Don't feed the Trolls
By John Amato Saturday Jan 26, 2008 8:15pmWith the primaries upon us---there is no shortage of trolls.
I cannot make anyone stop responding to pointless or nuisance comments. You have to want to restrain yourself, because you understand that the only way to get rid of them is to fail to give them the attention they want. A "troll" is not just someone whose comments you disagree with, or even just a nasty or badly-worded comment. A troll is someone who does not, under any possible set of circumstances, care what you think about him or his comments.
He merely wants attention. Negative attention will do. The more you disagree with him, the more he is able to tell himself that he is persecuted and victimized or the only voice of reason or one of the elite few who has the God's-eye view of the world or whatever his current delusion is...and there's more.
Login or Register to post comments.
It's been 2323 days since George WMD Bush said he'd catch Osama bin Laden 'Dead or Alive!'
this is a good link for all threads. thanks.
Isn't that EVERYBODY? I mean, unless you are the website owner or staff, are you not a troll?
Got it ...
Trolls: NO
Sock Puppets: Maybe (they are so DAMN cute)
err... slight correction... it's actually a post by Tanta at Calculated Risk
you got my vote....butchya know...it's hard.sometimes......but yeah..ok.......I'll make an honest effort at ignoring them...(but you gotta admit...it feels good to send one home with a sore arse)..remmember...ISP>>>ignore stupid people.
Can't we slap them silly once in a while?
Yes, but they're so much fun to play with and they're usually so stupid they give themselves away rather quickly.
Just cause you disagree with someone posting a comment, it doesn't mean you're a troll. Where do you draw the line? Boy, progessives are getting more and more like Republicans every day! What's gotten into people these days. The Primaries are making progressives CRAZY!!
remember.........ugh............and with that I bid you adieu
I thought trolls asked three questions
"A “troll” is not just someone whose comments you disagree with, or even just a nasty or badly-worded comment. A troll is someone who does not, under any possible set of circumstances, care what you think about him or his comments."
That's probably 98% (2% mods) of all postings on any blog or forum.
Have you noticed that during the bloody days when 5 , 10 even 12 were killed in ONE DAY Gaza by the IDF , there was virtually no reporting . I remember specifically early last week , 12 people were killed in Gaza , by Israel and not CNN, not CBS or anybody reported the story and CNN that never has considered Arabs as " worthy victims " relegated it to the scroll at the bottom of the screen . Noooooooow , Egypt is involved with their border "problems " with Gaza , it's all over the screen and the phony , pro-israeli media can sing kumbaya for the poor little Palestinians , giving them an opportunity to deflect attention and responsibility from israel .
The phoniness is glaring , because they never even reported the dozens of deaths by Israeli Soldiers , that happen daily . We'll they found a nice little narrative and reason to bring up Gaza all of a sudden , because Egypt is the focus and not the inhuman, illegal treatment of Palestinians by Israel .
U. S. and A that's NICE - to be called a troll when you don't happen to agree with someone who lives on a blog as if they are the bridge patrol. LOL
I'm a troll because I see falacy in the SC vote because Republicans were able to cross over and vote as if they were Democrats.
Big turn out indeed. Poppycock! It's all a sham.
Sany @ 9:
Well, to be fair, they have a point. Bandwidth isn't cheap, so I can understand that. But you are also correct. The last couple weeks, a pile of sites have been treating their regulars with disdain (I don't mean you C&L!!!)....I have one site that I am a registered member on, and the last few weeks they have basically killed all discussions and treated members ALL like trolls. Their site I guess, but it kind of defeats the purpose of having a website for discussions, if you don't allow discussions.
Troll is a term used by idiots to describe people who engage in democratic discourse. Fuck Atrios. Someone should tell him there are female "trolls" too.
I thought I knew what a troll was, but I was wrong.
By this new definition, a troll is someone other than a right-thinking person like the reader.
Boy, George Carlin and Lenny Bruce, among a whole host of others, would have a blast with this definition.
Is conformity now being touted as a virtue on the web? And if so, who is the decider as to what is to be conformed with? And if there is such a decider, what is the difference between him and Bush?
Bretton Jones @ 16:
Case in point. LOL
Well, as I see it a clearly obvious troll is someone who shows up on a progressive site trying to sell a conservative by using talking points issued by a Repug puppet master.
I will kick those every time I see em.
Who are the trolls? Am I a troll?
Ignoring trolls is good. If they become too intrusive, they should be banned, though.
To those who've never encountered a troll, Id like to welcome you to EVERY FORUM THAT HAS EVER BEEN PUT ON THE INTERNET....EVER...
EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Symes @ 19:
I get a kick ouy of spanking them. They must like it because they keep coming back. Does that make me weird or is it just them that are weird.
...so don't try to be the billy goat gruff. Just walk away.
I still have a question that I was trying to get an answer to all day while C&L was having server problems.
It still doesn’t make sense that the percentages remained almost exact as the votes came in. If there is someone out there tht can explain that to me, I would appreciate it.
Heh, the trolls are getting defensive I see. :D
The way I usually define a troll is by their tactics. I have no problem with a Libertarian or Republican coming to a Liberal blog and debating when they are honest about where their coming from. Trolling, as I see it, is an internet savvy update on the old government tactic that was used against anti-Vietnam war and Civil Rights activists in the 60s call Triple D or Distract, Divide and Discredit. Using the anonymity of the internet, trolls pose as Liberals or Leftists to interject untenable and divisive conspiracy theories that are usually racist or sexist. We saw a lot of that with the 9/11 stuff and any thread that concerned certain Jewish politicians (Lieberman/Feinstein) of whom we Progressives are not too fond. Real Progressives know that their actions have more to do with their corporate connections than their ethnic identity. The troll will try to distract us by interjecting race, religion or gender and conspiracy theories to lead us away from real institutional analysis.
Hey, I have no problem with "pointless or nuisance comments" as long as they keep it civil . They have the right to be ignorant and I have the right to ignore them .
Otay @ 7:
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA!!
:)
Bretton Jones @ 16:
there is discourse and then there are people who are so unhappy living in mommy's basement that they feel the need to go onto forums and post things that cause irritation to the majority who visit those forums
for example...go over to raw story and see the umpteen posts by stormfronters regarding the jewish conspiracy...in threads that have little to nothing to do with jews
Ron @ 23:
Nah, nothing of the sort!
I too quite enjoy spinning them around then sending them on their way. :twisted:
It's best when they use talking points instead of fact, and then when presented with the facts they either slowly come apart post by post or they ratchet up the volume and repeat the same thing that's just been discredited in another way.
I like real debate with Repugs as long as they use fact instead of talking points and acknowledge when something has been discredited and leave the mangled talking point behind where it belongs.
Ever notice that that doesn't really happen much though, does it?
Gawd! That was some piss poor grammar!
My apologies! =)
Oh, and also trashing a Democrat and then saying you won't vote for a Democrat ever again because one has not perfectly done what you expect them to do might be the sign of a troll. When they do that, try asking them just who will they vote for. If they say Ron Paul or something similar, you know you've got a troll infestation.
I laugh at the little troll "PiLA" (best I can disguise it) who's on here all the time talking about what a great "progressive" Nancy Pelosi is, how she's kickin' RePuke butt, etc.
HaHaHaHaHa!!!
Does that mean political parties are trolls? Sounds like the candidate races so far. Quite a few are claiming the victim.
Speaking of primary trolls, it's totally logical and understandable that Obama is really pissed off at Bill Clinton.
Now that, for the first time, Barack is hearing and reading his name in conjunction with the word 'Landslide', he's undoubtedly taking a moment here and there to envision himself, in the Oval Office, leaning back with his feet up on the desk, actually being 'President'.
And what's wrong with this picture?
Because of that SOB Bill Clinton, Barack Obama is being hailed as the SECOND black president.
MarktheSpark @ 33:
Hahahahaha.........don't forget Reid too!
Preacher Boob @ 35:
Ya but as the second black president, does that mean he's entitled to play cigars with interns if elected?? Ha!
Ah but there in lies their entgertainment value ... like a cat who plays with the mouse before killing it. Playing with trolls can be fun!
Based upon my decades of experience among Republicans, all you need to know is they are provocateurs. They like to start fights, even if it means argiung in defense of something they themselves disagree with, just to try and get a rise out of you. They have the intellectual honesty of a 3 year old (and and understanding of politics rivaled by most twelve year olds).
You, dear reader, are simply playthings for their amusement. You might as well argue with your dog for all the difference it will make, so don't even bother.
ConcernedCanuck @ 37:
Speaking of cigars and interns, check out this link. This guy has rapidly become one of my favorite comedians and republicans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVMrbKiIyj4
It's actually a question about Hillary, but as soon as I read the words Clinton, cigar and intern, I remembered this.
Enjoy.
ConcernedCanuck @ 3:
Please allow me to further clarify, since everyone seems to be missing the obvious:
A troll is someone who posts very provocative, glaringly stupid statements, merely for the pleasure of pissing everyone off.
Does that help, even just a little?
Real Liberals and Progressives are critical and independent thinkers who have no problem with criticizing Democrats when they go astray. We want our party back from the hands of the DLC triangulating corporatist fifth column in our midst. We'll always vote Democratic, but we won't hold back from holding our representative's feet to the fire. As Democrats, we elect representatives, not leaders. They follow us, not the other way around. That's what makes us Liberals and Progressives not Republicans.
