Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Deciding that i've taken things out of context is a pretty big assumption.
Disclaimer: Generally speaking, of course...
Well, if I know the context of the overall situation you're referencing, and you don't, who's the one making an assumption?
Unless you're following me around and can see every conversation that I've had with every other poster here, you don't know the relationship I have with every single one of them. Maybe one of them DM'd me something rude and nasty. Maybe one of them made fun of me and mocked me on a thread that you weren't a party to.
I don't care who you are, or how thick of skin you think that you have; once someone crosses that line with you, you don't tend to hold them in the same regard as other posters whom you have a neutral relationship with. Rather, you would likely hold them in contempt for a considerable amount of time, depending on what they did to you. If I sat here and immaturely made fun of the way you spelled something, or criticized that your logic is severely lacking because I don't agree with you, or that someone who has done something awful to you deserves praise and recognition to spite you, how are you going to perceive me going forward? How would you treat me from here on out?
Chew on that one for a bit and get back to me.
Some people (long term members) who participate on this forum are really truly awful and spiteful with their words, and it's not just about a disagreement. They use words to inflict emotional harm on other people. And quite frankly, it's perplexing to me why some people are so adamant about sweeping the problem under the rug as if it's no big deal.
Last edited by Left-handed; 11-09-2017 at 05:25 PM..
Taking things out of context to fit your agenda is manipulative.
In the non-verbatim words of the Big Lebowski, "While you're not wrong, it does make you a you know what."
If someone assaults you on the street, and I catch you mid-hysteria, going off on that person, is it fair of me to conclude that you're a nutcase who probably needs to be restrained? Or should I attempt to understand what the heck is going on?
That actually happened to this guy, who happened to escape from Jeffrey Dahmer. And guess what? He dead now. Sometimes it's best to get the whole story before you jump to conclusions based on a small fraction of it. It may save lives.
This is way more that TabulaRasa was describing.
It's beyond lame when I make a thoughtful reply to a poster only to find out this person posts contradictory BS across multiple forums here. It's a waste of my time and doesn't make CD any more useful of a site.
And I'm talking (not sure about TR) about mundane things like 'boxers vs. briefs' or 'Ford vs. Chevy.'
In some cases it's more insidious. Recently someone who posted in a place I visit/post a modest amount posted something that was not just provocative (not trolling, though) but also identified themselves in ways that were in complete opposition to what they identified themselves as in a different part of CD. "making sheet up" may not violate the TOS, but it wastes the time of good members sharing real info or advice. SO yeah...I'll say "hey this is curious because you just said ____ three days ago...yada yada."
Haven't read through all the responses, but as a rule, I don't intentionally post anything to troll. I have had a couple posts deleted in the Politics forum for supposed trolling which shocked me at the time because that was not my intention, but I've heard other people say similar things as well. (ETA the threads in question were linked articles I posted for opinions but nothing I had directly said). Now, if someone is intentionally being a bully to me online, I will usually respond back in an intelligent but underhanded manner. I recently learned that was also considered trolling, but I'm not exactly sure if that's true or not because the definition seems very broad to me. I don't post things with the intention of trolling, but I do defend myself if attacked (sometimes, other times it is not worth it to me).
Some might not even consider this trolling but I often, usually on subforums I don't frequent or other forums on the internet, explore alternative viewpoints by posting stuff that falls against the commonly accepted opinions of a certain group and see what their reaction is. My intention when doing this is mainly to see what gets certain types of people to tick rather than to **** people off.
The worst are the niche interest forums, where a couple dozen members, all with xx,000 posts, have held fort for years. Post anything the least bit controversial, and stand-by for a group mugging and troll designation.
I wouldn't consider my few irreverent posts on CD trolling. These type of posts are usually to break the monotony of a strange topic / issue or too reorient (potentially) someone to taking on a new perspective.
I must confess, years ago, before youtube comments went in the proverbial crapper with updated policy, that I would post my opinion on some things I didn't like and the reactions that I found particularly hilarious are one of the same types of issues one finds on C-D when you get an OP looking for an echo chamber of agreeable (or commiserating) adulating responses (whatever the topic). The response is the binary, "if you don't like it why are you on this thread" response to a topic. Always gives me a chuckle as some people want to be so insulated in their world of group think. I would explain exactly what aspects of a performer / group that I found annoying and it always cracked me up.
Way, way back in the original HOTorNOT days, I would purposely look for bully types who would denigrate the young women and pound them mercilessly with mockery - one guy I made a parody lyrics and derogatory limericks about until he left (or changed avatar) and I'd also build up the ordinary looking young women with comments on their positive features. It was short lived but fun.
So many people have different ideas of what trolling is.
Most importantly, it's deliberate.
If any of you are unsure, remember what it means in fishing terms.
One deliberately throws a baited line in the water to get a "sucker" to bite.
There's no way you'll win by engaging a troll. They've already "won" as soon as you took the bait.
The only way to beat a troll is to starve it.
I think bored, petty, immature are probably more accurate descriptors most of the time. I don't think I find this behavior as threatening as it seems like you might?
I don't know that I buy that they feed on pain. I think they mostly just find pushing buttons to be entertaining.
Yeah, some people occasionally get off on trolling because they're bored, petty, or immature (often teens or younger adults). Or yank someone's chain because they're p*ssed off at them or think they're idiots. But there's another class of trolls - those who do it because they get off on psychic pain, just as budding psychopaths get off on torturing animals - that's a form of entertainment, too; they torture pets for the "lulz". They're the ones who repeatedly get banned in a forum like this one and keep coming back under new usernames. For them, it's a way of life - and you'll see the same players popping up over and over again.
Research has shown that those who engage in trolling tend to be males high on the psychopathy and sadism scales, and are low in empathy. Some people with these personality characteristics become successful in business or politics - or even medicine. Others sit in their basements drinking and become internet trolls.
I don't think that's typical, though, anymore than I think real-time, non-virtual, stalkers are the norm.
There are some unhinged people out there, of course, who engage in truly intended-as-threatening behavior, but, really, most jerks are just jerks. Not pathological. I don't think most trolls are mentally ill.
What's "typical", and where's the evidence that internet trolls' personality traits do not fall into the Dark Triad as suggested by the research? And what's the definition of a "jerk" who's not pathological?
Many people with pathological personality traits are in fact successful; see:
As one of my clinical psychology profs said: people who really really like to cut people either become serial killers, or sublimate their urges by becoming surgeons. My guess is the kind of persons who are most frequently found trolling on the internet are not in that successful camp - they're drinking and trolling in the middle of the night to get their cheap "lulz".
EDIT: Ah, found it - here is an interesting article discussing the positive side of having psychopathic traits:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
