hahaha3hahaha has been GUESTED

[AAFitz]

But I also will point out, if you agree a fight against the very lifestyle of your friends is a just cause, than really, they are not your friends. Not really.

Only if their homosexuality was the entirety of their being. It's not, it's simply one aspect. It's an aspect they can choose to act on or not, even if choosing not would be difficult for them, but whether they act on it or not, it's still not everything that they are.

As for the rest, there are those who believe that any rebuttal is, itself, trolling.

As to your earlier mention, which I let slide at the time but now seems pertinent: indicating where others have gotten away with things in the past is quite valid, as what's tolerated lends evidence as to what is acceptable. The evidence I saw is that those posts were on this side of the line, not the other side, even if they could be considered "awfully close to the line."

I can't see how a single post in a single thread, as 'hot' as the topic might be, is trolling, especially when the thread pointed out was a thread it appeared he had started. Perhaps I am unaware of other evidence, but if that's the case, that other evidence should be included, not merely one post of one thread that people can choose to misconstrue but likewise, could choose not to misconstrue or warp into things he didn't himself neither said nor implied even if "swastika carriers" might say quite outrageous, hateful, and bigotted things accompanied by worse actions.

Well they are your friends, so thats your area of expertise.

As far as the other examples, you obviously could be right or wrong, but again, its always a little subjective...and without the examples, Ill actually take your word for it...not to say Id agree after seeing them.

As far as hahaha... its clear you think he was on the safe side...and I think he was on the bannable side...but at least I agree with your reasoning, and it really is nice to see a coherent argument, whether or not I agree with it.

[stahrgazer]

As far as hahaha... its clear you think he was on the safe side...and I think he was on the bannable side...but at least I agree with your reasoning, and it really is nice to see a coherent argument, whether or not I agree with it.

Thanks, and it amazes me which side of this particular fence I'm sitting on (as we covered in pm) but I'm on this particular side of the fence because I've seen much worse get tolerated on CC.

[hahaha3hahaha]

If I got banned for trolling, when all I did was propose a few points on why I was curious about CC's stance on swastikas, then AAfitz should be banned for spam, all he is doing is running over the same points repetitively.

For the record...
I'm not a (neo-) Nazi.
I'm not a white supremasist.
I'm not a Jew hater.
I'm not a homophobic.
I'm an average person who asked a fucking question and got punished for it.

[BigBallinStalin]

If I got banned for trolling, when all I did was propose a few points on why I was curious about CC's stance on swastikas, then AAfitz should be banned for spam, all he is doing is running over the same points repetitively.

For the record...
I'm not a (neo-) Nazi.
I'm not a white supremasist.
I'm not a Jew hater.
I'm not a homophobic.
I'm an average person who asked a fucking question and got punished for it.

You should've worded the question a bit better. MeDeFe kind of saw through it and locked it immediately. In my opinion, you didn't seem genuinely interested in seriously talking about the swastika, but instead made that thread in retaliation for some thing or another, something about some guy trolling in some other forum--maybe that Nazi forum, not sure, and it's not important for me to go back and bring it here.

[AAFitz]

If I got banned for trolling, when all I did was propose a few points on why I was curious about CC's stance on swastikas, then AAfitz should be banned for spam, all he is doing is running over the same points repetitively.

For the record...
I'm not a (neo-) Nazi.
I'm not a white supremasist.
I'm not a Jew hater.
I'm not a homophobic.
I'm an average person who asked a fucking question and got punished for it.

Well, if anything Ive done has violated CC rules, Im happy to take my punishment for it like a man.

I do think I was simply responding to others points on the matter however...please do set up a complaint and quote my spam or trolling though.

For the record, no one called you any of those things.

You were cited for trolling and punished for it.

Further, even if you were all of those things, or any one of them, that is absolutely your right as it is anyone's. You just happened to break the forum guidelines on trolling, and posted arguably homphobic and possibly racist statements, but that is a matter of opinion, and since you were not punished for bigotry, those are just contributing factors to the main complaint.