With the progressive blogs turning against the Clinton's who needs trolls?
Tim in Japan @ 40:
Hahahahaha.........not bad......."as a millionaire living in a gated community, that is a risk I'm willing to take." ....not sure what is worse....laughing at him, or thinking about it and realizing it's true!! As Jon Stewart says......"you can't make this s*&t up"
Proud American Libera @ 41:
OK...now I realize the trolls on here.....as one already pointed out...one defends Pelosi on command......another defends Hillary on command...is that what you are referring to? Oh......attacks in 5, 4, 3, 2.........
theWalrus @ 43:
We always have been critical, you must be new to the Liberal blogoshere.
Why is everyone concentrating on Hillary and Barack as being the leading examples of 'Change' that could happen as a result of this election, because Hillary would be the first woman president, and Barack the first black?
What about Giuliani? If he were elected, he'd be the first transvestite, one-note NYC mayor to be president.
And McCain? He'd be the first Ancient Mariner Aviator, who considered his flying career to be a success, even though he only learned to take off, not how to land, to be president. (Evidently planning for a White House funeral)
And Huckabee?. He'd be the first loony Baptist Minister, despised even by the 'god' he professes to 'love' and 'take direction' from, because he consistently denigrates, and even denies, one of 'god's' most astounding 'creations', evolution. He'd be the first one of those to be president.
The only thing we can all know for sure, is that if any of the currently leading candidates is elected in November, there will be no meaningful change in our 'government'.
It'll remain, 'Corporations Rule'.
Preacher Boob @ 47:
Damn..........coffee........all...over.......hahahaha! Love yer McCain analogy!! Never learned to land!! Hahahahaha.......(tears in eyes)
Snowball @ 32:
Well said, Snowball.
Nice to see you back here on a regular basis!
MarktheSpark @ 33:
^
ConcernedCanuck @ 48:
And if Edwards wins he wwill be the first halogram to be elected.
While I think the post regarding trolls is timely, I don't agree with this definition.
I prefer: A troll is someone who attempts to disrupt the thread.
Hey Andy K, nice to see ya.
Proud American Libera @ 41:
Clears it up for me. Anyone who would pick the pixelnym 'Proud American Libera' is either a flaming fu*ked-up republican troll, or is as insanely megalomaniacal and stupid as George W. Bush. C'Mon, lil' bushie, 'fess up, 'out' yourself.
Snowball @ 26:
Any conspiracy theory is automatically trolling? I don't think so.
Snowball @ 46:
Quite the contrary. As an over-50 political junkie who has also been addicted to computers since the late 1980's I'm well aware of the blogoshpere - left and right.
The Republicans and rightwing media are masters of distortion and disinformation. We know that. Right now, they control MSM and much of the press. It really pains me to see progressive blogs that I read everyday, multiple times a day, doing their dirty work; sperading their disinformation; and not focusing on the continuing disasters, lawlessness and travesties of the current administration and their enablers that are running for President. Anything that takes the voters away from *those* realities is simply a waste of bandwidth. The last two weeks have been mostly non-stop Clinton bashing - FROM THE LEFT It's gone beyond "critical" and I hope it stops. Let's focus back on the real criminals here.
Did I say it was "automatically trolling"? I don't think so, sometimes it's just sheer stupidity.
Ron @ 50:
Edwards is phoning it in, cuz he searched the MSM for himself, and he wasn't there, so he's lost! I heard his wife is equipping him with a homing device and a GPS so the Dem Party can locate him.
theWalrus @ 55:
You have a point to a degree, when the general election comes, I'll vote for the Democratic nominee. All that matters to me at that point is who gets to appoint the next Supreme. But I'll always be a Clinton critic. Any real Liberal would have to be.
I've trolled the Sister Toldja blog. Actually, I'm not sure if I trolled. Just went on there and disagreed on some things they were saying about Bush and the Iraq war. I wasn't abusive or rude but gave the facts. I ended up getting kicked off anyway. That blog is really one sided and not open to other viewpoints. The blog is really anti-Gore to the max. Sister Toldja makes long winded statements about stuff and often doesn't let the comments open on many topics. Pre-censoring is the best way to describe it.
It's actually an eye opening experience to go on the Conservative Blogs and read what they say without making a comment. Just reading the stuff really puts it into perspective that 31 percent like Bush.
So to some extent I've been guilty of being a troll. But I'm not like some trolls who just go on blogs and start insulting every person they debate or don't like.
I've been wondering for years how I was gonna get rich on the web, like Amato has.
Now I know. I just formed the ATA (American Troll Association).
C'mon, you all, join up. It's only a buck for a lifetime membership, and you'll get a chance to buy Official Troll Merchandise, (Hats, shirts, buttons, mouse pads, teething rings, pacifiers, etc) and be OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS A TROLL, which we all are.
Think how relieved you'll feel when you out yourself, fellow Trolls.
Send your bucks to me, c/o John Amato, C&L. (I gotta give him a cut, if I advertise on his site).
I don't buy into that "troll" crap. What's the problem with a free exchange of ideas? As sson as someone bucks the party line, everyone starts yelling "Troll!" and "Shill!" and "Get out of here!".
What are we afraid of - a dissenting opinion?
I know some people can get annoying (like me), but mostly I see angry overreactions.
It's true. I couldn't give two shits, under any possible set of circumstances, what you think about me or my comments.
And no, I don't want attention. I don't perceive myself as a victim. Maybe I just want to say what's on my mind lest we all succumb to group-think.
If that makes me a troll - so be it.
Just more proof of illogic at C&L. I have noticed it a lot from John and others here. Maybe we need a site that is run by intelligent people. My personal politics is just left of the Dalai Lama. I am searching for intelligent life in the US. It is very hard to find. You are sure not to find it in any of our politicians or media people.
Trying to shut down the exchange of ideas is the sure sign of someone of limited intelligence. Maybe you don't like it because you can't argue a point with reason.
Bretton Jones @ 16:
Trollettes? Sounds sort of like breath mint!
ConcernedCanuck @ 36:
His modus operandis: misquoting everybody, takes a word or two out of context, then gets pretty rabid calling them 'a liar'.. very petty/parochial attitooode..
then, there are the various bots .. It never ends with those negative attention seekers/
Rasputin @ 64:
And sometimes they overflow.
theWalrus @ 55:
KooKooka Choo!
Time changed its headline from 'Obama Win Rejiggers The Race' to 'Obama Win Reshapes The Race.' So I guess the guy who did the OJ cover still works there with his jiggaboos.
Were we to really follow Atrios' advice, take it to heart, none of us would be responding to his 'troll' post.
Rasputin @ 64:
Why not - after all we know 'disquettes' (in Estonian: diskett, flopi) ;)
I find it weird when actresses are called 'actor' - so P.C., as borrowed from the Soviet Union (no sense of humor was much allowed, busty female tractor drivers: the most inspirational)
How does one know though ? There was this great New Yorker cartoon years ago: "On internet nobody knows if you're a dog " (w/ two pooches typing on a computer keyboard)
Trolls? By their posts shall ye know them. I don't think you can define them except by their posting behaviour. Some are obvious such as the Building Seven people who see conspiracy everywhere and a connection on every thread. They brook no appeals to reason. (you 're one of the unholy "Them" if you venture to disagree). Another variety is the "holier-than thou" types that usually appear on the more light hearted threads and insist that discussion be turned to a serious topic of their choosing, usually some mummified pony we're all invited to flail. There are numerous other types and no doubt some clever cultural anthropologist is busy classifying as we speak. Still as a general rule we recognize them as the sort of people who, when invited to a party, don't like the tenor of the discussion and decide the most appropriate behaviour is to drop trousers and take a dump on the host's Aubusson. We're all guilty to some degree from time to time and it's a good idea when posting to look down and check to see how hard we're going to land if someone knocks us off our high horse.
Snowball @ 32:
No, that's the sign of a "Progressive."
Who told us George W. Bush and Al Gore "are exactly the same" but back the "Draft Gore" movement now that he's no longer interested? Who told us John Edwards sold the country out by joining Kerry's ticket but adore him now that he's unable to scrape together a bucketful of support?
Who encouraged everyone to vote Nader to "keep (their) conscience clean?"
Who lines up to trash the Dem front-runner every four years, painting the guy with the least votes as the Only Acceptable Alternative? (Slightly different this time with Barack Obama, but I've seen support for him on this very blog change with the wind. If he wasn't running against Clinton--AKA, Satan To Progressives Herself--there'd be none of this phony-on-its-face "not an insider" and "change" malarky.)
I kept and cherish this quote from the September 23rd SF Chronicle, because it captures the pure essence of the Progressive, who will throw victory away time and time again if he (or she) can't have things exactly their way:
"Even though I strongly feel that the U.S. will be best served if a Democrat, not a Republican, is elected President in 2008, I will vote for a third-party candidate, even if it means the Republican candidate is elected."
Peter G @ 71:
Carpet cleaning is expensive, esp. Aubusson - trolls know...
Scott @ 63:
Classic troll. You must be of limited intelligence if you disagree with him.
Peter G: yours IS the most accurate definition !
.." the sort of people who, when invited to a party, don’t like the tenor of the discussion and decide the most appropriate behaviour is to drop trousers and take a dump on the host’s Aubusson." ...
