CDZ The Psychology of Trolling

[Fair&Balanced]

It IS a totally reasonable outcome OldLady because ALL my opinions are based on facts, not feelings.

An example is gay marriage. I don't particularly like the idea of gay sex, but the fact is that the government has no right to tell people who they may have sex with (consenting adults of course) or whom they may marry, so my OPINION is that those who wish to use the government to tell gays they can't marry etc don't have a leg to stand on.

The government tells me I cannot marry my cousin, that I cannot marry if I am under a certain age, that I must have certain blood tests first, that I cannot marry two men at once. The government does indeed seem to have some right to tell us who we may marry. Your opinion that it shouldn't is not a fact, it is an opinion.

No, it's a fact.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power.

First, let's remove the issue of age limits, because of COURSE the government has the right to protect children and thus set consent laws.

On the other issues, you're correct. The government shouldn't be able to tell cousins they can't marry, or require blood tests, or any of the other issues you mentioned.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power
That makes no sense to me.

That the government "shouldn't" be able to tell us who to marry is your OPINION, not a fact. "Of course the government has the right to protect children" is also an opinion. What is a FACT is that the government DOES put these restrictions on lawful marriage. That is the fact, not that you don't believe they should, or whatever that other argument was about. I see your problem is a genuine lack of understanding of what is a "fact," and what is an "opinion." It's a hard concept for some people for some people to grasp. Good luck.

so you think I'm wrong about the government having a role in protecting children? Because that is actually the entire purpose of government , to protect those who are to weak to protect themselves. That is a FACT

And there are tons of laws, and court precedence to back up the fact that the government has the right to protect children.

You'd be hard pressed to find ANY evidence to suggest that government was ever intended to have any authority over marriage.

The line between fact and opinion can be very thin and blurred depending on one prospective.

Depends. I'v actually seen shit like "that officer was 158 feet from that guy when he shot him " posted then when you point out that he was actually TEN feet from him, the person who made the claim comes back with "I have a right to my own opinion" well yes, you do, But that wasn't an opinion.

 

[JoeMoma]

The government tells me I cannot marry my cousin, that I cannot marry if I am under a certain age, that I must have certain blood tests first, that I cannot marry two men at once. The government does indeed seem to have some right to tell us who we may marry. Your opinion that it shouldn't is not a fact, it is an opinion.

No, it's a fact.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power.

First, let's remove the issue of age limits, because of COURSE the government has the right to protect children and thus set consent laws.

On the other issues, you're correct. The government shouldn't be able to tell cousins they can't marry, or require blood tests, or any of the other issues you mentioned.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power
That makes no sense to me.

That the government "shouldn't" be able to tell us who to marry is your OPINION, not a fact. "Of course the government has the right to protect children" is also an opinion. What is a FACT is that the government DOES put these restrictions on lawful marriage. That is the fact, not that you don't believe they should, or whatever that other argument was about. I see your problem is a genuine lack of understanding of what is a "fact," and what is an "opinion." It's a hard concept for some people for some people to grasp. Good luck.

so you think I'm wrong about the government having a role in protecting children? Because that is actually the entire purpose of government , to protect those who are to weak to protect themselves. That is a FACT

And there are tons of laws, and court precedence to back up the fact that the government has the right to protect children.

You'd be hard pressed to find ANY evidence to suggest that government was ever intended to have any authority over marriage.

The line between fact and opinion can be very thin and blurred depending on one prospective.

Depends. I'v actually seen shit like "that officer was 158 feet from that guy when he shot him " posted then when you point out that he was actually TEN feet from him, the person who made the claim comes back with "I have a right to my own opinion" well yes, you do, But that wasn't an opinion.

Compare that fact to the entire purpose of government is to protect those who are too weak to protect themselves. The distance a shooter is from a target is a measurable fact. The purpose of government is not such a measurable fact is is a subject for constant debate and may very well depend upon the opinion of the person that wins the debate for the day.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No, it's a fact.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power.

First, let's remove the issue of age limits, because of COURSE the government has the right to protect children and thus set consent laws.

On the other issues, you're correct. The government shouldn't be able to tell cousins they can't marry, or require blood tests, or any of the other issues you mentioned.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power
That makes no sense to me.

