention programs.

A sample of 415 participants (36% men, 63% women, 1% other) with a mean age of 23.37 years (SD = 7.19)

I got numbers to grudgingly admit that terrorists are not representative of Islam, which I think was a solid win. But I do still wonder what his opinions on intersex people are.

Pretty sure answer to the latter is "people suffering from a mental health issue", which is the sort of label applied to homosexuals not too long ago. What with NPD, ADHD, Depression, OCD, bipolar disorder, the Autism "spectrum", APD, and various other associated labels, it's an astounding question to conclude what is a "normal" brain and personality supposed to behave like?

In western society sexuality gets tied up too much with religious belief and the argument that these ideas of sexuality or gender identification are distinct from the physical chromosomes and genetalia that one is born with are to many simply "unnatural", because they have been taught something different. As example, in Thailand the whole "ladyboy" phenomenon has far less stigma associated with it due to the belief in reincarnation. If you believe that your spirit may be a different gender in your past life, then it is just an expression of your "old soul", whereas if you are taughtthat life on earth for your soul is a one-time-only thing then you are clearly fighting against how god "made you" and should be punished for your sins. And if you are athiest, then maybe you still look at folks as having a chemical imbalance somewhere. Personally i work with at least one trans person and my view of them, as with all my coworkers, is that i'm more interested in what's between their ears than between their legs.

"I got numbers to grudgingly admit that terrorists are not representative of Islam."

I don't recall that. Could you provide the link?

It’s behind a SE subscribing member paywall.

Man, it was like a year ago or something. I'm not searching through that much search archive, especially since I don't know what exact alias you had at the time.

You were arguing that the members of Islam that were condemning terrorism were not representative of Islam, because they belonged to a small minority sect. You were quite insistent on this point. I then pointed out that this minority sect still outnumbered the global islamist terrorist population 10 to 1, who were therefore even less representative, by your own logic. You were forced to concede the point.

Would you like to revisit your use of the phrase 'myopic, fragile and settled worldview' in your opening statement?

If you open a debate on the willingness of people to enter into debate by insulting their worldview through the use of deliberately pejorative terms then why would anyone think you were actually interested in debating?

You could avoid being insulting - not insulting people is a foundation upon which good debate can be built.

Withdrawing or apologising for an insult is a way to establish good faith, another foundation for good debate.

Trolls aren't interested in debating. You're wasting your time.

The debate they are interested in is acquiescence to the idea that outdated, proven wrong, narrow minded, racist, sexist, xenophobic ideas are legitimate. Then use logical fallacies, strawmen, false equivalencies, and red herrings to make their "argument." When that doesn't work, then the insults and condescension starts, along side accusations of fascism for wanting to silence them. Limiting free speech, etc.

It's just a legitimization of ideas that have been tossed aside by society, and they want to bring them back, by any means necessary.

I don't think SE's trolls are interested in legitimization of ideas that have been tossed aside by society. I think they just want to troll. And they're successful at it, I might add.

Bosco, redank, longhair, madpride (and it’s alter egos), numbers, fish, a friend... yep, SE knows how to deal with trolls. We just don’t know how to get rid of ‘em.

Why would we want to?

Personally I’m good with ignoring them, but there are a few users that do get worked up about it all. It doesn’t really serve the general atmosphere I suppose.

Edit: although I kinda miss longhair

I don't think Madpride was a troll, but I miss... er... them.

Aw c'mon. I got you there! :)

norok: “The jury is still out on pedophelia, cannabalism, and slavery.”

Is numbers a troll?

I mostly see someone with a disagreeable point of view, trying to engage in debate and getting shut down instead of being conversed with.

Call em wrong all you like, they are not to my eyes engaging in the sort intellectual dishonesty and pointless ragebaiting of fish.

Is numbers a troll?

Yes. This very thread is a perfect example.

Numbers: You liberal jerks are too narrow minded to debate my politically incorrect opinions!

Conception: Which politically incorrect opinions would you like to debate?

Numbers: Nope! You're too narrow minded. Plus, I'm tired!

multiples sock puppet accounts is a good hint to trigger the troll-o-meter

I'm not sure on Numbers specifically, but in the threads where I have attempted to engage in discussion and debate, it wasn't a point of view problem, but a "I don't agree with those facts" sort of ending.

If you think numbers is trying to honestly debate, upvote and call folks out. :)

Or just try to honestly debate with him and see how far you get.

That would be giving the troll exactly what he wants.

What is an idea that you feel is valid but politically incorrect?

Although I think there are many comments of mine on this site that serve as object lessions, that's not a very good answer. But any idea I include here now will, understandably, involve some back and forth as to whether it proves my point or not. The exercise is one that I would welcome - but would take time I don not have presently. Simply trying to keep up with the narrow confines of this conversation about the use of the term "troll" has been more than I could afford. I know that over the next several days I cannot put the time into mooting a case study properly.

That said, you may find, out of the blue, I post back in this thread, with one or a couple of examples, and we can kick the tires on my contention then. I hope that comes to pass.

What the ... ? Did Trump hack this profile?
Trolling is exhausting. Get some rest.

With a dozen down mods already, the aforementioned “myopic and fragile" are making my case more succinctly, more persuasively, and more quickly, than I.

Have a good night.

"What is an idea that you feel is valid but politically incorrect?"

As I mentioned, there are many, but let's take a recent post about the suitability of trans people to serve in the army. I proposed that there might be two sides to the issue - as indeed there are. For that suggestion I was set upon in the usual tired fashion (Boring/foobar,
Unworthy Self Link/Ankylosaur, Old/evil_eleet)

Here is the offending post - In all its inflammatory glory.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that transgender people suffer from a high incidence of depression, and a very high incidence of suicide. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that hormone therapy has adverse effects on both mood and aggression. I would remind you that “gender dysphoria” is understood and deemed a “mental disorder” by the DSM, the definitive source in deciding what is and what is not a mental illness.

