CDZ The Psychology of Trolling

[Mac1958]

WOW, check this one out -- The studies referenced in this short (2:56) video indicate that trolling:
....
2. Is practiced by about 5.6% of internet users

Wow. I must say I would think there are very few things that only 5.6% of people do that comes to the attention of most folks, yet "trolling" behavior seems to be one of those things that does. That, to me, suggests that "trolls" are some mighty "loud" Internet users given that their presence is widely known. LOL Talk about a "vocal minority." Geez.

Well, I think that the same holds true within the political parties. What percentage of Democrats or Republicans make most of the noise in their parties, and what percentage just vote every couple of years? Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it were the same number, 5.6%, who make most of the noise within a party!
.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I've just about given up hope of finding enough non trolls on this board to have a real discussion.

If you have to redefine a term, lie, or otherwise be dishonest to defend your position it is a position not worth defending.

 

[Correll]

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

A couple possible answers to that one.

1. They rationalize it. They "know" that they are "right" but they are up against someone who is somehow "cheating" and they can't make their case.

2. They are emotionally invested. Being X is part of their self image and they cannot let it go, no matter what.

3. They are socially invested. They know that they will be ostracized if they admit that their enemies are right.

4. They have a real reason that they know is not socially acceptable, that they are committed to, so they try to defend their position based on side issues they don't really care about.

 

[Correll]

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

Pretending facts aren't facts is my greatest pet peeve when it comes to online trolls. Come on, if something is a fact, it's a fact. Just accept it and make your argument from there.

Mine is people ignoring that you already covered something and going back to it again and again, ie the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

It is soooo dishonest.

 

[Correll]

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

Pretending facts aren't facts is my greatest pet peeve when it comes to online trolls. Come on, if something is a fact, it's a fact. Just accept it and make your argument from there.

Yeah, that's where we are right now.

The slightest concession is equated with abject capitulation.

How do you communicate and progress with such an attitude?
.

You can't. THat's the GOAL.

I've been amazed at the minor issues that people go full bore troll on.

It seems that, at some level, they know that their belief system is based on lies, to the point that they cannot ever allow that a single claim of X, Y, or Z, can EVER be admitted to be wrong, because that opens up the possibility that other claims are false.


AND they know that their HOuse of Cards, can't survive the slightest scrutiny.

 

[Correll]

WOW, check this one out -- The studies referenced in this short (2:56) video indicate that trolling:
....
2. Is practiced by about 5.6% of internet users

Wow. I must say I would think there are very few things that only 5.6% of people do that comes to the attention of most folks, yet "trolling" behavior seems to be one of those things that does. That, to me, suggests that "trolls" are some mighty "loud" Internet users given that their presence is widely known. LOL Talk about a "vocal minority." Geez.

If you go into a crowded room and start screaming obscenities, everyone there will "pay attention" to you.

While the guy over by the bar, who was telling of how he rescued a baby holding a kitten from a burning house, is only heard by the two people at the bar.

 

[Mac1958]

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

Pretending facts aren't facts is my greatest pet peeve when it comes to online trolls. Come on, if something is a fact, it's a fact. Just accept it and make your argument from there.

Yeah, that's where we are right now.

The slightest concession is equated with abject capitulation.

How do you communicate and progress with such an attitude?
.

You can't. THat's the GOAL.

I've been amazed at the minor issues that people go full bore troll on.

It seems that, at some level, they know that their belief system is based on lies, to the point that they cannot ever allow that a single claim of X, Y, or Z, can EVER be admitted to be wrong, because that opens up the possibility that other claims are false.


AND they know that their HOuse of Cards, can't survive the slightest scrutiny.

Well, that's why I so often wonder if any of it is supposed to be taken seriously. A great deal of trolling is done within the context of making a political point, an argument.

So when someone is both trolling and making a "point", I often wonder if their point is even meant to be taken seriously.

I'm often left thinking this is just a game, kind of like professional wrestling for political nerds, and no one told me.

And you can't ask the troll, because you can't believe anything they're saying!


