WHAT QUALIFIES SOMEONE AS A 'TROLL' ? - Page 2

Bee:
Sounds of one hand clapping in an empty jungle ?  Very good
question.

Naw, I seriously wanted you to expand on the "desire to obliterate thought"
thing, I honestly didn't entirely get it, as I tried to put ' who by ? / how / why ?' into
it and came up ... a bit confused.

OK yeah, I was fishing for support,;   but I also AM interested in the question,
as the definition of 'trolls' does sometimes seem to get applied very loosely
around here.   And I never get 'round to starting many new threds on here;  this
seemed as good a question to ask as any,  me not having a religious bent to
persue or whatever.  (Hands up: who was talking about atheists 'ramming it down
throats'   ).

 I'd think someone who blocks another on the premise, they MIGHT pm you, is a bit pretentious and stuck on themselves.. To just ASSume someone is going to contact you, that you really have had no contact with, is a tad supercilious..
Besides, when you only ave contact with folks who share your same opinions and ideas, well that would be boring. Also how will a person learn of other ideas and ways, if they only will see what they agree with? Whoever this person is, seems like a closed minded person, and I'd say feel relieved they blocked you. Now you won't waste your time interacting with this person.. But I see your point, I'd feel I'd have a WTF moment, on learning I'd been blocked by a virtual stranger LoL..
  I can't recall any of your posts that I have seen that would be deemed offensive or way off the wall?? Guess that's why I like my critters so much. Interaction with people can be so... strange?  :)
 

Thanks Erin.  Nice of you to say the last bit.  Yeah, it was a bit of a
stunner when I found my PMs had been blocked, 'on spec.' as it turned
out (if she told the truth about having done it several months prior).  I too
think it actually says more about her than me or anyone else on her list.

[Who the heck joins a site as a new poster and one of the first things they
do is comb through back postings trying to predict a set of people they
never want to hear privately from ?]


Do you have any general thoughts on what makes a troll, a troll ?
And can I ask, did you understand Bee's definition, since she has not come
back to me on that ?

When the desire to obliterate thought takes over.


From my interaction with Bee, I have gathered she loves words, prose, she seems a very literary type.. Most of her posts have a way about them that make you think. Unless she is going to just point blank call a person out ;)
So from just a literal meaning, I'd break it down to When the desire (a strong want) to obliterate (get rid of, destroy) thought (what's going through your mind) takes over.. Maybe just wanting to clear your head of the bull crap? LOL I really don't know, but that's my guess.. I am probably way off.. haha
 The Troll question is a little muddy. I mean, anyone who disagrees, and doesn't have a problem stating it, could possibly be considered a Troll..? I mean, if someone strongly disagreed with a post, thought the author was wrong, then replied calling said person or idea out, well couldn't that be considered trolling? I guess if someone was just being rude, demeaning to a person about a post, I'd call them something else than a Troll, but that's just me. The Troll name is just an internet term used to describe a trouble maker, someone just trying to incite an argument just for the sake of doing it.
I'd just laugh off this weirdos blocking, who really wanted to talk with them anyways..?  :)

 i think everyone is someone else's troll.

whoops

vk, "whoops" ??? 


Erin: "Maybe 'Just wanting to clear your head of the bullcrap'."
Fine, but I still don't see how that's a definition of "Troll (ing)";

[Beetreee, pleeease come back and explain !]


Someone 'Trying to provoke an argument'  would seem to fit with the Wiki
description which Mountain Lion posted above  (NB  Bee that isn't
what I'm doing to you, btw !);  what seems to happen on here sometimes
is that someone gets called out as a Troll just for kinda being someone
the individual poster doesn't 'like'.  Not perhaps describing this too well, but
it seems like one thing to accuse (vk, do  you mind if I use you as the most
recent example ?) of deliberately posting dozens of questions and comments
most consider really 'dumb',  of trolling (been guilty of that myself).  Another to
state 'out of the blue'  that another poster is a Troll for just putting an opposing
p.o.v.  
[Especially when that troll can and does enter perfectly sensibly into other
/ later threds.]

I suppose where someone does that, what vk4 says about 'everyone being
somebody else's Troll' applies.


Speaking just personally, I don't recall ever being called a Troll by anyone,
even though some people have said that they think I am negative and aggressive.
(Sometimes, perhaps !)  And that I put more warnings / info  into threds than an OP
'asked to hear'.

Good Morning  Hundmutter! You are cracking me up! My little aphorism has been alluding you and driving you nuts? LOL

Let's see, well, it is like this, if you think about the definition from Wiki, you will see my pithy remark usually is the end result, regardless of the tactic being used. Usually it starts out, for some reason, someone wants to shut someone else up. Thread derailment as an example, does accomplish the shutting up, in particular. The reason can be political, personal, sheer boredom or something else. It crosses the line from a mere disagreement within a topic when a pattern evolves. That's when the "trolling" begins.

I also agree 100% with vk4's observation. We all have a little troll inside us, we are at our best when we keep that part of us snoozing under the bridge.

Now, there is this other idea I am wondering, about the poster type that only projects their POV. Never really engaging in a real, give and take conversation. I am wondering, is that a sub-category to a troll, or merely a quirk of personality? I just think when someone starts off posting like that, are they looking for a neverending argument; perhaps only oblivious to the concerns of others, or just plain old insecure to accepting any kind of criticism? What do you think?

P.S. Erin, you got the first part right! (Just read your post after I posted this........)

P.S.S Dislikers are a kind of troll, too! Mine is awake and off to a good start, LOL
 

Oh yes Bee, you got one Dislike already by the time I saw this post !
[Not sure what they (he/she?) is 'disliking', maybe they just don't 'like'
you, whatever you write.  Agree, that's a Trolling manouvre, just like
calling someone out for having a different view.  They don't have to find
anything 'wrong' about what you suggest / argue ...

Thanks for coming back to this thred.  You weren't exactly 'driving me
nuts' - I think life did that to me years ago LOL.  But I was curious as
to what you meant, and yes I think I understand better, now, what you
were saying.

Re your question about POVs projected remorselessly:  there is a difference
is there not (even when the edges get a bit blurred) between stating some
view directly opposite to that of an OP on a thred,  and being the only one to
do so, sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb;  or, simply, during the course
of ongoing 'conversation' on that thred, putting a different 'side' to the original view
of the OP ?  Especially seems silly to me to call someone a Troll if they are not
the only poster putting that opposite POV ?  I think there are some difficulties too
with the format here,  if you and the OP were talking face to face or Skyping perhaps,
maybe it would be easier to supplement your POV with modifying facial expressions
and body language ?  

We could argue that everybody OUGHT to be able to take criticism, particularly of
their views (or the way they put them across)  - though not comment about other aspects
eg physical/ age/ nationality - but sadly on here, as in 'real life',  finding folk who can really
do so is often very difficult, don't you think ?
 

  ....and being the only one to do so, sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb; ...

You know, that doesn't bother me at all to be the lone dissenting view. It sure makes a difference to quite a few people; I will allow for that. Group reassurance in a point of view that is then counted on to be the absolute harbinger of truth, always is confusing to me as to why that is? Why should it be a numbers game when it comes to expressing an opinion? How many times has the lone opinion actually been the correct opinion and the course of history has been changed? Let's not confuse this with current en vogue "preaching", I really am not thinking in that direction with my thoughts.

Disagreements should leave out the personal aspects, that is just bad manners, isn't it!