When is a troll, no longer a troll?

[AndyDufresne]

From: PBS Idea Channel


--Andy

[DoomYoshi]

He makes a point - Hilary Clinton supporters are all bigoted, misogynistic racists and we should call them what they are, instead of assuming they are just trolls.

[2dimes]

Of course I'm misogynistic but why can't I fear Hilary for being a liar and someone who takes too much money in exchange for very little good. I believe she is equal to her husband minus the ability to ejaculate on a dress. They are a team and already had their eight years.

I would not have a problem voting for a woman to be President who is a half decent human.

[nietzsche]

I believe she is equal to her husband minus the ability to ejaculate on a dress.

someone is going to make a joke about this but it won't be me.

[tzor]

someone is going to make a joke about this but it won't be me.

Not me, female ejaculation is a controversial subject at best.

[waauw]

someone is going to make a joke about this but it won't be me.

Not me, female ejaculation is a controversial subject at best.

What year do you live in?

[Bernie Sanders]

someone is going to make a joke about this but it won't be me.

Not me, female ejaculation is a controversial subject at best.

What year do you live in?

Tzor ' s head is still stuck in the 1950s

[Symmetry]

The word "troll" has gone from a very specific use- in mythology, to a more general use- a monster, to another specific use- a poster on the internet who lies to provoke outrage, back to a very general use- a term applied to anyone who posts something controversial, or a way of denigrating the other side of an argument without having to engage in debate.

It's almost full circle. The other side becomes a monster of myth again, against which your side becomes heroic in opposing.

The term has almost become too commonplace to be used usefully, except ironically, as a very vague way of avoiding debate.

[tzor]

What year do you live in?

I'm starting to wonder about this myself. My favorite information site is apparently torn down and destroyed. Never the less even Wikipedia considers this a subject with controversy.

The debate in the current literature focuses on three threads: the existence of female ejaculation, its source(s) and composition, and its relationship to theories of female sexuality.[12] This debate has been influenced by popular culture, pornography, and physio-chemical and behavioral studies. There is some resistance from feminists to what has been perceived as a male lens in interpreting the data and construct.[according to whom?] Often the debate is also tied to the existence of the G-spot;[49][65] stimulation of the anterior vaginal wall involves simultaneous stimulation of the para-urethral tissue, the site of the Skene's glands and ducts and presumed source of the ejaculated fluid, and therefore it has been variously stated that stimulation of this spot results in ejaculation. These tissues, surrounding the distal urethra, and anterior to the vagina, have a common embryological origin to the prostatic tissue in the male.[66][67]

Bell S. (1994). "Feminist ejaculations". In Alison Jaggar. Living With Contradictions: Controversies in feminist social ethics. Boulder: Westview. pp. 529–36. ISBN 978-0-8133-1776-2.
Chalker R (August 2002). "The G-spot: some missing pieces of the puzzle". Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 187 (2): 518–9; author reply 520. doi:10.1067/mob.2002.125884. PMID 12193956.
Sundahl, D. (February 2003). Female Ejaculation and the G-Spot: Not your mother's orgasm book!. Hunter House Publishers. ISBN 0-89793-380-X.
Longo VJ (July 1982). "The female prostate". Urology. 20 (1): 108–9. doi:10.1016/0090-4295(82)90556-8. PMID 7202277.
Zaviacic M, Whipple B (1993). "Update on the female prostate and the phenomenon of female ejaculation". J Sex Res. 30 (2): 148–51. doi:10.1080/00224499309551695.

[tzor]

Tzor ' s head is still stuck in the 1950s

NO, I'm pretty sire it's still stuck in the 2000's.
I'm still surprised the 2010's are 2/3 of the way over. Time flies.

[BoganGod]

someone is going to make a joke about this but it won't be me.

Not me, female ejaculation is a controversial subject at best.

What year do you live in?

He is taking the piss, or she is ejaculating it......

[AndyDufresne]

What year do you live in?

I'm starting to wonder about this myself. My favorite information site is apparently torn down and destroyed. Never the less even Wikipedia considers this a subject with controversy.