Peter G @ 71:
ConcernedCanuck @ 3:
no exemptions, please. :roll:
Peter G @ 74:
Plus, what abt the SERVERs COST (cp'l & op'n) ??! Peter G, can you visit here more often ?
theWalrus @ 55:
attacking clinton is NOT trolling!
CappuccettoRosso @ 77:
CappuccettoRosso @ 75:
We don't see much of them any more since their "God King Bush" threw them under a bus with little donations... But the Evilgelicals and Talibaptist were always my favorites, especially when they would assume the victim/martyr position...
You Godless Libruls! Your feet stink and you don't love Jeebus and Your all going to hell... but I love you even if you hate me you assholes!
CappuccettoRosso @ 77:
I visit every day, though I don't always comment. If I do I've found that it is a good idea to check my blood sugar (Type 2 diabetic) lest I be required to remove a size eleven from my mouth. I think many people fail to appreciate what a wonderful place this is. There is a nice balance between the threads that expose the venality of politics and the humour that this sometimes provides. Then there is the music. A diet of perpetual outrage is just too hard on digestive tract. And it's all for free.
Snowball @ 26:
The name of the program was: CoIntelPro, for Counter Intelligence Program. It was used on all domestic groups which were deemed threats or potential threats.
btw, your LIEberdouche/fuckstein bit is way off base. I have not seen an attack on the basis of their jewishness, but plenty based on their support of the neocons.
I'm not sure I like the definition of troll being used here. I don't think of myself as a troll and I sure as hell don't care what any of you think of me. These are all anonymous posts. Nothing written here can affect anyone's real life reputation.
I tend to judge trollhood by the content of the comments. If someone is taking what appears to be a genuine albeit contrary stance (such as, for example, arguing that abortion is murder or that tax cuts do stimulate the economy on a "progressive" web site) that does not make the writer a troll. Responding "fuck you" makes you a troll ...
Bob Roberts @ 83:
Aw, Fu*k you, you pompous, pontificating, putz-troll.
CoIntelPro @ 78:
It might as well be .... It just plays right into the hands of the Republicans. Face it. Clinton is going to win. You get the choice of rallying round or assisting the GOP (either directly or indirectly). That's all there is.
Preacher Boob @ 84:
Heh heh. Your comment reads like it was intended as humor but it also sounds like I struck a nerve.
Preacher Boob @ 35:
clinton had a much lower risk of assassination. that is important to consider as this election cycle progresses.
We have sometimes wondered on this blog what would give busch the incident he needs to postpone the election of 2008 and establish martial law. It might be a possibility that Barack gets the Dem nod. that only increases the risk for him as he continues to be successful in the primaries.
until busch is NOT the president, we cannot breathe easier.
Elections, Elections, Elections. I liked it better when we are all attacking Bush. What happened to Bush hatred? Man you progressives have short memories. I think everyone has gone MAD!
MarktheSpark @ 33:
She IS a progressive. That doesn't give her magical powers, unlike you.
I am NOT a troll, as anyone with half a clue would know.
You? Never seen your handle before, and you already lied about me, lied about what I've said, and lied about Pelosi. It's your trifecta.
Bob Roberts @ 85:
only you and DIEBOLD think so!
Well, I'm redundant here. Happenstance gave my position much more eloquently that I could have @72 above.
CappuccettoRosso @ 65:
• YOU claimed that Rahm Emanuel cut off his finger (in 1979, by accident while working at Arby's) to avoid the draft (which ended in 1973).
• YOU claimed that he goes to Israel every two years and fights in the IDF.
Did you correct yourself?
LOVE how you, and CCanuck, and your other buddies trot out the lies, and then complain when they get stuffed back down your throats.
So much for civility. I think it's time for some LNMC.
Kahoneez @ 13:
To Zionists, all that is OK.
Bretton Jones @ 16:
how about "fuck Atrios" for his own suppression of discussion on his own blog. he has some nerve calling anyone a troll, IMHO! he's a fucking reaganite anyway.
.."I think many people fail to appreciate what a wonderful place this is.".. C&L, of course..
ABSOLUTELEEE !! Oftentimes when I visit here I do not intend to speak up, am in a hurry, but, then, I see smthg, and have to say what I have to say .. If people would stick to facts/ issues, instead of lying, oops, triangulating .. .. Some here have great sense of humor, some not for a penny - esp. the trolldom. Laughter is as necessary as water and air, how else in our messed up country. I hope you'll speak up more - watch your sugar !!
Peter G @ 81:
And, anyhow, Atrios' description of a troll is terrible.
A troll is most of all an INSINCERE commenter, who says whatever they think will cause the most disruption of a useful discussion.
They do not generally provide factual argument, evidence, or any real sign of comprehending the issue being discussed. And they are almost always bad spellers and bigots.
This is what happens when supposed progressives propose censorship. Real progressives react.