No one has called you anything in this thread, except perhaps a troll. While you have gone so far as to call me an analytical prick, accused me of switching words that I did not and even posted that you assume I must be jewish, homosexual or both, and that medefe, must somehow support homosexuals and/or prostitution, by some twisted logic, most have only posted that you deserved a ban for trolling. I did perhaps question the character of a person who would post such things too...but that is just my opinion, and perfectly relevant to the conversation. Personally, I think all of that is probably more likely just more trolling on your part, and I wouldnt respond, but I do happen to feel my time is worth of fighting such causes as racism, homophobia, and even perhaps the CC guidelines on trolling. I think you just made a quick post, didnt read it, and just sent it off with some easily fixable mistakes that could have easily made it a valid topic for discussion. I also assume your point was not a valid discussion in the first place though...but again...thats just my opinion...and obviously happens to be the mods opinion, which is why you got a little vacation.

Again, if this means discussing these topics, which is the main point of the thread, and directly relevant is somehow spam... so be it. Ill let you quote my off topic posts and spamming as you see fit. I do hope you wont accuse me of spamming when I reply to them though.

The reason this topic has stayed alive however, is obviously because it does have many facets to analyze as you pointed out. The poll itself is split right down the middle, with many differing arguments, which on both sides are both interesting, and thought provoking. This being a forum to discuss such things, sometimes, actual discussions happen, which is happened here.
And while I do have a habit of repeating some themes, it is almost always in direct response to another post, or a direct quote of mine. Again, if that makes it spam to repeat something...well.... I am guilty as charged. I would hope it would be seen as the discussion it is meant to be however.

[vodean]

shouldn't this be LOCKED?

[AAFitz]

shouldn't this be LOCKED?

Now that, I doubt many would argue with. It is still on topic, amazingly so really, but it does seem to have served it purpose. At the same time, it is one of the more complex cases with as much controversy as is possible on CC. I think it more or less has burned its fuel anyways.

Verdict, some think it was trolling, some do not.

Much ado about nothing... in the end.

[AAFitz]

hahaha3 wrote:
Maybe there are still groups existing today that carry on that line, but what about the ones that fight against things like prostitution and homosexuality- I think those are very fair causes.

stahrgazer wrote:
If that deserves a ban, then I guess I deserve a ban, then, too, because I believe a fight against homosexuality is a very fair cause, depending on the time, place, and methods used to engage

AAFITZ applauds one and condemns the other.

Trolling?

I neither applaud nor condemn. I pointed out why I think one is trolling, and why I think one is not, and all related to the overall post of the poster, not just the one line taken from it. That seems to me like a relevant discussion of the topic.

Do you think its trolling? And if yes, how so?

[jefjef]

shouldn't this be LOCKED?

Now that, I doubt many would argue with. It is still on topic, amazingly so really, but it does seem to have served it purpose. At the same time, it is one of the more complex cases with as much controversy as is possible on CC. I think it more or less has burned its fuel anyways.

Verdict, some think it was trolling, some do not.

Much ado about nothing... in the end.

Not much ado about nothing.

AA you made a new friend.

hahaha has learned that some buttons are not to be pushed without careful wording.

CC has kept this open to get real insight as to how the few of us forum goers feel about there actions as well some of ours. Be it support for mod action or not.

But yes it is time this gets a virtual padlock.

[AAFitz]

... some buttons are not to be pushed without careful wording.

This should be stickied

Though my sig making it post 6444 times thoughout CC will have to be enough for now.

-And I for one find it goddamn refreshing to see someone actually get that after this. If fact... Its just so damn obvious, and if followed, would solve nearly all of forum issues once and for all. Though "some topics are not to be discussed without careful wording" would make more sense as a stand alone quote.

It is also depressing that I perhaps just wrote a few thousand words...and you neatly summarize them with that one phrase.

[vodean]

trolling. he had it coming.

[stahrgazer]

I've looked at the original post he made, and I still can't see how this post was trolling.

Just out of curiousity- why does CC have such a harsh stance on swastikas? A swastika, in a nutshell, is a shape used to symbolize a certain organization that stands up for what they see as social, political and racial injustices, don't we all have that right? To stand up for what we believe in?

I'm not sure what 'certain organization' uses the swastika; personally I don't like its resonances back to Hitler, and other resonances that resonate to other types of "hater," but the real point is, nothing here crosses a line.

And I'll take a moment to expand, to answer the question he posed.

haha, I detest swastikas and people who try to make them some sort of patriotic emblem deserving the dignity accorded to the American bald eagle, the claws and olive branches, or the purple heart.

Yes, a variant of the swastika was, in ancient times, used to portray gentle spiritual philosophies, but even persons in those cultures recognize that use of a swastika today invokes anything but the original meaning. That's because somewhere along the way, the swastika got bastardized by a HATER. Other groups took up the emblem to show support for more HATING, using violent methods to get their points across. Thus, the swastika, once a beautiful emblem of spiritual means, has been twisted and perverted into anything but what it once meant.