.

 

[Correll]

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

Pretending facts aren't facts is my greatest pet peeve when it comes to online trolls. Come on, if something is a fact, it's a fact. Just accept it and make your argument from there.

Yeah, that's where we are right now.

The slightest concession is equated with abject capitulation.

How do you communicate and progress with such an attitude?
.

You can't. THat's the GOAL.

I've been amazed at the minor issues that people go full bore troll on.

It seems that, at some level, they know that their belief system is based on lies, to the point that they cannot ever allow that a single claim of X, Y, or Z, can EVER be admitted to be wrong, because that opens up the possibility that other claims are false.


AND they know that their HOuse of Cards, can't survive the slightest scrutiny.

Well, that's why I so often wonder if any of it is supposed to be taken seriously. A great deal of trolling is done within the context of making a political point, an argument.

So when someone is both trolling and making a "point", I often wonder if their point is even meant to be taken seriously.

I'm often left thinking this is just a game, kind of like professional wrestling for political nerds, and no one told me.

And you can't ask the troll, because you can't believe anything they're saying!


.

Oh, I think trolls are normally very serious about the points they are trying to make or defend, even if they don't even mention that point.


You shout someone down, you smear someone enough, you marginalize someone and his message is defeated.


Your side wins.

That's been the story of politics in this country for several decades.

Since the 80s at least, if not before.

 

[JoeMoma]

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

Pretending facts aren't facts is my greatest pet peeve when it comes to online trolls. Come on, if something is a fact, it's a fact. Just accept it and make your argument from there.

Yeah, that's where we are right now.

The slightest concession is equated with abject capitulation.

How do you communicate and progress with such an attitude?
.

You can't. THat's the GOAL.

I've been amazed at the minor issues that people go full bore troll on.

It seems that, at some level, they know that their belief system is based on lies, to the point that they cannot ever allow that a single claim of X, Y, or Z, can EVER be admitted to be wrong, because that opens up the possibility that other claims are false.


AND they know that their HOuse of Cards, can't survive the slightest scrutiny.

Well, that's why I so often wonder if any of it is supposed to be taken seriously. A great deal of trolling is done within the context of making a political point, an argument.

So when someone is both trolling and making a "point", I often wonder if their point is even meant to be taken seriously.

I'm often left thinking this is just a game, kind of like professional wrestling for political nerds, and no one told me.

And you can't ask the troll, because you can't believe anything they're saying!


.

Oh, I think trolls are normally very serious about the points they are trying to make or defend, even if they don't even mention that point.


You shout someone down, you smear someone enough, you marginalize someone and his message is defeated.


Your side wins.

That's been the story of politics in this country for several decades.

Since the 80s at least, if not before.

Rule #5
Rules for Radicals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

Pretending facts aren't facts is my greatest pet peeve when it comes to online trolls. Come on, if something is a fact, it's a fact. Just accept it and make your argument from there.

Yeah, that's where we are right now.

The slightest concession is equated with abject capitulation.

How do you communicate and progress with such an attitude?
.

You can't. THat's the GOAL.

I've been amazed at the minor issues that people go full bore troll on.

It seems that, at some level, they know that their belief system is based on lies, to the point that they cannot ever allow that a single claim of X, Y, or Z, can EVER be admitted to be wrong, because that opens up the possibility that other claims are false.


AND they know that their HOuse of Cards, can't survive the slightest scrutiny.

I think Mac's definition of trolling is a little narrow. Name calling alone doesn't make a troll. I call stupid people stupid all the time.

Now calling them names without presenting a valid argument against their position? That's different.

And the reason trolls call names without presenting any argument is because deep down they know they don't have one, either because they are stupid or their position in untenable.

Which of course brings up another question, why do so many people defend ideas, positions, and people who are indefensible?

I kept it narrow and specific on purpose. Terms like "troll" (and a zillion others) can be interpreted in pretty much any way, so I just wanted to specify behaviors and examine their possible motivations.

And yeah, I suspect one of the motivations for the behaviors I listed is that they know their position is not defensible, so they just troll their way out of the conversation.
.

Pretending facts aren't facts is my greatest pet peeve when it comes to online trolls. Come on, if something is a fact, it's a fact. Just accept it and make your argument from there.

Yeah, that's where we are right now.

The slightest concession is equated with abject capitulation.

How do you communicate and progress with such an attitude?
.

You can't. THat's the GOAL.

I've been amazed at the minor issues that people go full bore troll on.

It seems that, at some level, they know that their belief system is based on lies, to the point that they cannot ever allow that a single claim of X, Y, or Z, can EVER be admitted to be wrong, because that opens up the possibility that other claims are false.


AND they know that their HOuse of Cards, can't survive the slightest scrutiny.

I've said that so often... We have real and serious issues in this country and what do we see? People fighting over which bathroom someone should get to use, or other such bullshit, meanwhile NO ONE on the left or the right , especially politicians , is doing a damn thing about the real issues facing this country.

 

[Mac1958]

New cover story from Time magazine:

The people who relish this online freedom are called trolls, a term that originally came from a fishing method online thieves use to find victims. It quickly morphed to refer to the monsters who hide in darkness and threaten people. Internet trolls have a manifesto of sorts, which states they are doing it for the “lulz,” or laughs. What trolls do for the lulz ranges from clever pranks to harassment to violent threats. There’s also doxxing–publishing personal data, such as Social Security numbers and bank accounts–and swatting, calling in an emergency to a victim’s house so the SWAT team busts in. When victims do not experience lulz, trolls tell them they have no sense of humor. Trolls are turning social media and comment boards into a giant locker room in a teen movie, with towel-snapping racial epithets and misogyny.

 

[JimBowie1958]

New cover story from Time magazine:

The people who relish this online freedom are called trolls, a term that originally came from a fishing method online thieves use to find victims. It quickly morphed to refer to the monsters who hide in darkness and threaten people. Internet trolls have a manifesto of sorts, which states they are doing it for the “lulz,” or laughs. What trolls do for the lulz ranges from clever pranks to harassment to violent threats. There’s also doxxing–publishing personal data, such as Social Security numbers and bank accounts–and swatting, calling in an emergency to a victim’s house so the SWAT team busts in. When victims do not experience lulz, trolls tell them they have no sense of humor. Trolls are turning social media and comment boards into a giant locker room in a teen movie, with towel-snapping racial epithets and misogyny.

OMG, Time magazine is the Troll of the printed magazine industry, the irony is simply stifling.

How many times will liberal Democrat media Nazis like Time Magazine save us from bullies, over eating, gun ownership , and now trolls, reducing the freedoms of us all in the name of saving us from ourselves?

Pppphtthhh the Times if they cant take the Truth or a joke.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

New cover story from Time magazine:

The people who relish this online freedom are called trolls, a term that originally came from a fishing method online thieves use to find victims. It quickly morphed to refer to the monsters who hide in darkness and threaten people. Internet trolls have a manifesto of sorts, which states they are doing it for the “lulz,” or laughs. What trolls do for the lulz ranges from clever pranks to harassment to violent threats. There’s also doxxing–publishing personal data, such as Social Security numbers and bank accounts–and swatting, calling in an emergency to a victim’s house so the SWAT team busts in. When victims do not experience lulz, trolls tell them they have no sense of humor. Trolls are turning social media and comment boards into a giant locker room in a teen movie, with towel-snapping racial epithets and misogyny.

OMG, Time magazine is the Troll of the printed magazine industry, the irony is simply stifling.

How many times will liberal Democrat media Nazis like Time Magazine save us from bullies, over eating, gun ownership , and now trolls, reducing the freedoms of us all in the name of saving us from ourselves?

Pppphtthhh the Times if they cant take the Truth or a joke.

Even a troll can be right once in awhile. It is certainly true that the internet has made it easier for haters to hate, as well as to find like minded haters.

