Love Zhaoying Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 4 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said: @Arielle Popstar is not a troll. I don't always agree with her views, but I respect her honesty and self-reflection. @Luna Bliss is not a troll. I sometimes agree with her and sometimes don't. I sometimes find her tiresome, but I think she generally means well. @Love Zhaoying is not a troll. He seems like a genuinely good person, who wants attention and lols. Even though his jokes sometimes fall flat, telling "Dad jokes" is not a sin. 🙂 On a "good day", I would agree with you! Today is a "good day". 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Actually, no! I take the meaning of "troll" in my explanation, to be the meaning where someone is "trolling" - saying or doing something "to get a response". (Whereas, another definition of "trolling" is a type of "fishing".) From a random top-level Internet search, "Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to 'bait' people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction." A troll to my mind is someone who will put something out in a thread and then not back it up. The only intent is to bait others or control the direction of a topic. Only one poster in this thread that displays that characteristic that I see. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 3 hours ago, Rolig Loon said: If you take the popular loose meaning that a troll is someone who is pushy -- perhaps self-centered -- and annoying, then I suppose you're right. That makes "troll" sort of a mushy concept, though. Without searching terribly far, I could identify two or three people in this forum who I regularly think of as pushy, self-centered, and annoying, but I often agree with what they have to say. I read what they have to say because it's usually well thought out, despite the fact that I don't care for the way they say it. (I imagine they probably think the same thing about my posts.) Personally, I'd reserve the word "troll" for those few people who are deliberately annoying, just for the sake of being annoying. I don't think there are many of those around here. So earlier you said you don't like to quibble over definitions, but as you can see it is necessary around here, because it seems like people are just coming up with their own definitions. I absolutely hate having to quibble myself! But these kind of things is the common trait of every topic posted here - usually devolves into an argument of word meanings. There is no popular loose meanings.. There are known, popular and objective meanings and definitions for all words used, and defined in dictionaries for all of us to reference anytime we are in doubt. Although the regular dictionary is good for general use, when it comes to slang and internet or 'gaming' terms, Urban Dictionary usually nails it (and keeps it updated) https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. An unpopular opinion is not a troll, but if someone wants to easily negate or dismiss someone easily - labeling tends to be the go-to in many cases. Similar to being labeled 'sexist', 'racist', 'bigot'.. .when that may not be the case at all. It's just said by people who want to shut you down out of the conversation. Edited May 28 by Codex Alpha Clarification, as always needed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: A troll to my mind is someone who will put something out in a thread and then not back it up. We also have some who will "back it up" using disingenuous logic, moving the goalposts, changing the subject, and circling back to their original answer. So in my personal opinion, those who take that tactic aren't really "backing it up" even if they claim to be. On the other hand, some who take that tactic demand OTHERS "back it up"! 🙂 ETA: No, I'm not talking about you or anyone in particular - I'm explaining in general. And some who demand an answer over and over and over, while ignoring all answers. 🙂 Edited May 28 by Love Zhaoying 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolig Loon Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Actually, no! I take the meaning of "troll" in my explanation, to be the meaning where someone is "trolling" - saying or doing something "to get a response". (Whereas, another definition of "trolling" is a type of "fishing".) I think that's a bit too broad. There are many ways to say things in hope of provoking a response, not all of which come even close to being trolling. I think that's the gray area that a few people in this thread have been digging around in. Somewhere in that gray area is the difference between poking someone "in fun" and poking someone just to be mean. As we've discussed before, the problem is that the poker and the pokee (?) each have their own interpretation of what's "in fun" and what's "mean". The poker is always hoping for a response, but may not perceive that the pokee will find the poke truly annoying or even hurtful. In that case, the pokee will take your definition and call the poker a TROLL. The poker will yell righteously that the pokee is overreacting and will resent being called a troll. Therein lies madness. I prefer to reserve the word "troll" for those pokers who and clearly -- by almost anyone's definition -- just poking to be nasty SOBs. Trolls aren't in the gray area. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said: Somewhere in that gray area is the difference between poking someone "in fun" and poking someone just to be mean. That's where the disagreements seem to lie lately. When you finally "pin someone down", their reasoning is, "it's all in fun"! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 5 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said: I KNOW y'all aren't trying to change the topic from "Trolls", to "gaslighting is when men take power from women"! (Not all Trolls are men trolling Women and vice-versa!) I think in practice gaslighting tends to be done by men to women, in large measure because it involves the assumption of a kind of "authority" upon which men can more "naturally" call in our still-gendered culture. Women, on the other hand, still tend to be characterized as more "emotional" and "fickle," and so seem more likely to misread on the basis of their emotional responses to things. But I don't think there is anything necessarily gendered about gaslighting per se. I can't see any reason why a very self-confident women couldn't do it to an insecure man. But one thing that hasn't been discussed here extensively is the relationship of griefing or trolling to power and control more generally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: But one thing that hasn't been discussed here extensively is the relationship of griefing or trolling to power and control more generally. Well..why else would griefers and trolls "do that they do" besides a sense of power over others? Merely to "get their jollies"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, Love Zhaoying said: Well..why else would griefers and trolls "do that they do" besides a sense of power over others? Merely to "get their jollies"? Sure. I think both of these things can be true. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said: I think that's a bit too broad. There are many ways to say things in hope of provoking a response, not all of which come even close to being trolling. I think that's the gray area that a few people in this thread have been digging around in. Somewhere in that gray area is the difference between poking someone "in fun" and poking someone just to be mean. As we've discussed before, the problem is that the poker and the pokee (?) each have their own interpretation of what's "in fun" and what's "mean". The poker is always hoping for a response, but may not perceive that the pokee will find the poke truly annoying or even hurtful. In that case, the pokee will take your definition and call the poker a TROLL. The poker will yell righteously that the pokee is overreacting and will resent being called a troll. Therein lies madness. I prefer to reserve the word "troll" for those pokers who and clearly -- by almost anyone's definition -- just poking to be nasty SOBs. Trolls aren't in the gray area. My main argument is that I don't think there are as many trolls as some may claim there are (including the more malicious version 'griefers'). This is why I put my two cents in. I have decades of experience with such individuals from online forums to gaming servers. There was only a small percentage of the entire player base that would qualify, and they didnt always remain trolls and griefers, though as I stated before - they certainly became them - in reaction to perceived slights or real injustices. I made a case that in both LL-rooted platforms of SL and Sansar, that the same claims were being made constantly... yet the numbers and real experiences of most simply did not support the claims. Looking around going "Who?". I want people in SL to move to a place of empowerment and self-responsibility, AND to stop the constant rhetoric and claims of abusive behaviour being some kind of scourge in SL. I tried to make a case of how many NEW users might start out as jokesters, not necessarily trolls yet (Though there will be some!), but it's always about testing the boundaries of the platform, testing the general populace at their level of patience, etc. So yeah, I get all sorts of people come into my server, my world, or my virtual existence doing all sorts of things.. They just don't affect me much because they make me laugh. I don't feel like a victim, because at any moment I have one button that can be executed in 0.00000000005 seconds that makes them go away. My experience with these types on the internet for decades also allows me to fully understand their motivation, as I've got to know many of these 'trolls' and 'griefers' and the people behind the activity. Sansar never had it's "Wild West", even if Ebbe was an advocate of it. He was outnumbered by a staff (and the core users) who had NO patience in that matter, NO mercy, and that was part of a death knell. I would even argue that SL has gained the same reputation over time, and a general hostility (and non-desire) to have new users come here - that it could be part of the problem. Its okay for a 'core group' to express themselves and their wishes, but hopefully LL will take all of that with a grain of salt, and make their own decisions - based on the success, viability and profit of the company itself. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: That's where the disagreements seem to lie lately. When you finally "pin someone down", their reasoning is, "it's all in fun"! Whoever was 'pinned down'... or probably 'dog-piled'.... was their argument really about "It's all in fun" as a response, or was it part of a more contextual and nuanced, thought out, and supported thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 19 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: So earlier you said you don't like to quibble over definitions, but as you can see it is necessary around here, because it seems like people are just coming up with their own definitions. I absolutely hate having to quibble myself! But these kind of things is the common trait of every topic posted here - usually devolves into an argument of word meanings. There is no popular loose meanings.. There are known, popular and objective meanings and definitions for all words used, and defined in dictionaries for all of us to reference anytime we are in doubt. The fact that you believe 'gaslighting' only refers to a Hollywood movie as opposed to comprehending this psychological dynamic is far more complex points to the fact that your interpretations are not always right as you seem to believe. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolig Loon Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 11 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: So earlier you said you don't like to quibble over definitions, but as you can see it is necessary around here, because it seems like people are just coming up with their own definitions. I absolutely hate having to quibble myself! But these kind of things is the common trait of every topic posted here - usually devolves into an argument of word meanings. There is no popular loose meanings.. There are known, popular and objective meanings and definitions for all words used, and defined in dictionaries for all of us to reference anytime we are in doubt. Although the regular dictionary is good for general use, when it comes to slang and internet or 'gaming' terms, Urban Dictionary usually nails it (and keeps it updated) https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. An unpopular opinion is not a troll, but if someone wants to easily negate or dismiss someone easily - labeling tends to be the go-to in many cases. Similar to being labeled 'sexist', 'racist', 'bigot'.. .when that may not be the case at all. Um, I think you just said the same thing I did. If there's any difference between us on this point, it's that I don't care to choose any dictionary as being the definitive source of truth. Search through the huge stack of dictionaries out there and you'll rarely find a perfect consensus about what a tricky word like "troll" means. The best you can do is pick the one that seems to make the most sense. I know that puts us in that mushy gray area where everything is relative, but that's language for you. Word meanings rarely have clean, sharp boundaries. That said, I think you and I agree that a real honest to God troll is someone who is doing nasty things just to be nasty. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said: The best you can do is pick the one that seems to make the most sense. I know that puts us in that mushy gray area where everything is relative, but that's language for you. Not for me, and a mass of people who rely on those definitions, an understanding of vocabulary and ability to comprehend those words so that they can communicate clearly and understand others clearly. I know we're kind of in a world where "Double Plus Good!" is gaining traction, and we're seeing the results of it today, but I hope you can seriously reconsider this opinion - because if words are not concrete, and they are subjective, and people can just pick the one they like, or just make up their own (It happens!)... then we're all screwed as a civilization. Have a good day. I appreciate you! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 3 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said: That said, I think you and I agree that a real honest to God troll is someone who is doing nasty things just to be nasty. There is ultimately a VERY subjective quality to this. We can't know another's true motivation. What counts as someone saying a thing "just to be nasty" vs., someone saying a thing "because they do not like a certain person" (or have some other "specific" reason)? It kind of makes me want to say, next time I am "called out for something", "No, you don't understand. I just don't like this person!" In that case, it's not "just to be nasty", it's for a reason - even if it is a personal reason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 3 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: I tried to make a case of how many NEW users might start out as jokesters, not necessarily trolls yet (Though there will be some!), but it's always about testing the boundaries of the platform, testing the general populace at their level of patience, etc. I've seen some of these "jokesters" on Youtube. One in particular stuck in my memory. This "scumbag troll trash" turns up in SL, in a system avatar wearing a bad suit, with a freebie sculpty fox head. He teleports into the house of a couple who were foolish enough not to throw up ban lines and install a zero second orb. He then proceeds to tell them they have to leave, as he had "bought their house from the realtor who sold it to them" and it was his now. He rabbited on and on for several mins before they finally figured he was trollscum, and punted him. And you refer to people like him as "jokesters testing the limits" who we should forgive and welcome. Dream on. 9 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: Sansar never had it's "Wild West", even if Ebbe was an advocate of it. He was outnumbered by a staff (and the core users) who had NO patience in that matter, NO mercy, and that was part of a death knell. Sansar didn't die because it had low tolerance for griefer trash troll scum, it died because NOBODY WANTED TO USE THE TERMINALLY BROKEN DIRECTIONLESS DAMN THING THAT HADN'T BEEN DESIGNED TO ACTUALLY APPEAL TO ANY REAL MARKET. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 3 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: 15 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: Sansar never had it's "Wild West", even if Ebbe was an advocate of it. He was outnumbered by a staff (and the core users) who had NO patience in that matter, NO mercy, and that was part of a death knell. Sansar didn't die because it had low tolerance for griefer trash troll scum, it died because NOBODY WANTED TO USE THE TERMINALLY BROKEN DIRECTIONLESS DAMN THING THAT HADN'T BEEN DESIGNED TO ACTUALLY APPEAL TO ANY REAL MARKET. I think it would be a little humorous if someone actually believed Sansar "died" because it didn't encourage trolling! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 3 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: I've seen some of these "jokesters" on Youtube. One in particular stuck in my memory. This "scumbag troll trash" turns up in SL, in a system avatar wearing a bad suit, with a freebie sculpty fox head. He teleports into the house of a couple who were foolish enough not to throw up ban lines and install a zero second orb. He then proceeds to tell them they have to leave, as he had "bought their house from the realtor who sold it to them" and it was his now. He rabbited on and on for several mins before they finally figured he was trollscum, and punted him. And you refer to people like him as "jokesters testing the limits" who we should forgive and welcome. Dream on. No, if you were paying attention and read my post in its fullest, you would understand that that person is a 'troll' and no longer just a jokester. I gave examples at each level from 'jestful play', 'jokester', 'mischievous'. Until you recognize this post, not sure why you are responding with an untruth about my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said: Interesting. No doubt you have an encyclopedia of knowledge regarding literature in that big brain of yours! It's interesting how Psychology came along (male-dominated originally) and interpreted past literature to fit their narrative, and only fairly recently is this being remedied in studies of abuse and trauma, and by people like you who point to a different take on it. A "different take" is exactly the right way to describe it, because really worthwhile literature always continues to produce new meanings and ways of being read -- or else, honestly, we'd probably stop reading it. Literary readings are evidence-based, like anything else, so there are wrong ways to read a text (there's no textual evidence for it, or the textual evidence undercuts a particular reading), but a nearly endless variety of possible "right" ways to read it -- and every reader, every culture, and every age will of course see "new" things in a text because of their particular perspective. In the 19th- and especially early 20th-century, psychology (as you say) becomes a thing in criticism, sometimes usefully and sometimes stupidly. (An example of the latter might be a reading that over-literalizes Hamlet's Oedipus Complex, as though he were a real person with a real childhood, rather than a fictional construct made of words and stage actions). Anyway, readings that overlook Hamlet's emotional abuse of Ophelia and see her death as the result of, essentially, a broken heart, aren't necessarily "wrong," but they prioritize certain kinds of evidence over others, and view her character through the very limited frame of a particular set of cultural assumptions. As, arguably, do I. "Trauma Studies" aren't really my thing, but it's actually a newish sub-field within literary and cultural studies, and it would be pointless to claim that I'm not influenced by it. 1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said: I wonder when the very first reference to gaslighting occurred anywhere in literature (though of course not termed that). Or even when this dynamic was first possible in the human brain as we evolved more complex brains. Probably for as long as there's been literature? I could certainly find instances in Greek myth, for example. Shakespeare might not have known it as "gaslighting," but there is no question whatsoever that he'd have recognized the phenomenon. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 20 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: I don't appreciate being called a troll. I don't call you names or label you.. Who is the abuser in this case? Although I tend to respect your fair responses, even if we disagree, I'm 50/50 a fan of yours, since you appear to try to play both sides - if only to please both sides so you yourself don't come under fire. Trolling or 'trawling' is saying or doing things to purposefully get a reaction. Just because something appears to be a troll, to you, or you think an idea is so silly and against anything you believe, that it must be a troll, is unfair and incorrect. White knighting is a sexual reproductive strategy employed by some males to rescue a woman from the consequences of her own actions - hoping to gain her affections by doing so.. and I'm against that sort of thing. I believe women( and men) should be held responsible for their actions, and be affected by the consequences of their actions (or words) - and one could make a feminist argument that White Knighting frames women as weak and not able to fight their own battles, or