I can feel all these things, I can oppose the use of swastikas as some sort of generous patriotism, and yet I can still review your post and see it as nothing more than a bit of boastful ignorance; not trolling; not crossing lines; not deserving a warning or a ban.

Indeed swastikas are associated with Nazism, but can't anyone see the bigger picture? For example; modern day Neo-Nazis; are they still known as pure anti-semitists? NO.

Arguable, but not inflammatory. Nothing crosses a line.

Maybe there are still groups existing today that carry on that line, but what about the ones that fight against things like prostitution and homosexuality- I think those are very fair causes.

Nothing here bashes prostitutes or homosexuals, it's an opinion. It's an opinion shared by such noteds as the Pope and quite a few congressmen and senators, even if other religions (Unitarian Universalists, for one) and other congressmen and senators support and even ARE homosexuals. Again, nothing bashing or flaming here.

The closest one could say is, "Homosexuals don't like to hear that others think a fight against them is a very fair cause," but how is THIS opinion worse than some who viciously bash republicans or bash democrats in some of those politics topics CC allows?

A swastika can be used to identify people amongst us who agree with the same concepts as others- it is no longer an 'object that means you hate Jews and love Hitler', that is one of the biggest generalizations out there.

True, even if it misses the point that a swastika in use today often means hater of something, and has ever since Hitler took it on as some sort of national rallying symbol... even if the things being hated aren't the things that Hitler was most notorious for hating. (Although, in truth, Hitler hated differences besides being Jewish, and those concentration camps killed a lot more than Jews.)

As for them being offensive, that's complete bollocks- more people would be offended by avatars with bad world influences such as Homer Simpson, or avatars with women displayed as sex objects.

I don't agree that it's complete bollocks, but I do agree that others are offended by other sorts of avatars.

Heck, country flags and sporting team logos would cause more fury if people could grasp the idea that a swastika isn't an identification key for cold blooded, Jew killing Nazis.

Again, subject to debate, but I see his point...even if he's still missing the idea that swastika is frequently associated with hater of something.

Stop playing the pathetic 'I am offended!' card- decades later, it's getting VERY old now.

People say this all the time on CC; just often about other things than a swastika.

Bottom line, I still see nothing in this post that reflects trolling. If there were other posts in evidence, I might concur. As it is, I see this post as a lame attempt to justify the use of a twisted symbol. I can detest the symbol, protest its use, and still see nothing particularly inflammatory in the arguments he's used to inquire about it.

[AAFitz]

Trolling is subjective... to you it may indeed look like a valid attempt to discuss a subject intelligently and you can assume it was meant as such...but obviously just as many simply think it was just put together to troll. There is no question that the line between the two is a fine one...especially in this case. I will actually agree that its even possible that he was just trying to discuss it, but rushed through posting too quickly, and made it look like he was trolling....but myself, am fully convinced it was meant to troll, and did so on a subject that is inflamatory and highly offensive to many, which is why I believe he was vacationed. It was meant as a warning perhaps to haha, and to all, to be more careful when posting such things...especially since it was a subject that CC has dealt with before, and all know CC consider a delicate subject.

Admittedly, there's no way to prove it, but viewed as a whole, with every line taken not just individually, but also combined, many, including the mod that banned it, thought it crossed the line of trolling. Its really that simple. Further, a hell of a lot more time has been put into analyzing it retroactively than was originally...for better or worse.

In short, as jefjef said...well, its in my sig.

[stahrgazer]

Trolling is subjective... to you it may indeed look like a valid attempt to discuss a subject intelligently and you can assume it was meant as such...but obviously just as many simply think it was just put together to troll.

No, it's much simpler than that. I don't perceive a message to be trolling. To me, to be trolling, it has to be repetetively off topic with clear intent to incite. While it's feasible to assume that the mere mention of a swastika can incite, there's not a clear intent (you've said repeatedly it's debatable, so if it's debatable it's not clear) nor was the post made irrelevant to that topic, since he'd made his own topic. Nor does that example meet the plural stated in the rules about trolling.

Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics ....

As I said before, if there were other examples to show a repetetive attempt to pervert unrelated topics; or create multiple topics on "the beauty of the swastika and all its glory" ) that evidence wasn't cited. If there's more evidence, more examples of topics he created on the subject, or attempts to derail unrelated topics, then I'd be able to see why it's trolling. As it is, I just don't see it.