The debate in the current literature focuses on three threads: the existence of female ejaculation, its source(s) and composition, and its relationship to theories of female sexuality.[12] This debate has been influenced by popular culture, pornography, and physio-chemical and behavioral studies. There is some resistance from feminists to what has been perceived as a male lens in interpreting the data and construct.[according to whom?] Often the debate is also tied to the existence of the G-spot;[49][65] stimulation of the anterior vaginal wall involves simultaneous stimulation of the para-urethral tissue, the site of the Skene's glands and ducts and presumed source of the ejaculated fluid, and therefore it has been variously stated that stimulation of this spot results in ejaculation. These tissues, surrounding the distal urethra, and anterior to the vagina, have a common embryological origin to the prostatic tissue in the male.[66][67]

Bell S. (1994). "Feminist ejaculations". In Alison Jaggar. Living With Contradictions: Controversies in feminist social ethics. Boulder: Westview. pp. 529–36. ISBN 978-0-8133-1776-2.
Chalker R (August 2002). "The G-spot: some missing pieces of the puzzle". Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 187 (2): 518–9; author reply 520. doi:10.1067/mob.2002.125884. PMID 12193956.
Sundahl, D. (February 2003). Female Ejaculation and the G-Spot: Not your mother's orgasm book!. Hunter House Publishers. ISBN 0-89793-380-X.
Longo VJ (July 1982). "The female prostate". Urology. 20 (1): 108–9. doi:10.1016/0090-4295(82)90556-8. PMID 7202277.
Zaviacic M, Whipple B (1993). "Update on the female prostate and the phenomenon of female ejaculation". J Sex Res. 30 (2): 148–51. doi:10.1080/00224499309551695.

Some new studies, from within the last year, since all of these appear to be over a decade old at least:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... LzXAEesV8E
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 9/abstract


--Andy

[apey]

someone is going to make a joke about this but it won't be me.

Not me, female ejaculation is a controversial subject at best.

I could be so cruel right now but i forget if i like you so.....

[Bernie Sanders]

someone is going to make a joke about this but it won't be me.

Not me, female ejaculation is a controversial subject at best.

I could be so cruel right now but i forget if i like you so.....

Some women wish they could ejaculate, especially those who have a vagina that are as dry as Death Valley.

[apey]

someone is going to make a joke about this but it won't be me.

Not me, female ejaculation is a controversial subject at best.

I could be so cruel right now but i forget if i like you so.....

Some women wish they could ejaculate, especially those who have a vagina that are as dry as Death Valley.

How would you even know about a womans ability to ejaculate? Hve you ever even seen a woman naked irl?
No!

[Bernie Sanders]

someone is going to make a joke about this but it won't be me.

Not me, female ejaculation is a controversial subject at best.

I could be so cruel right now but i forget if i like you so.....

Some women wish they could ejaculate, especially those who have a vagina that are as dry as Death Valley.

How would you even know about a womans ability to ejaculate? Hve you ever even seen a woman naked irl?
No!

No need to insult me APEy. Besides, you're jealous that when I drive through Colorado, I don't contact you.

Listen up my Death Valley broad, it just was not meant to be, you and me. All the axle grease in the world would not free up your legs.

Now go away and stalk some guy with huge quantities of WD40.

[mandalorian2298]

Trolls, trollism and "the culture of cold detachment" as subcultures have been created and continue to evolve as a response to dominant culture's (and the internet culture is most heavily infuenced by U.S. culture) tendency to "make conversations safe for everyone".

While in the past there used to be a exist as clear difference between "childern-friendly conversations" and "adult conversations", the latter supposing both greater maturity and 'thicker skin' of the participants; with the strenghtening of the "Cult of the Victim" the latter conversations have become more and more scarce since the SJO's begun advocating the idea that you should assume that everyone in position to hear what you're saying is emotionaly unstable child with persecution complex.

Tired of that BS, some people seeked and still seek to vent on the internet, some seeking nothing more then to speak their damn minds while other going further and harassing people with their "disreputable" opinions, more often then not in direct response to being similarly harassed by the reputable opinions IRL.

And for some, driven mad by constant whining and preaching, even this is not enough and they are instead trying to make trolling a new cultural paradigm IRL!

Basically what I'm saying is this: If Trump gets elected he'll have Symmetry to thank for it.

[tzor]

I could be so cruel right now but i forget if i like you so.....

Thanks, I have the same problem at times as well.