But , you take the good with the bad with anything in life.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Even a troll can be right once in awhile. It is certainly true that the internet has made it easier for haters to hate, as well as to find like minded haters.
But , you take the good with the bad with anything in life.

But not the people who see themselves as champions for the rest of us, dedicated to saving us from ourselves, and they destroy far many more innocent peoples lives and livelihoods than they destroy among those that are evil.

The good who have the misfortune of falling into the penumbra of their collateral damage are just 'eggs for the omlette' while the truly evil they tend to recruit for their systems of controlling the masses.

 

[Mac1958]

Pppphtthhh the Times if they cant take the Truth or a joke.

"The Truth" to one is a joke to another.

I think that the level of political discourse in this country finds a new low pretty much every day, and the internet is playing a significant role in that.

And this new low is not benign; it's impeding on even the most fundamental communication, exacerbating problems virtually everywhere.
.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Pppphtthhh the Times if they cant take the Truth or a joke.

"The Truth" to one is a joke to another.

I think that the level of political discourse in this country finds a new low pretty much every day, and the internet is playing a significant role in that.

And this new low is not benign; it's impeding on even the most fundamental communication, exacerbating problems virtually everywhere.
.

Very true. The internet no doubt has played a huge roll in just how partisan we have became as a nation

 

[JimBowie1958]

Pppphtthhh the Times if they cant take the Truth or a joke.

"The Truth" to one is a joke to another.
I think that the level of political discourse in this country finds a new low pretty much every day, and the internet is playing a significant role in that.
And this new low is not benign; it's impeding on even the most fundamental communication, exacerbating problems virtually everywhere.
.

Very true. The internet no doubt has played a huge roll in just how partisan we have became as a nation

While the internet has allowed the wack jobs to come out of the wood work the internet is not entirely to blame for the partisanship.

When William F Buckley threatened to punch Gore Vidal in the nose for calling him a Nazi in 1968, network ratings jumped hugely. The networks since then have focused on presenting political discussion as a verbal combat of left vrs right. Boring old nice calm people were ignored in favor of the ideological pugilists who would use inflammatory language and universal superlatives to excite their target audience.

The real problem regarding the medias impact on polarizing our political system is when news stopped being a public service and became another form of entertainment.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Pppphtthhh the Times if they cant take the Truth or a joke.

"The Truth" to one is a joke to another.
I think that the level of political discourse in this country finds a new low pretty much every day, and the internet is playing a significant role in that.
And this new low is not benign; it's impeding on even the most fundamental communication, exacerbating problems virtually everywhere.
.

Very true. The internet no doubt has played a huge roll in just how partisan we have became as a nation

While the internet has allowed the wack jobs to come out of the wood work the internet is not entirely to blame for the partisanship.

When William F Buckley threatened to punch Gore Vidal in the nose for calling him a Nazi in 1968, network ratings jumped hugely. The networks since then have focused on presenting political discussion as a verbal combat of left vrs right. Boring old nice calm people were ignored in favor of the ideological pugilists who would use inflammatory language and universal superlatives to excite their target audience.

The real problem regarding the medias impact on polarizing our political system is when news stopped being a public service and became another form of entertainment.

oh certainly the internet isn't entirely too blame..

 

[320 Years of History]

networks since then have focused on presenting political discussion as a verbal combat of left vrs right.

The offer to present verbal combat is fine with me. The problem is the nature of the combat TV networks stage. My idea of verbal combat is this not this. The latter is just sh*t, a waste of time to watch. I suppose folks of dubious intellect and little substance may find the latter entertaining. I don't, but more importantly, I don't watch politicians to be entertained.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The offer to present verbal combat is fine with me. The problem is the nature of the combat TV networks stage. My idea of verbal combat is this not this. The latter is just sh*t, a waste of time to watch. I suppose folks of dubious intellect and little substance may find the latter entertaining. I don't, but more importantly, I don't watch politicians to be entertained.

Your idea of a real political discussion is the ideal of a debate, but of course I doubt that most of our politicians are up to such heights of erudite finesse, but perhaps they could at least adopt the decorum and reflection of this.

And this.