I dislike the topic and his perspective on swastikas; many probably find it almost as distasteful and tactless as I do; but just because a topic is distasteful doesn't make the person who created a single topic, a troll.

[AAFitz]

Trolling is subjective... to you it may indeed look like a valid attempt to discuss a subject intelligently and you can assume it was meant as such...but obviously just as many simply think it was just put together to troll.

No, it's much simpler than that. I don't perceive a message to be trolling. To me, to be trolling, it has to be repetetively off topic with clear intent to incite. While it's feasible to assume that the mere mention of a swastika can incite, there's not a clear intent (you've said repeatedly it's debatable, so if it's debatable it's not clear) nor was the post made irrelevant to that topic, since he'd made his own topic. Nor does that example meet the plural stated in the rules about trolling.

Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics ....

As I said before, if there were other examples to show a repetetive attempt to pervert unrelated topics; or create multiple topics on "the beauty of the swastika and all its glory" ) that evidence wasn't cited. If there's more evidence, more examples of topics he created on the subject, or attempts to derail unrelated topics, then I'd be able to see why it's trolling. As it is, I just don't see it.

I dislike the topic and his perspective on swastikas; many probably find it almost as distasteful and tactless as I do; but just because a topic is distasteful doesn't make the person who created a single topic, a troll.

Well, again, I fully understand your opinion, and am not even saying you are wrong. However, I disagree with what you consider trolling, not your reasoning for that opinion. If you want to present examples of threads that you feel are more trolling, and were ignored, that may be interesting to look at.

Myself, as posted before, I think he would not have been vacationed, had the wording not been what it was.

Also, no one really convicted haha as a troll, only that he was posted a thread that was deemed to be trolling, and received a short vacation for it. (Im assuming a warning of some type has been issued to him in the past...but to be honest...I have no real knowledge of the CC punishments.)

[stahrgazer]

I just italicized the entire comment he made; if it's the wording, then which words are trolling?

Think about it; he said a fight against prostitution or homosexuality is a very fair cause. I said the same thing. I merely added, "depending on the time, place, and methods used to engage."

So because he didn't get into methods, his is trolling and mine's not -- even though at NO time did his comments suggest that people should act in the despicable manner that some who use the swastika have done; he devoted a part of a paragraph about that later, agreeing that some still use the swastika 'wrongly'.

Is it trolling just because he supports use of a swastika as a symbol that, to him, doesn't have to mean hatred and violence?

[jefjef]

Gee. I'm a fitz sig now.

# Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a pissing match, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user is not cool. Prompting or provoking others to do that is just as bad.


Well I must say the swasi is a controversial topic. BUT it must be posted with INTENT to provoke a pissing match.

I do believe MeDe took liberties interpreting hahaha3's intent. His post did begin, undeniable, as a serious question.

[AAFitz]

Gee. I'm a fitz sig now.

# Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a pissing match, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user is not cool. Prompting or provoking others to do that is just as bad.


Well I must say the swasi is a controversial topic. BUT it must be posted with INTENT to provoke a pissing match.

I do believe MeDe took liberties interpreting hahaha3's intent. His post did begin, undeniable, as a serious question.

it also continued undeniably in a trolling manner or at the very least sloppy enough to be considered trolling..

I mean seriously... are you suggesting that posting a fight against homosexuality and prostitution while discussing a swastika, mentioning anti-semitism and saying that these are justification for a swastika, and why they can be used....is really a serious question.

Really, are you going on record saying you think the thread was meant seriously?

I can see arguing that perhaps it may not have crossed the guidelines or not...but defending it as a serious question meant for actual discussion...again...really?

Id say it met the criteria fully, since all of those things have happened as a result of his thread. I honestly think you just helped more than anyone why he was vacationed, unwittingly.

[jefjef]

His post did begin, undeniable, as a serious question.

You sure are liberal in your interpretations too Mr Fitz. Apply whatever twisted meanings you want.

I have conversed with hahaha3 and do not believe his intent was to start a riot or promote Nazism or a crusade against anyone.

Just so you know. I do not support the use of the Nazi swasi. I believe in freedom of speech. I believe in freedom of lifestyle's that do not encroach or interfere upon the freedoms of others. Heck. I don't even have you foed.