That the government "shouldn't" be able to tell us who to marry is your OPINION, not a fact. "Of course the government has the right to protect children" is also an opinion. What is a FACT is that the government DOES put these restrictions on lawful marriage. That is the fact, not that you don't believe they should, or whatever that other argument was about. I see your problem is a genuine lack of understanding of what is a "fact," and what is an "opinion." It's a hard concept for some people for some people to grasp. Good luck.

so you think I'm wrong about the government having a role in protecting children? Because that is actually the entire purpose of government , to protect those who are to weak to protect themselves. That is a FACT

And there are tons of laws, and court precedence to back up the fact that the government has the right to protect children.

You'd be hard pressed to find ANY evidence to suggest that government was ever intended to have any authority over marriage.

The line between fact and opinion can be very thin and blurred depending on one prospective.

Depends. I'v actually seen shit like "that officer was 158 feet from that guy when he shot him " posted then when you point out that he was actually TEN feet from him, the person who made the claim comes back with "I have a right to my own opinion" well yes, you do, But that wasn't an opinion.

Compare that fact to the entire purpose of government is to protect those who are too weak to protect themselves. The distance a shooter is from a target is a measurable fact. The purpose of government is not such a measurable fact is is a subject for constant debate and may very well depend upon the opinion of the person that wins the debate for the day.

Actually, the function of OUR government can certainly be boiled down to a fact, through judicial review. In which case, opinion does become fact.

 

[320 Years of History]

From what I can tell, trolls seem by and large to just toss out some brief set of over simplified, vague or ambiguous remarks about a very complex topic and then allow the conversation spiral into incoherence as a result of other folks' willingness to reply with similar simplistic, myopic and vacuous remarks, or as a result of others' reticence to engage by taking on the full scope of the topic.

There are ways to deal with that:

• Force the troll to narrow the topic to something manageable.
• Clearly and precisely narrow the topic oneself and comment and query comprehensively and clearly on that vastly more precise aspect of the topic, slowly, but with highly focused deliberacy, working one's way through each of the applicable highly focused aspects of the topic. After finally addressing the last aspect, conclude with a cogent, well organized and coherent "fusillade" that draws its support from the various "pieces" of earlier discussion. The non-troll and keen observers will know when s/he has succeed with each "micro topic" even though the troll will often not realize their defeat; rhetorical success occurs when the troll replies with a deflecting or otherwise off-topic remark, or with an unsupportable (usually ad hominem) insult or other claim. This can require a lot of discipline and a "thick skin" on the part of the non-troll.
• Take on the full scope of the topic, addressing it very rigorously. This approach is excellent for immediately identifying all sorts of "characters" who may participate in the discussion:
  • Folks with whom one will want to have future conversations --> These folks with either take on the whole body of one's remarks or just a piece of it. Either way, they will do so very cogently and with good references for their ideas. They won't make ambiguous remarks and they'll be clear and precise (tacitly or overtly) out the limits of the applicability for their remarks as well as where the ideas they share are largely as a matter of "common wisdom" rather than matters of having deeply and objectively researched the matter.
  • Trolls --> These folks will do all sorts of things with arguments of this nature -- none of which are in keeping with mature and responsible conversation between well informed and sharp thinking individuals -- because as trolls, they have zero interest in actually taking on the topic. Because of that they simply are incapable of responding coherently. Some typical lines they'll employ include:
    • Deflections
    • Irrelevant comparisons
    • Introducing a new theme while never coherently addressing existing ones
    • Equivocation
    • Relying on extremes or focusing on exceptions to the substantive points
    • Making unsubstantiated assertions
    • Ad Hominem attacks and "well poisoning"
    • Inaccurate paraphrasing/summarizations
    • Use of loaded terms to flavor a rebuttal rather than presenting a solid but neutrally toned rebuttal
    • Commenting with vagueness and ambiguity; using the passive voice to present the bulk of their ideas is one way this happens; another is using imprecise nouns,
    • Never fully explaining their thoughts so that readers understand the literal and tonal character/intent of them
    • Reliance on anecdotal experiences as evidence and not pointing out that their position (or a part of it) depends mostly or entirely on anecdotal evidence, particularly when their experience cannot possibly be literally or thematically that of most people, or enough people that it's germane to the point for which the troll submits that evidence.
    • And, of course, the troll behavior I almost enjoy encountering: simply not knowing what they are talking about as evidenced by the troll's tossing out objective data and inductive arguments/counterarguments that are just blatantly wrong and that include no objective or credible 3rd party support to back them up.