[tzor]

Getting back to the subject, Bernie Sanders is a troll. He is no longer a troll when he drives through Colorado.

[waauw]

"Once a troll, always a troll." - Albert Einstein

[Dukasaur]

Trolls, trollism and "the culture of cold detachment" as subcultures have been created and continue to evolve as a response to dominant culture's (and the internet culture is most heavily infuenced by U.S. culture) tendency to "make conversations safe for everyone".

While in the past there used to be a exist as clear difference between "childern-friendly conversations" and "adult conversations", the latter supposing both greater maturity and 'thicker skin' of the participants; with the strenghtening of the "Cult of the Victim" the latter conversations have become more and more scarce since the SJO's begun advocating the idea that you should assume that everyone in position to hear what you're saying is emotionaly unstable child with persecution complex.

Tired of that BS, some people seeked and still seek to vent on the internet, some seeking nothing more then to speak their damn minds while other going further and harassing people with their "disreputable" opinions, more often then not in direct response to being similarly harassed by the reputable opinions IRL.

And for some, driven mad by constant whining and preaching, even this is not enough and they are instead trying to make trolling a new cultural paradigm IRL!

Basically what I'm saying is this: If Trump gets elected he'll have Symmetry to thank for it.

I don't buy it. At least, not entirely.

Leaving aside that I can't figure out what SJO means

show: sjo

I understand that the core of your meaning is that the oppressive rule of political correctness has resulted in a reaction by those who are deliberately being politically incorrect. I'll accept that this covers probably 25% of what is going on.

A far bigger thing seems to be extremism in general. It used to be possible for people of differing ideas to sit and have a pleasant conversation exploring the differences between their ideas. These would sometimes become heated, but in the end the temperature would go back down as people would at different moments become aware that conversation should be an exploration and not a brawl. It seems to me that on the Internet, every difference of opinion seems to rapidly degenerate into a pissing match. What's more, there seems to be very little acknowledging or attempting to understand opposing opinions. It seems to me that most conversations are brawls rather than explorations.

Part of the problem is "collaborative filtering" where Google and others learn your natural prejudices and reinforce them. Thus, a pro-abortion person who searches "abortion" on Google will soon see nothing but pro-abortion websites, while an anti-abortion person who searches "abortion" on Google will soon see nothing but anti-abortion websites. The people like me who see both sides find ourselves utterly bewildered, strangers in a strange land, surrounded on both sides by hysterical extremists, wondering, "why can you people not understand even a little bit of what these other guys are concerned about?"

About a year ago I got heavily into browsing the archives of this forum, and one of the things that blew my mind was how many people have been arguing the same point for years and have not changed their position one iota. For five, sometimes ten, years you have people debating an issue, and not one thing their opponents have said has made any impact on them, or caused them to reconsider their assumptions. I don't see this in R/L conversations. At least half the time, a debate in R/L will make someone, at least slightly, reconsider their starting position. I don't know why this difference is so pronounced.

Another problem, of course, is the lack of consequences for boorish behaviour. In real life, if you cross a certain line you can get a bloody nose. On the Internet, there seems to be no line which cannot be crossed. That's obviously a significant factor.

Still, even after considering ALL of the above, I still think I'm missing something. Collaborative filtering hurts civilized discourse, lack of consequence for boorish behaviour hurts civilized discourse, push-back against political correctness hurts civilized discourse, but even after allowing for all of these I still think part of the decline remains unexplained.

[riskllama]

stupid fucking post. you're an idiot, duk...

[mandalorian2298]

Trolls, trollism and "the culture of cold detachment" as subcultures have been created and continue to evolve as a response to dominant culture's (and the internet culture is most heavily infuenced by U.S. culture) tendency to "make conversations safe for everyone".

While in the past there used to be a exist as clear difference between "childern-friendly conversations" and "adult conversations", the latter supposing both greater maturity and 'thicker skin' of the participants; with the strenghtening of the "Cult of the Victim" the latter conversations have become more and more scarce since the SJO's begun advocating the idea that you should assume that everyone in position to hear what you're saying is emotionaly unstable child with persecution complex.

Tired of that BS, some people seeked and still seek to vent on the internet, some seeking nothing more then to speak their damn minds while other going further and harassing people with their "disreputable" opinions, more often then not in direct response to being similarly harassed by the reputable opinions IRL.