I believe hahaha3's intent was mis interpreted is all.

[stahrgazer]

I mean seriously... are you suggesting that posting a fight against homosexuality and prostitution while discussing a swastika, mentioning anti-semitism and saying that these are justification for a swastika, and why they can be used....is really a serious question..

Whoah, AA, you're REALLY twisting what he said.

1. Yes, he said that he believed fighting against prostitution and homosexuality, which some think of when they think of a swastika, is a fair cause. He's not the only one who believes that, and most organizations (including like, um.. the law--at least outside of Vegas where prostitution is concerned) that are against either don't use swastikas. Some organizations, like many forms of religion, are also against homosexuality, and they don't use swastikas and aren't supposed to use the violent methods many think of when they see a swastika. That's the point he was making... the swastika doesn't necessarily mean violence. I understand, even if I disagree with, his perspective.

2. His mention of anti-semitism, if you look closely, trashes that as abhorrent and, accurately, outdated. His mention of it is that the swastika is "no longer about" anti-semitism. He's accurate. Many still see it as a sign of hatred and violence, and with good reason, but haha just may be too young to understand the warping that...

...well, I blame Hitler much less than I blame neo-Nazis for warping the swastika into a sign of hatred. Yeah, Hitler used it extensively, but that really was some of German history, that Germanic cross, which he used as effectively as Americans use the Eagle. Unfortunately for Germany, their iron emblem got corrupted by Hitler the Hater and his Hatist minions. Unfortunately for the swastika, that corruption continued with "white power" type groups who grabbed that emblem and touted it high to show the world how "right" Hitler must've been to kill off the "unpure."

It may be that haha is wondering why the emblem itself is considered such a sign of hatred, that he's too young to remember it in his bones they way my grandmother, or my German neighbors when I was growing up (WWII refugees. Her father was taken, and her mother killed in front of Mrs. Schultz because father'd refused to join the Nazi party. Leaving her and her sister orphans to fend for themselves, being shot at by farmers when stealing a potato from a field rather than starve) remembered; or the way I can remember from watching neo-Nazis and KKK march in my streets after gleefully (but sneakily) burning a black woman out of her home.

I disagree with his arguments. But his arguments, in and of themselves, were not offensive. Uninformed, perhaps, and thus, tactless, perhaps even stupid; but not inflammatory.

[AAFitz]

His post did begin, undeniable, as a serious question.

You sure are liberal in your interpretations too Mr Fitz. Apply whatever twisted meanings you want.

I have conversed with hahaha3 and do not believe his intent was to start a riot or promote Nazism or a crusade against anyone.

Just so you know. I do not support the use of the Nazi swasi. I believe in freedom of speech. I believe in freedom of lifestyle's that do not encroach or interfere upon the freedoms of others. Heck. I don't even have you foed.

I believe hahaha3's intent was mis interpreted is all.

I agree, the post started with a serious question...but that does not mean it was seriously intended...it could easily have been a lead in to a trolling thread, which is exactly what I think it was.

In any case, im not questioning you on your thoughts about the subject matter itself, and didnt mean to imply anything by it... I was only asking if you really thought he was trying to engage in a meaningful discussion, and not break nearly all of those things you posted about trolling, which you answered.

[AAFitz]

I mean seriously... are you suggesting that posting a fight against homosexuality and prostitution while discussing a swastika, mentioning anti-semitism and saying that these are justification for a swastika, and why they can be used....is really a serious question..

Whoah, AA, you're REALLY twisting what he said.

1. Yes, he said that he believed fighting against prostitution and homosexuality, which some think of when they think of a swastika, is a fair cause. He's not the only one who believes that, and most organizations (including like, um.. the law--at least outside of Vegas where prostitution is concerned) that are against either don't use swastikas. Some organizations, like many forms of religion, are also against homosexuality, and they don't use swastikas and aren't supposed to use the violent methods many think of when they see a swastika. That's the point he was making... the swastika doesn't necessarily mean violence. I understand, even if I disagree with, his perspective.

2. His mention of anti-semitism, if you look closely, trashes that as abhorrent and, accurately, outdated. His mention of it is that the swastika is "no longer about" anti-semitism. He's accurate. Many still see it as a sign of hatred and violence, and with good reason, but haha just may be too young to understand the warping that...

...well, I blame Hitler much less than I blame neo-Nazis for warping the swastika into a sign of hatred. Yeah, Hitler used it extensively, but that really was some of German history, that Germanic cross, which he used as effectively as Americans use the Eagle. Unfortunately for Germany, their iron emblem got corrupted by Hitler the Hater and his Hatist minions. Unfortunately for the swastika, that corruption continued with "white power" type groups who grabbed that emblem and touted it high to show the world how "right" Hitler must've been to kill off the "unpure."

It may be that haha is wondering why the emblem itself is considered such a sign of hatred, that he's too young to remember it in his bones they way my grandmother, or my German neighbors when I was growing up (WWII refugees. Her father was taken, and her mother killed in front of Mrs. Schultz because father'd refused to join the Nazi party. Leaving her and her sister orphans to fend for themselves, being shot at by farmers when stealing a potato from a field rather than starve) remembered; or the way I can remember from watching neo-Nazis and KKK march in my streets after gleefully (but sneakily) burning a black woman out of her home.

I disagree with his arguments. But his arguments, in and of themselves, were not offensive. Uninformed, perhaps, and thus, tactless, perhaps even stupid; but not inflammatory.

im not really twisting anything he said... I was just asking jefjef what he really thought. But haha clearly states that one of the other uses of the swastika could be for groups in the very fair cause of fighting homosexuality and prostitution, and uses that as one of the reasons why he thinks it should be allowed on CC....

Now Im not arguing anything really about this...and certainly not about the subject matter itself... Im really only arguing the fact that I think he was trolling with it, and why...and if you read the definition of trolling that jefjef provided... i don't think its a stretch at all to suspect that was what haha was doing.... again, I admit it is a matter of opinion, and I fully see why you dont think it was trolling...but I do fail to see how you dont realize why others do think it was trolling...but I suppose thats a matter of opinion too.

[stahrgazer]

but I do fail to see how you dont realize why others do think it was trolling...but I suppose thats a matter of opinion too.

I believe others think it was trolling simply because they don't like what he said. But that's not trolling.

[AAFitz]

but I do fail to see how you dont realize why others do think it was trolling...but I suppose thats a matter of opinion too.

I believe others think it was trolling simply because they don't like what he said. But that's not trolling.

Jefjef provided the definition of trolling.

# Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a pissing match, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user is not cool. Prompting or provoking others to do that is just as bad.

I think what haha posted fulfills this definition very sufficiently. I thought he was trolling before I read this. After reading this, it solidified it completely.

I think its safe to say that haha posted a controversial subject...and that saying a fight against homosexuality was sufficient to provoke not only a pissing match and an emotional response, but also a flame fest, and was bound to disrupt the community. Further, I feel that the sloppiness with which it was presented, buy the very use of combining so many controversial topics....including the mention of prostitutes... goes on to prove he was just out to cause trouble..and was completely trolling....or at the very least, should have realized he was. And, given that he was given a vacation, Im assuming there has been a warning in the past....so he more than most should have been more careful with his words....even if he really did want a nice intelligent conversation about CCs policy on swastikas.

Personally, I believe you are wrongly defending his right to discuss such things, and are incorrectly estimating his actual intent...for when I look at the post as a whole, there is absolutely no question about its intent to be trolling...and fulills that definition as much as any thread Ive ever seen...

again however, I do understand your reasoning... I simply think it is faulty..

[stahrgazer]

I think its safe to say that haha posted a controversial subject...and that saying a fight against homosexuality was sufficient to provoke not only a pissing match and an emotional response, but also a flame fest, and was bound to disrupt the community.
again however, I do understand your reasoning... I simply think it is faulty..

Just because it happened to be a controversial subject doesn't mean he intended to provoke anything but an answer to his questions.

If all controversial subjects are trolling, I'll ask you again to look at the discussion threads regarding politics, and ask you again why they aren't trolling when OBVIOUSLY posting bad stuff about dems is gonna provoke a pissing match, flame fest, and emotional response and disrupt the community; equally, posting bad stuff about reps will provoke a pissing match, flame fest, and emotional response and disrupt the community.

Likewise, religion topics should be taboo because we've got enough religious wars in world history to prove those are controversial topics.

You're saying he's a troll because his topic itself is controversial; a worse troll because his mildly-stated opinion on it isn't popular; and a worst troll because the writing was "sloppy."
Controversial topics abound. Not all opinions will be popular. Not everyone can write as eloquently as others. Those things do not make "troll."

You're the one with faulty reasoning. It's just that your faulty reasoning happens to be popular with a few others.