The word troll comes from "trolling for a reaction" or something similar. It generally has to both contain no substance and try to anger people and get a reaction. For example, an article about Hillary Clinton and her plans for the economy is posted.
Comment A: "Hillary Clinton is a Donkey Dick sucking socialist! Mitt Romney 2008!"
Comment B: "Hillary Clinton isn't telling the truth about her economic plan. She loves NAFTA which has cost us a lot of manufacturing jobs and has devastated farming in Mexico. She has proposed expanding NAFTA which would only make it worse. I'd say any Democrat would be better for the economy than Hillary."
A is trolling. B is not, even if you disagree with it.
The sad thing is I've seen C&L ban not just trolls, but people with legitimate points of view. Banning people from posting in general seems like a shady thing to me, especially on a liberal blog.
And yet, Scott, there are trolls. It's not censorship to remove comments intended to disrupt.
There is no right to hate speech. Barring hate speech is censorship, and people who don't agree with that are NOT progressive -- they are anarchic.
Paul in LA @ 101:
I agree with what you say. But, as was stated in post #100, who makes the decision what is proper speech? Where does it end. Real progressives know that limiting anyone is limiting all of us. I would rather have all speech than censorship.
A great example of this way of thinking is when the ACLU defended a man who was cited for burning a cross on his property. He did not burn it in the view of anyone but people attending his event on his own private property. The ACLU lawyers argument was the same as mine. Free speech means just that. All speech has a right to be. Not just speech that we agree with.
However, since someone owns this site and others like it, they have a perfect right to censor what is placed here. We progressives are just trying to keep these forms open. If you are going to advertise yourself as a progressive, then you should understand the progressive ideals.
I don't like the stupid hateful comments any more than anyone else, but I will argue for an open forum just the same. To me, this is what it means to be progressive.
Paul in LA @ 89:
pelosi is a progressive if you consider bush a moderate
here is what i am bothered by
too many are pointing fingers at some great rightwing internet conspiracy as to what is turning the progressive base against clinton, and what is turning clinton backers against everyone else
there is no troll conspiracy...the right has nothing to do with what is happening....and neither is the media
i would have accepted the conspiracy theory, were it not for the fact, that once edwards started rising in the sc polls, the clinton camp started a phone smear campaign against him
i would have accepted the conspiracy theory, were it not for the fact, that once on the stump, instead of hyping his wifes accomplishments and experience, bill went on the obama attack, and then, without hesitation, attempted to compare obama to jessie jackson
i know politics is a dirty game....i know that dirt digging and mudslinging occur, but i thought that after what they went through in the 90s, the clintons would really try to be above the fray
the clintons have to look in the mirror for their fall from grace...it has nothing to do with trolls
uncle joe mccarthy @ 104:
I used to think that there was some kind of media conspiracy. Then I met quite a few media people. Now, I know they are just incredibly ignorant, not evil.
Scott @ 105:
so you've seen john king?
A troll is someone who does not, under any possible set of circumstances, care what you think about him or his comments.
Many people on this thread seem to think that this was intended as a definitional statement. It clearly was not. This post assumes you already know what a troll is. Presumably most of us do here. This statement refers to a (non-defining) characteristic intended to explain why 'debating' trolls is counterproductive, since they do not post in order to participate in a discourse of any kind. If you are still having trouble with this sentence, read it as "Among the many characteristics of trolls, one you can count on is that a troll does not, under any possible set of circumstances, care what you think about him or his comments." Surely you agree that, given their aims, this must be true among trolls, though it is obviously true of many 'sincere' posters as well.
So, the comments in this thread along the lines of "OMG this means we are all trolls since we don't care what others think!!!!!" are nonsense.
"Troll" - Yet another sign of Orwell's self fulfilling prophecy coming into play.
A prime example of giving a new meaning to an "old english" word, with the long term goal of stifling any sort of debate or criticism of the "State", or those who support it.
I wonder if in a couple hundred years or so when the books are written about the final years of the failed American Empire, if George Orwell will be viewed as the Nostradamus of the 20th Century.
I've always viewed "Trolls" as those people that knowingly and deliberately post offensive or extreme opposing views in order to try and force an emotional response from commentors.
Yeah, really it's honestly difficult to distinguish a "troll" from somebody who doesn't agree with the somewhat irritating mob rule posting here at C&L. Again, I'm not a flame troll! I’m always searching for a convergence of intelligence, that's all I'm looking for. Some actual trolls may differ in opinion.
bilhelm-X
uncle joe mccarthy @ 103:
Pelosi is a Progressive, was put in power by the Progressive caucus. That's a terminological point, but even small 'p', Pelosi is in the upper percentile of progressive votes in Congress.
Bush is in no way a moderate. He's a radical and a traitor.