take responsibility or enjoy the consequences of their own actions. Cool we agree. It's something for all of us to reflect on personally and privately - and refrain from accusing others of bad faith, or labeling and calling them names all the time. Is that what is really going on, or is that how some people are percieved.. and a convenient excuse for many to exit a conversation without having to concede a point, because then that wouldn't be 'winning'. People aren't born trolls or griefers, they are made. I would even go so far as to say by the same people who deserve to be trolled and griefed. It's not lost to me that some of the biggest screamers on this forum about trolls and griefers - have displayed quite grievous behaviour themselves. I labeled you a "troll" because I think you sometimes post provocative things that you believe will get a reaction from some of the regulars posters here. You are also in this thread defending and acting as an appologist for trolls in general. Thank you for saying that you're a 50/50 fan of mine. I don't expect anyone to agree with me 100%, because sometimes I post unpopular or even stupid, badly thought-out views. I don't speak for both sides to prevent being attacked, because no matter what side one takes, someone will be offended. When I want to prevent being attacked, I just say nothing. I speak for both sides when I think a dog-pile is happening and to try to help people find understanding for each other's perspective. Your use of the term "white-knight" is an older, gender-based one that I think no longer fits onto modern discussions about online behavior. I take it to mean anyone, regardless of gender, who comes to the defense of others who might not need to be defended, as a form of virtue-sigaling and calling attention to themself. I agree that no one is born a troll, or anything actually, but it isn't necessary for bad behavior to be inborn for us to call it out. In fact, behavior that is learned is behavior that can be unlearned. Trolling might help a person feel better about themself in the short-term, but it's socially maladaptive in the long-term. Just as @Arielle Popstar might say we are responsible for how we react to feeling triggered, those who react with trolling behavior are also responsible for how they react. We're all reacting to stimuli all the time. Sometimes we can't control our reactions, but sometimes we can consider the possible outcomes of our behavior and try to chose behavior that might have a better long-term outcome for us and for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 18 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: 39 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: So earlier you said you don't like to quibble over definitions, but as you can see it is necessary around here, because it seems like people are just coming up with their own definitions. I absolutely hate having to quibble myself! But these kind of things is the common trait of every topic posted here - usually devolves into an argument of word meanings. There is no popular loose meanings.. There are known, popular and objective meanings and definitions for all words used, and defined in dictionaries for all of us to reference anytime we are in doubt. Expand The fact that you believe 'gaslighting' only refers to a Hollywood movie as opposed to comprehending this psychological dynamic is far more complex points to the fact that your interpretations are not always right as you seem to believe. I want to see if you, Codex, can admit to being wrong about something. I've never seen it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: I could certainly find instances in Greek myth, for example. Zeus took the shape of Hades, to seduce Persephone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 14 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said: 19 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said: The best you can do is pick the one that seems to make the most sense. I know that puts us in that mushy gray area where everything is relative, but that's language for you. Not for me, and a mass of people who rely on those definitions, an understanding of vocabulary and ability to comprehend those words so that they can communicate clearly and understand others clearly. I know we're kind of in a world where "Double Plus Good!" is gaining traction, and we're seeing the results of it today, but I hope you can seriously reconsider this opinion - because if words are not concrete, and they are subjective, and people can just pick the one they like, or just make up their own (It happens!)... then we're all screwed as a civilization. Have a good day. I appreciate you! Your definitions are not always right. I don't think you see that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said: And some who demand an answer over and over and over, while ignoring all answers. 🙂 ^ This is actually a type of trolling technique. Edited May 28 by Persephone Emerald 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: I want to see if you, Codex, can admit to being wrong about something. I've never seen it. Under bridge dwelling billy-goat collector talks complete sh*te. People universally reject the complete sh*te. Under bridge dwelling billy-goat collector claims their "position is being misrepresented", and they are being "dog-piled" by ""gas-lighters" who "act in bad faith". Obvious under bridge dwelling billy-goat collector is obvious. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts