BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Possible trolling

 
  

Page: 1 ... 34567(8)9

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:09 / 21.02.06
Sorry, PW - that wasn't addressed to you. Interpost.

Toskik: To be fair, it's not like anyone is likely to say "Yeah, you're right. Me no likey ladies. LOL!" Better, perhaps, to reference some other responses in the face of other people engaging with him with a bit of knowledge, such as:

sorry, i thought the references to "gazillion" and "dear leader" etc would be taken as humorous. are you going to next tell me that there arent really 12 gazillion people in china?

or

gosh i hope nobody was saying that google can literally do whatever they want as a business. that would not be good.

...

p.s. the chicks really dig it when you say "unamerican". keep that up.


or

well, it's something that hitler would probably do, pursue wholly evil deeds for the sake of secrecy and taking over the world, also the antichrist. therefore, i am fully in support of all business with china.

quick dictionary link for anyone who wants literal translations of any of my words. just to be perfectly clear. dont. want. any. mistakes.

over and out



Or:

as far as i know, google returns searches for unicorns and astrology, both found by many people who believe firmly in things that simply arent true. (A rather foolish put-down in context)

Or, when the the lacuna underpinning that snark was explained to him slowly:

no big deal. i wasnt aware of that. o liberator of truth, thank u. i [heart] truth.

All in one thread. One thread.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
18:13 / 21.02.06
*half-way out the door, p.w pauses*

Wha? Oh, you weren't talking to me? Ah, sorry.

Sheesh, is that the time? My imaginary friend will be worried out of my tiny mind. I'd better be going...

*grins sheepishly and leaves the room*
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:40 / 21.02.06
i'm not sure how i am specifically promoting drivel in any way other than simply advancing opinions

The reasoning behind your opinions is not evident. You have chosen not to explain your reasoning, instead you have consistently claimed that 1)other people are derailing the thread from your original point, 2)that your opinions on violence against women as claimed by women in official settings is correct and that the evidence is too broad to state effectively. 3)You have failed to define your arguments about geographical locations, lumping countries together as if all people of the same ethnicity hold the same views and the areas in which they live are governed by the same culture.

You have backed up earlier unsupported points with further claims that are equally as spurious.

In stating your opinions you have not accepted that other people are simply stating their opinions, which have often been backed up in a way that yours have not.

That is why you are perceived as specifically promoting drivel.

If you are disinclined to back up points that you make with a clear personal motivation underlying them than this is the response you will achieve.

Comments like the following with no evidence to back them up that you hang onto for 8 pages and continue to state as your own opinion and yet fundamentally true are simply unacceptable:

attys for moms routinely and categorically promote false/overblown claims of violence and abuse in order to villify the dad

it's a fact that mom's attys will encourage false claims of abuse. it's simply a fact. it's also a fact that mom will illegally keep dad from kids

those are from the feminist movement which has cast women as victims in general.

mothers are most often the ones creating the conflict

I could quote more views that you've left hanging in the air with no evidence to back them up, these were picked from three or four pages of a ten page thread.
 
 
ShadowSax
19:49 / 21.02.06
3)You have failed to define your arguments about geographical locations, lumping countries together as if all people of the same ethnicity hold the same views and the areas in which they live are governed by the same culture.

this shows enough misunderstanding of the issues i was addressing to make it feel like an exercise in futility to try to go thru and correct all the other misconceptions that you have. in brief, my point on that thread is to question what is causing something common to those societies - the protests. the protests are the only common feature that i'm talking about, explicitly discarding islam as a common feature, and trying to find common elements of those societies that might be leading to the common responses. i'm not lumping those societies any further than that. the presumptions that i'm doing so seem to be orbiting some agenda to discredit what some are defining as an "argument," and which i'm simply stating as a line in my dialogue within the thread. if you noticed, i'm asking more questions than i am making statements.

as far as holding onto arguments, very often in the F4J thread, the only points being debated with me (by some, by many) were issues that had nothing to do with the overall picture. a claim that women poison their husbands, not made by me and not espoused by me, was held up as evidence that other facts cited are then categorically false. i think we all were engaging in faulty logic to some degree at various points. i dont see why any of those could have justifiably led to my being called an idiot or other, worse things. and i dont see how that kind of namecalling improves the thread. and i dont see why i'm even commenting on this thread about these things, other than because the questions have been raised here, and i dont see why the worst case assumptions about people are the only ones that seem to hold up. i didnt defend laws about restraining orders, so that means i support abusing women? i feel that my objectors in that thread were resorting to facile, stereotypical arguments and namecalling. i feel like the feminists who took offense were falling back on a "poor us" position as if it justified their disdain for my opinions. i hesitated in trying to fight stats with stats because they can all be second guessed, and then they were.

it's quite possible that all my opinions are complete crap. but if thats the case, then this forum really must reconsider things, because of the number of posts dedicated to this crap, and every time i try to back me and my idiot opinions out of a thread, i'm asked to restate my case.

i dont even know what i'm talking about anymore, and i have to go to the bathroom.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:12 / 21.02.06
You just did it again and you wonder why people are being so aggressive to you. Nothing in that post backed up your opinions on women, abuse accusations and the advice of lawyers, you didn't address your use of the term Middle East, which I've asked you to define twice in the pertinent thread and has absolutely nothing to do with the culture behind the protests.

I called you an idiot because you were already failing to address arguments and generalising women, mothers and divorce/custody lawyers while doing so. You can talk about how these things don't effect the overall issue that you were discussing but actually they inform your opinion, something that you seem to want to share and that means those secondary issues feed into the primary point. We can't divorce one part of what you are saying from the rest simply because you don't believe it's important. It is important.

Why are you telling me about the things other people have said to you in the F4J thread? I have read the thread a number of times. I have specifically quoted the things that you said that I felt you did not support properly and you are trying to divert the topic again in order not to support those statements. This is a complex subject but I am asking you for the background that has led you to make these generalisations about large numbers of people. I don't care that other people were talking about poison. I did not quote that because you did not say it. If people have been calling you names than that's something to take up with those people including me but I have admitted that I should never have done that. You are consistently addressing what you have not said rather than the things that you have said and that is precisely the type of behaviour I would expect of someone who was trolling rather than contributing to barbelith.

I am not trying to divert your argument, I am asking you to construct one. I am requesting that you tell me why you hold an opinion because that is what posters and members of a community do.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:56 / 21.02.06
feel that my objectors in that thread were resorting to facile, stereotypical arguments and namecalling. i feel like the feminists who took offense were falling back on a "poor us" position as if it justified their disdain for my opinions.

Quoted without comment.
 
 
matthew.
00:50 / 22.02.06
Isn't quoting without comment still a comment? Wouldn't it have been better if you had simply posted the quote? I've seen this "Quoted without Comment" a couple times in the past few days and I'm not impressed. It feels like passive-aggression to me, but that's just me. I politely and respectfully suggest people refrain from posting "Quoted without comment".
 
 
Ganesh
00:55 / 22.02.06
Buuut, if it's simply quoted (without "quoted without comment") it looks like someone's simply pressed Post Reply prematurely.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:36 / 22.02.06
Isn't quoting without comment still a comment? Wouldn't it have been better if you had simply posted the quote?

I think that would probably also be a comment, Matt. Otherwise, pretty much what he said.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
07:14 / 22.02.06
Could someone do me a favour and perhaps link to examples of SS's supposed bad behaviour outside of the F4J thread, I've just read through the 'Islamophobia' thread and, while I may not agree with what he says, I'm not seeing anything particularly offensive other than him getting wound up at Haus's involvement there which, considering their history and Haus's tone of writing, could be construed as intending to bait SS.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:30 / 22.02.06
What, in the way I don't address him or reference anything he has said? Bit of a stretch, isn't it? The first mention of either by t'other is after I've spoken to quixote's "It's not Islamophobic, it's just Islamofact" analysis, whereupon Saxy devotes this much space to a nearly meaningless and entirely valueless lampoon of something that was not addressed to him.

haus: Actually, it isn't true. It's a convenient lie that allows you to construct a pseudohistorical narrative in which one culture (theirs) is "arrested", its development stopped at some point in the past, and another (ours) has continued on from that point. It's a perfectly natural impulse, but it's absolute cock, and it is fuelled by the sort of ignorance that graciously offers apparently two continents (Ethiopia is not in the Middle East, for future reference) a place at the top table for the bits of its culture we like to eat, listen to, read or or look at - that is, the stuff that serves as an enhancement to the lifestyle of people in the west who believe themselves to be cosmopolitan because they eat take-out and listen to world music. This narrative of progress and arrest is a very useful one, not least because it makes not only a right but a moral duty of bringing to societies all the good things that our mature culture has produced - liberal democracy, the secular state, cut-off jeans - but it also leads to a considerable risk of fallacy.



As a very obbious example, let's take a look at the President of Iran. You may notice that he does not wear a tie. To apply the logic of the progress/arrest narrative, this is because he either does not know what a tie is, or does not yet understand that politicians are supposed to wear them. Is this the case?

yes, that is definitely the case. wearing ties is a sure sign of progression. also cut-off jeans, too. i'd like to add to this list:

- homelessness
- bad singing of national anthems
- the "jennifer aniston" haircut
- that thing that kids do where they tie your shoelaces together
- hockey fights
- believing in the tooth fairy
- teaching creationism as science
- using "nigger" in popular songs
- asbestos
- instant messaging
- meth labs
- bad british dentistry
- paris hilton
- linear forum threads
- family television hour violence
- potholes

those are all things that all and only very advanced societies contain. if a society does not contain those things, it can be considered backwards.

i do appreciate being let in on the secret that ethiopia isnt in the middle east. on the same note, where exactly are the easter islands? i always get confused there, and the holiday is coming up, so i need to be particularly clear where i'm going to find my eggs.


So. I think the bait is rather on the other foot, here, Flowers.
 
 
sleazenation
08:20 / 22.02.06
I don't think that would be a sustainable position our lady because it leads to a situatuation where anyone who's poorly constructed arguement or unexamined asssumptions are exposed by one particular poster gets to cry foul because they don't like the poster who is exposing their less than rigourous thought processes...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:51 / 22.02.06
Well there isn't a hope in hell of ShadowSax actually responding to me now, is there?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:48 / 22.02.06
So we're back to someone you don't care for wasting space trying to be funny? Fair enough it was Petey that brought this up here rather than you Haus, also, I tried to structure my response to say I don't believe you were trying to bait him, that it was SS's choice to respond as though you were.

Anyway, Petey brought this up here because he believes SS to be a troll. I'm just asking for evidence.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:59 / 22.02.06
Did he, though? I imagine he felt that the post he was deleting was trollish. In the same way, the lengthy quote above is obviously trollish - it is trolling for my attention, because I had not responded to anything he had said and he was clearly feeling neglected.

For my money de facto troll works well enough - he gets so upset in the face of... well, of almost any interaction whatsoever, in fact, be it request for clarification, disagreement or provision of information relevant to the discussion. All the many little bits of aggression I posted above were from the "Google in China" thread - almost every single post he made involved an attempt to insult or belittle people whose sin appeared to be having the faintest idea what they were talking about.

This is not an incurable condition, but it does need to be arrested sooner rather than later, or the Switchboard will sink into its anecdotage.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
11:41 / 22.02.06
Me: Anyway, Petey brought this up here because he believes SS to be a troll.

Haus: Did he, though?

Petey: I honestly can't be fucked with ShadowSax anymore, and I don't care if anyone thinks we're biased, or unfair, or intolerant, or whatever. If anyone has a decent argument as to why that post should be left where it is, I'd love to hear it, but you'll never convince me that the board gains anything by the presence of this utter steaming shitwad and his ignorant drivel.

I read that, in a thread on 'trolling', as a yes.
 