Speaker Pelosi is not Super Woman, to the regret of leftists. Her voting record is clear evidence of her views, and her leadership CLEARLY shows that she is a progressive (minimum wage increase, Pell grant increase, forcing the EPA to list endangered animals, CAFE standards, GLB added to Employment Nondisrimination Act, etc.).
So you're just bullshitting, joe -- your usual on this topic.
Scott @ 102:
That isn't sufficient. There never has been such unlimited speech freedom, and it's not really free -- because it fails to protect the freedom of the vulnerable from the easy tyranny of hatred.
No amount of hate speech ever informs anyone. It's called hate speech, but it's really just hatred, the act of hating.
#1 Troll of all time?
Tony Clifton.
I agree, we should not feed them....they are bloated, bored and ready for blood....not worth our time , or trouble or energy....thank you for posting this...
( I am a humble little blog- so I just delete them....I think it is worse for the Big Blogs)
"Do not ask for whom the blog Trolls, It Trolls for thee."
It would also be good to ask people not to use the threads for personal chit-chat unrelated to the theme. Eschaton in particular is plagued by 600-commenter threads in which you do not want to bury good comments in a pile of junk.
Space Coyote @ 112:
Booyah.
There's three types of trolls.
Clifton represents the first, the classical definition of troll, which was the type of person who would post on a forum, blog, etc strictly to get a rise out of people. Classic Trolls either intentionally took the contrarian view on a subject or would just blatantly make things up about a topic or about themselves, usually for the sake of their own (or other's) amusement. Classic Trolls can actually be awesome when done correctly.
The second type isn't a troll in a classic sense, but which a lot of people now associate with (and perhaps exist as their only definition of) trolling. The Annoying Troll is the dumbass that will make an argument or plea, but will either never support that argument with facts or will never change their opinion when provided with overwhelming facts against their argument. They are usually rabid, but unlike Troll #1, are sincere about their subject. The Paulbots come to mind. They aren't necessarily trolls, but are annoying none the less. (Nothing against Ron Paul here.)
The third type is the Paid Troll. This is a relatively new type, but a very real phenomenon. What I'm talking about here is the person that is either a staffer or partisan, or sometimes even a paid operative, that enters a discussion and tries to cast blame away from their candidate or cause and onto something else. These are the true thread derailers. If the subject is about Candidate X's failings, they will either falsely negate the failing, cast blame on someone else, or change the subject entirely. These folks can also take the form of the Concern Troll -- pretending to be one thing while secretly pushing the opposite agenda/candidate.
Examples of Paid Trolls include guys like Rove or Rich Gannon or the Aaron Eckhart character in Thank You For Smoking. They often know they are lying when they push forward an agenda. They're not too hard to spot -- look for a bunch of posters who you've never see comment before on the site and who all have the same consistent message/meme they're trying to promote. Usually they'll include a smear (their message) that they are trying to have catch, along with some form of weak compliment. Ex. "Edwards' idea on tax reform wasn't bad, but I think his hair is really going to drive away voters." If you see three or four people stating something along those lines, odds are they're part of somebody's campaign.
Isn't the entire reason for having a comments section like this so that I CAN respond to others comments that are posted here? So that I can respond to the threads posted by John and the other writers? I don't know a troll from nothing, but to not respond to what some say defeats the purpose of this kind of thing doesn't it? If I wanted to read stuff and not have a chance to speak up, I would buy a news paper...
The best medicine for trolls....
Debunking their stupidity by posting links to stories/articles/research/data that makes them look like the wastes of existence that they are...
I've learned my lesson, trolls are only here to get off and then run back to their tiny little caves on the reich wingnut blogs...
Instead of throwing them a bone, lay down the facts and allow those 'independents' 'undecideds' out there to read your data instead of the taking trolls talking points mumbo jumbo (follow-the-bouncing-ball, sing-along fairytales)...at 'face value'....
Too often the "troll" label (I as have received countless times) is a copout for reading something they don't want to hear. Rather than trying to put together a reasoned counter-arguement, it's much easier to just dismiss the entire thing with some insult. That to me is just as rude as someone that comes on here as uses CAPS all the time and says nothing of substance. It's the same idiocy. When people throw around the "troll" excessively, what they really want is an echo chamber.
I would never join a club that would have me as a member.
W C Feilds
Preacher Boob @ 53:
I am neither Republican nor insanely megalomaniacal, nor am I stupid. I am what I say I am: I have been a liberal all my life. I am an American whose country has been stolen from me, and I'm pissed off about it. And I am proud of my liberal leanings and not afraid to say so. I chose that moniker because of all the liberal bashing done by the right wingnuts who tried to make the work "liberal" something to be ashamed of and I will get in anybody's face to prove it.
MarktheSpark @ 33:
I wouldn't call Paul in LA a troll.......you on the other hand..I've never seen before.......so who's to say your not a moby troll.
Paul in LA @ 97:
Thank you Paul. That's exactly what I tried to say in my post above.
Trolling is the internet version of having to accept a KKK demonstration in your town because free speech is more important than right speech. The right wing blogosphere doesn't face the problem so much because in typical right wing fashion, they don't believe in free speech. (Before commenting, you must sign this loyalty oath to our Dear President, his values, and all his progeny up to and including the 16th generation.)
The problem, as i see it, is that the definition of troll is about as concrete as the definition of "terrorist". And so when a post (here or anywhere) comes up that someone disagrees with, the easiest argument to make against the poster is: "Troll!" But intent is what makes a troll, not content, and many times it is difficult to determine intent. There is also the question of a poster who agrees with the broad beliefs of the group, but feels differently about some particular point. Does that one disagreement make said person a troll or does the attacking of that person point to group think by the rest of the posters?
Finally, we all have our personal little soapbox and we guard them jealously. Add that to the anonymity of the internet and you've got a nice recipe for conversation and debate become irrational arguments and ad hominem attacks for the sake of attacks. But that shit isn't going to go away, because it reflects the general political/social discourse in this nation. Only you can't say to the guy at work what you can say to someone online. Someone above mentioned "hate speech". I'll agree with that. Pretty much any post that includes words like Dimocrat or Repiglican makes me just skim past. I don't tune in to Rush Limbaugh on the radio and i don't want to read him (or a left wing version of him) online.
"Spotting Disinformation" is a 20 paragraph easy read on how to spot trolls. Go to:
//portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/12/38175.shtml
unfrozencaveman @ 119:
I'll agree... the "troll" label tends to be a cop-out. However, sometimes what a Troll would argue is so asinine that we shouldn't even dignify it with a response and we have a responsibility to point out that this is a Troll. I guess we should point out the asinine comments... laugh at them and then call them a "troll."
Trolls are rather easy to spot around here. It's just there's good Trolling and bad Trolling.
Paul in LA @ 97:
Humanity in gereral....there is your troll....
The "scurge" of the planet......
ThunderMonkey @ 126:
I stopped using the term. Cuz its overused. Its become less of a real label...more of a pejorative mostly due to the site monitors. They do such a great job here.
Besides, seems like there seems to be a lot more uninformed, flamethrowers here than trolls.
Snowball @ 8:
There's disagreeing and there's being disagreeable.
Bob Roberts @ 86:
Fu*k you, Rob Boberts, you callin' me a troll? I'll bet this is the first time you been right today.
I meant that for #9...#9...#9
...Then we get nekkid...
Trolls are one thing. Trolling is another.
It's fun to troll for trolls. Sometimes you catch the little pontificating putzes, who actually take themselves and their superficial philosophical meanderings seriously, hiding under a lily pad or a fig leaf, and they grab the bait.
Then they try to convince the world that their insignificant mumblings would have an effect on the destiny of civilization, if they just weren't constantly annoyed and interrupted by those irritating, disagreeing, trolls.
PiWH, for example.
Trolls and Republicans are alot alike; they both like children, the former likes them for dinner, and I don't even want to know what the latter likes them for.
"A troll is someone who does not, under any possible set of circumstances, care what you think about him or his comments.
He merely wants attention. Negative attention will do. The more you disagree with him, the more he is able to tell himself that he is persecuted and victimized or the only voice of reason or one of the elite few who has the God’s-eye view of the world or whatever his current delusion is..."
Which is it? Does the troll care or not? Tanta's call to ignore the trolls comes off as another fingers-in-the-ears excuse to discount opposing views.
Proud American Libera @ 123:
THAT'S what you were trying to say!!?? Don't that beat all! I thought you were trying to get across the idea that you had had an abusive childhood, were a deeply-psychologically-scarred schitz, almost terminally illiterate, and seeking a Putz-Daddy. Well, you found one in PiWH, and I mean that SINCERELY.
Preacher Boob @ 136:
You are truly a boob of the lowest order: a stinkin' troll
Proud American Libera @ 137:
Well, Labia, as was expected, you are at a loss for words. I'll record this as a successful trolling session.
All I can add to this is that I hope you folks don't miss "Interview with the Troll" starring David Koechner and coming soon.
It will be truly annoying.
Bill
Preacher Boob @ 138:
As a professional writer, I have no loss for words, I said what needed to be said. You are a boob of the lowest order: a degenerate, stinkin' troll, the kind that lives under a bridge, attacks unsuspecting travelers, and eats children.
Proud American Libera @ 141:
Aha! So you're a Priest, who tags subway cars as a hobby, and engages in oral sex with his altar boys. Bless you father, for you have sinned. Do one 'Hail Mary', and flog a Nun.
Login or Register to post comments.