I would conclude by mentioning that perhaps training people with the above symptom clusters how to kill, and then handing them the weapons to do so, might be an idea upon which fair minded people could disagree.


I invite you to read the whole thread - where the PC hive mind loses their collective shit in the face of the suggestion that there might be two views on this issue:

http://sensibleendowment.com/edit.php/9948/114918#comment

So, not debating your point - but the reply I think was fair and your response, while perhaps unintended, does fall into "Trollish" behavior. You put forth an idea that you believe that I think you also believe would not be taken as a given but posted no collaborating evidence. When the call for evidence is requested (and while mechavolt wasn't 100% without snide the reply was more or less him trying to engage) your reply was "No, you show me your evidence first."

That isn't a productive way to debate, discuss and argue. Again, perhaps unintentional, but a person is unable to substantiate a claim without evidence and the warrants to back it up. I hope you can look back and see how it could be misconstrued as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning, again I don't know you so I don't know your actual intentions but I can see from that thread how people could see that as trolling.

I have no idea if that helps or not but hopefully offers some insight across the aisle as it were.

You misread, or are mischaracterizing, the thread I cited in my post.

The debate between Mechavolt and I didn’t hinge on the facts, as you imply. The facts were not in contention:

Mechavolt and I agreed that transgender people have a predilection to depression and suicide.

Mechavolt and I agreed that the military greatly increases the incidence of depression and suicide.

Mechavolt and I agreed that the largest psychiatric organization in the world recognizes gender dysphoria a mental disorder.

No sea lions there.

But as you say (wisely I think) you don’t want to debate my point (although you sure try to).

The discussion you and I were having was supposed to be about “Ideas that are valid but politically incorrect”.

Your post doesn’t deal with that at all.

Again, this seems a disingenuous reply.

Mechavolt and I agreed that transgender people have a predilection to depression and suicide.
-- That was not what was in contention and being debated. As you incorrectly stated that you and Mechavolt agree that transgendered people have a "predilection" for suicide and depression. His point was that, in fact, correlating a high rate of those things with the group does not in fact mean that transgenderism is a causation of those events. Much like being a solider is correlated with having a high level of depression and suicide but simply being a soldier is not the cause of those events - trauma is.

You don't agree on those points at all - and seem to be purposely obtuse about this :
Quote:
"
Do you know whether transgender suicide rates are “causation” or are they “correlation”? If so, post some evidence.

If not, let’s assume we don’t know.

Given that we don’t know, does an unexplained predilection to suicide argue against giving people weapons and teaching them to kill?

Some might argue yes.

You provide nothing to counter that argument."
——

He asked you to source your comments and you said "I argue this despite providing evidence. You provide it to prove it to me."


My point with this thread again isn't to debate you on transgenderism, but to bridge this gap you originally were talking about. You seem to think you are debating and discussing a topic in these threads, but you are not. Maybe Mechavolt could have initially come back in his response with sources but you can’t change how he discusses things, only how you do and how you approach it.


And of course, we aren’t talking about transgenderism, you and I are discussing - “
"And if any of the trolls claim they are looking for a real debate, they aren't."

In my experience this applies equally to the mindset of many of the people on this site, in that they show no openness to engage with heterodox opinion, instead blindly lashing out with the designation "troll" when confronted with anything outside their myopic, fragile and settled worldview.”

Mechavolt engaged and asked for sources to your claims and points. You refused. Said you both agree (you did not) and then moved on.

What are people expected to take from that? What is the end goal from that line of talk? Did you get what you wanted out of it? If not, how could you adjust your approach? The answers to these questions for you are the sorts of things I’m hoping to achieve.

Once again, you are mischaracterizing what is in the thread.

I made three statements of fact:

Transgender people have a predilection to depression and suicide.

The military greatly increases the incidence of depression and suicide.

The largest psychiatric organization in the world defines gender dysphoria as a mental disorder.

Mechavolt made some wholly unsubstansiated claim that transgenderism is not the cause of fact one. He had no evidence to support the claim, but it doesn't matter - he didn't contest the truth of the claim. So it stands.

Fact two doesn't change

Fact three - doesn't change

We've had the discussion.

If you have something new to add to the debate, I would be interested in hearing it.

If not. The argument stands.

But you also made some wholly unsubstantiated claim that transgenderism -is- the cause of fact one.

But sure, if you're curious- there are a number of studies coming out about transgender suicides and it seems the primary effects on transgender suicide ideation come from victimization and other minority stressors. But it's a a relatively new topic of research and I didn't dig around too deep to find you a few sources to check out -

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/cou-cou0000152.pdf

And couldn't find a pdf of this study, only a write-up
https://www.thesynapse.eu/medical-news-2/item/3942-study-shows-transgender-students-are-at-significant-risk-for-suicidal-thoughts-compared-to-non-transgender-peers

and its references -
http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(17)30316-7/references

---

Though, again, I think rather than dodging mechavolt's snide request for sources and arguing the semantics of it with me - you could look at how you are engaging. And to figure out what you are trying to get out of the argument in the first place.

Once again, you are mischaracterizing what is in the thread.

This is growing tiresome.

"But you also made some wholly unsubstantiated claim that transgenderism -is- the cause of fact one (a high incidence of suicide)."

I don't believe I ever made this claim.

Please post a link.

So which is more feeble, trolling behind the guise of offering a genuine counterargument or name calling directly?

Tl;dr: "DEBATE ME 1V1 FAGGOT!!"