 
ShadowSax
11:58 / 22.02.06
haus, your assumption that my general statement of some cultures being less advanced than others having something to do with cutoff jeans was, to me, humorous, and i went with it. sorry you didnt like my riff.

nina, if i feel i shouldnt have to defend my personal opinions about anything in order to construct an argument about politics, then i'm entitled to that feeling. if it kills my argument, it kills my argument. so be it. my life doesnt revolve around building arguments for you.

as long as this is getting this serious, i'd like for the group to address this thread: here, where haus interjects with something that can either be described as trolling or troll baiting, depending on your perspective. my opinion is that my various posts, in books, film, offtopic discussion, could not possibly be considered consistent with a those of a troll, but my opinion is just that.

for the record, i'm not a troll. i entered this forum on an extremely sensitive topic about which i have admittedly controversial views, and first impressions matter most. somehow, i've been tagged an islamophobe for attributing cultural behavior to social systems, i've been tagged a sexist for not defending abuse victims in the right place, and i've been tagged a troll for finding haus to be an intolerable pip.

do what you will, i'll continue on my way, saying things here and there as they strike my fancy, and backing out as soon as i feel threatened. if your opinion of my sense of a threat is that it's too low or too selfish or too weak, then i suggest that you spend your time talking with someone else.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:05 / 22.02.06
saying things here and there as they strike my fancy, and backing out as soon as i feel threatened

Very much like a talking, retreating version of the Littlest Hobo.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:07 / 22.02.06
haus, your assumption that my general statement of some cultures being less advanced than others having something to do with cutoff jeans was

One more time for the slowest kid in school. I was not addressing your statement. I was addressing Quixote. It's not all about you.
 
 
ShadowSax
12:10 / 22.02.06
One more time for the slowest kid in school. I was not addressing your statement. I was addressing Quixote. It's not all about you.

assumptions, pip. you need to work on those. if i thought something was funny, am i only permitted to respond to those which are directed at me?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:13 / 22.02.06
You just stated your belief that I was responding to you.

haus, your assumption that my general statement of some cultures being less advanced

No assumption necessary.

I don't mind if you attempt to lie to make yourself look less inept, but here's a hint; your ineptitude will also extend to your attempts to conceal it.
 
 
ShadowSax
12:14 / 22.02.06
saying things here and there as they strike my fancy, and backing out as soon as i feel threatened

Very much like a talking, retreating version of the Littlest Hobo.


ok, then. i see it as not wanting to talk to people who piss me off. you're the opposite, you like talking to people who piss you off. i walk away from potential bar fights, because even when i'm right, i'm opposed to sitting in the back of a police car with my eyes stinging and cuts on my knuckles. if you like that kind of thing, or even if you just like that kind of thing in the safety of your own home, to each his own.
 
 
Spaniel
12:16 / 22.02.06
Yeah, so did I.

I appreciate what Sleaze has to say about Haus calling SS on his unsupported assertions and badly constructed arguments but I think there's also an issue of context. If SS responds hysterically to Haus's presence in a thread, then perhaps it would be better if Haus didn't post to said thread, or very publicly put SS on ignore. Obviously that kind of situation couldn't (and shouldn't) be maintained indefinitely, but for the time being I think we might all be better served if the two of them tried to stay away from each other.

Oh, and for what it's worth, SS, I'd really love you to start backing up your numerous assertions. What is wrong with you, man? Why can't you see that you're going to get *absolutely nowhere* until you do so?
It's fucking baffling.
 
 
Spaniel
12:17 / 22.02.06
Yeah, so did I.

Was in reference to the last sentence in Lady's last post.
 
 
ShadowSax
12:18 / 22.02.06
oh for the love of CHRIST, what difference does it make? quixote and i were making similar statements. i found something you said funny, i responded. does it MATTER? you really need to get the steel rod from out of your ass, you're holding it in there FAR too tightly.
 
 
ShadowSax
12:19 / 22.02.06
Oh, and for what it's worth, SS, I'd really love you to start backing up your numerous assertions. What is wrong with you, man? Why can't you see that you're going to get *absolutely nowhere* until you do so?
It's fucking baffling.


how about this: i'll worry about me, you worry about you.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:23 / 22.02.06
oh for the love of CHRIST, what difference does it make?