And for some, driven mad by constant whining and preaching, even this is not enough and they are instead trying to make trolling a new cultural paradigm IRL!

Basically what I'm saying is this: If Trump gets elected he'll have Symmetry to thank for it.

I don't buy it. At least, not entirely.

Leaving aside that I can't figure out what SJO means

show: sjo

I understand that the core of your meaning is that the oppressive rule of political correctness has resulted in a reaction by those who are deliberately being politically incorrect. I'll accept that this covers probably 25% of what is going on.

A far bigger thing seems to be extremism in general. It used to be possible for people of differing ideas to sit and have a pleasant conversation exploring the differences between their ideas. These would sometimes become heated, but in the end the temperature would go back down as people would at different moments become aware that conversation should be an exploration and not a brawl. It seems to me that on the Internet, every difference of opinion seems to rapidly degenerate into a pissing match. What's more, there seems to be very little acknowledging or attempting to understand opposing opinions. It seems to me that most conversations are brawls rather than explorations.

Part of the problem is "collaborative filtering" where Google and others learn your natural prejudices and reinforce them. Thus, a pro-abortion person who searches "abortion" on Google will soon see nothing but pro-abortion websites, while an anti-abortion person who searches "abortion" on Google will soon see nothing but anti-abortion websites. The people like me who see both sides find ourselves utterly bewildered, strangers in a strange land, surrounded on both sides by hysterical extremists, wondering, "why can you people not understand even a little bit of what these other guys are concerned about?"

About a year ago I got heavily into browsing the archives of this forum, and one of the things that blew my mind was how many people have been arguing the same point for years and have not changed their position one iota. For five, sometimes ten, years you have people debating an issue, and not one thing their opponents have said has made any impact on them, or caused them to reconsider their assumptions. I don't see this in R/L conversations. At least half the time, a debate in R/L will make someone, at least slightly, reconsider their starting position. I don't know why this difference is so pronounced.

Another problem, of course, is the lack of consequences for boorish behaviour. In real life, if you cross a certain line you can get a bloody nose. On the Internet, there seems to be no line which cannot be crossed. That's obviously a significant factor.

Still, even after considering ALL of the above, I still think I'm missing something. Collaborative filtering hurts civilized discourse, lack of consequence for boorish behaviour hurts civilized discourse, push-back against political correctness hurts civilized discourse, but even after allowing for all of these I still think part of the decline remains unexplained.

What you say about the lack of debating culture and the basic unwillingness of people listen and, upon hearing them, consider their opponents' arguments has, IMO, less to do with extremism then it does with partisanism. Most people don'tjoin debates about issues out of curiosity or in an attempt to further their understanding of the subject nor in out of genuine belief that a debate is (and, IMO, it really should be this) a collaborative attempt to, by contrasting opposing views, approach the objective truth. Instead, they are more interesting in the 'joining' part then in the 'debating' part of the debat: by choosing the side they seek to define themselves as "afeminist", "a masculinist", "a liberal", "a conservative" etc.

This is why, as you have mentioned, some people can debate an issue for years without their position changing for an inch: since they identify strongly with their position, to reevaluate the position would mean having to reevaluate themselves. To change where they stand on the issue would mean changing who they are and, worse, to change based on their opponents' instructions.

As for what you called "the lack of consequences for boorish behaviour", this could also be viewed as freedom to act honestly. IRL, and especially at job-related situations, people are often forced to refrain themselves from voicing their honest opinions. While I realize that there is a school of thought that goes so far as claim that some opinions are so unsavory that their expression should not be allowed since the protection of other people's feelings is more important then the right to express once opinion freely; as a philosopher I am unable to give any merrit to such prohibition (and am unlikely to ever change my opinion on that particular issue, much for the reason that I described in the paragraph above this one ).

[Dukasaur]

Good points. I'm glad we had this little chat...

Incidentally, I still don't know what SJO means.

[DoomYoshi]

Imagine you live in a small union mining town. Are you really going to have a discourse about whether unions are a good thing? Are you even going to question it when a big guy named Mack gives you the evil eye? The internet allows us civilized folk (read: people of Toronto) to broadly educate the hicks (every other Canadian) about what being a Canadian actually means.

Trolling IS civilized discourse.