Putting that all together, trolls are instant losers in a discussion and they make themselves known by saying "whatever" and backing it with no or fleeting substance.

 

[Mac1958]

From what I can tell, trolls seem by and large to just toss out some brief set of over simplified, vague or ambiguous remarks about a very complex topic and then allow the conversation spiral into incoherence as a result of other folks' willingness to reply with similar simplistic, myopic and vacuous remarks, or as a result of others' reticence to engage by taking on the full scope of the topic.

There are ways to deal with that:

• Force the troll to narrow the topic to something manageable.
• Clearly and precisely narrow the topic oneself and comment and query comprehensively and clearly on that vastly more precise aspect of the topic, slowly, but with highly focused deliberacy, working one's way through each of the applicable highly focused aspects of the topic. After finally addressing the last aspect, conclude with a cogent, well organized and coherent "fusillade" that draws its support from the various "pieces" of earlier discussion. The non-troll and keen observers will know when s/he has succeed with each "micro topic" even though the troll will often not realize their defeat; rhetorical success occurs when the troll replies with a deflecting or otherwise off-topic remark, or with an unsupportable (usually ad hominem) insult or other claim. This can require a lot of discipline and a "thick skin" on the part of the non-troll.
• Take on the full scope of the topic, addressing it very rigorously. This approach is excellent for immediately identifying all sorts of "characters" who may participate in the discussion:
  • Folks with whom one will want to have future conversations --> These folks with either take on the whole body of one's remarks or just a piece of it. Either way, they will do so very cogently and with good references for their ideas. They won't make ambiguous remarks and they'll be clear and precise (tacitly or overtly) out the limits of the applicability for their remarks as well as where the ideas they share are largely as a matter of "common wisdom" rather than matters of having deeply and objectively researched the matter.
  • Trolls --> These folks will do all sorts of things with arguments of this nature -- none of which are in keeping with mature and responsible conversation between well informed and sharp thinking individuals -- because as trolls, they have zero interest in actually taking on the topic. Because of that they simply are incapable of responding coherently. Some typical lines they'll employ include:
    • Deflections
    • Irrelevant comparisons
    • Introducing a new theme while never coherently addressing existing ones
    • Equivocation
    • Relying on extremes or focusing on exceptions to the substantive points
    • Making unsubstantiated assertions
    • Ad Hominem attacks and "well poisoning"
    • Inaccurate paraphrasing/summarizations
    • Use of loaded terms to flavor a rebuttal rather than presenting a solid but neutrally toned rebuttal
    • Commenting with vagueness and ambiguity; using the passive voice to present the bulk of their ideas is one way this happens; another is using imprecise nouns,
    • Never fully explaining their thoughts so that readers understand the literal and tonal character/intent of them
    • Reliance on anecdotal experiences as evidence and not pointing out that their position (or a part of it) depends mostly or entirely on anecdotal evidence, particularly when their experience cannot possibly be literally or thematically that of most people, or enough people that it's germane to the point for which the troll submits that evidence.
    • And, of course, the troll behavior I almost enjoy encountering: simply not knowing what they are talking about as evidenced by the troll's tossing out objective data and inductive arguments/counterarguments that are just blatantly wrong and that include no objective or credible 3rd party support to back them up.

Putting that all together, trolls are instant losers in a discussion and they make themselves known by saying "whatever" and backing it with no or fleeting substance.

I've reached a point where I just no longer bother. The moment the games start, I'm out.

Which actually leads to another fascinating behavior of the trolls: The need to claim "victory", as if there is some kind of online, objective scoring system monitoring the conversation. I see this all the time in conversations here, "I beat you" or "I made you look stupid", "I discredited you". As childish as this is, it exposes a clear need for approval from others, it exposes an inner lack of self esteem that is so fragile that it can somehow be temporarily satisfied on an internet message board.
.