It handily illuminates a trend, Saxy. You claim that you don't want to fight. This is untrue. what you mean is that you don't want to lose, despite having no interest in learning how to engage with others, and as a result will react to any illustration of the weakness of your arguments or knowledge or of your patent and (as in this case) obvious failure to read or understand what other people have written, in much the same way: you become aggressive, then fall into the sort of poor-me victimology that you seem so keen to condemn in feminists. That's fine in the Conversation, if you don't object to regularly being mocked, but it's a resource hog in the Switchboard.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:26 / 22.02.06
I call bullshit on this:

i see it as not wanting to talk to people who piss me off. you're the opposite, you like talking to people who piss you off.

It is by exposure to differing viewpoints that we learn. And by being forced to defend our own viewpoints. And indeed, by being called on our own bullshit. That's what give-and-take is all abou. That's the basis of all human conversation, of all human communication.

You don't get to just talk, unchallenged. You have to listen, and you have to answer. That's how social interaction works.

If you want to simply expound, if you want to control the tenor of the conversation absolutely, then I suggest you start your own forum. That way, you can put everyone who disagrees with you on a big BAN list. I volunteer my name for the top slot.
 
 
ShadowSax
12:42 / 22.02.06
hi jack, really not trying to take up too much space in this thread to the issue of me, i feel i've made my point and now whatever else is left to the barbelith machine, altho it would be nice if the group looked at haus's actions in the near-death thread.

to respond to your bs call, i agree to an extent. i'll try to be patient and respond as issues with my statements are addressed. the only person who's pissed me off has been haus, and i'm unlikely to respond to anything that uses possible gaps in my logic to insult me so randomly as haus has done. i think you'll find my threshold for questioning to be pretty high. i'd refer you to one of my posts above where i mention that, at some point, one must weigh the advantages of making oneself clearer against the disadvantages of dealing with people who make a place very unfun. thats all.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:54 / 22.02.06
It's also worth noting that when Haus addressed his comment TO QUIXOTE, quixote responded by attempting to clarify hir position. Which was nice.
 
 
Spaniel
13:00 / 22.02.06
SS, for the record I thought Haus's comment in the Near Death thread was needlessly antagonistic.

But as for worrying about me, well, I sort of am. Your prediliction to lengthy posts based on unsubstantiated assertions brings down the level of discussion on the board, and, as you can imagine, me being a longterm member, I happen to like the usual standard quite a lot.
 
 
ShadowSax
13:22 / 22.02.06
But as for worrying about me, well, I sort of am. Your prediliction to lengthy posts based on unsubstantiated assertions brings down the level of discussion on the board, and, as you can imagine, me being a longterm member, I happen to like the usual standard quite a lot.

point taken, appreciated, and will implement. i appreciate the feedback.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:15 / 22.02.06
ShadowSax, if you click on Haus' name and go to his profile you can click on 'ignore' and so won't see any of his posts for a month. I suggest that you use this function for at least one month.

Haus, were you planning on chasing SS round the board until he leaves, or was this a one-off?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:31 / 22.02.06
I plan on doing whatever I can for the benefit of Barbelith and Shadowsax's personal development, as ever.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
16:02 / 22.02.06
Haus, you just reminded me of Kurtz from 'Heart of Darkness' (joke!) Seriously though, I do think that comment you made in the Near Death Thread crossed the line, and you should probably apologise for that. I'm not having a dig at you, I swear; it just seems uncalled for, that's all.

Shadowsax, I know Haus can come across as annoying and, like any of us, he can slip and become insulting at times, which is wrong, of course (yes, he IS human). But he's usually right when it comes to getting others to assess aspects of their modus operandi*, so I seriously suggest you take a long break from the threads in question and come back with fresh eyes. The thing is, as I'm sure you know, if one does have a valid point / theory / etc it benefits us ALL if one's presentation does not detract from the argument. e.g. a number of members have asked you to "back up assumptions". Why not go back to these (at a later date!) and reassess and research them, then restate your case with more concrete data? It can only help the situation, no?

ONE LOVE.

*speaking from personal experience.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 34567(8)9

 
  
Add Your Reply