« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Tankard is a troll: Discuss
I suppose we're all called trolls from time to time, hardly ever by those who agree with the point of view currently being promulgated, strangely enough.
And I suppose we've all called someone a troll from time to time even though we knew they weren't trolls nor even being trollish at the moment.
I think that we often translate the word "troll" to mean "a person who infuriates me."
So for whatever reason, I tend to infuriate hrebendorf, and he offers this defintion of the verb "to troll" as his justification.
<blockquote>Posting false, controversial or provocative messages in order to gain attention or start an argument.</blockquote>*
I agreed that, by this definition, I am a troll. Athough I do not knowingly post anything false,
-- I enjoy being controversial;
-- I always attempt to be provocative;
-- I desperately crave attention for my articles; and
-- Of course I want to start an argument.
So, your turn. Let's see if we can answer some questions here. I'll start the argument with my own thoughts in parentheses.
1. Is hrebendorf's definition of a troll a good one?
(It's terrible! I makes me a troll!)
2. If the answer to 1 is "no," what's a good definition?
(A person whose intent is ONLY to infuriate, not stimulate or further a discussion. A person whose intent is obviously to interrupt or sidetrack a discussion.)
3. Is it trollish to post an article such as this one?
(I must recuse myself, having a vested interest in the answer.)
4. Regardless of the answer to 3, is Tankard a troll?
a) Always
b) Usually
c) Sometimes
d) Usually
e) Never
f) Yes. Especially when he criticizes <<i>fill in name of favorite candidate or policy here</i>>
g) Yes. And he thinks he's funny. And he's not.
h) All of the above
i) None of the above
Please explain your reasoning, and attempt to examine and explain your prejudices.
* I don't know whether that's his own definition or if he took it from a dictionary. That question is immaterial in my opinion.
Comments (91)
Screwed up. The article wherein hrebendorf accused me of trolling is this one.
July 7, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a troll - trollish. :O)
July 7, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter hrebendorf:
1) Anyone who disagrees with me is a troll.
2) Any comment to one of my posts that disagrees with my post is off-topic. Accordingly, anyone who makes such a comment is a troll.
I guess we'll both just have to hang out under our respective bridges, Tankard.
July 7, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are implying that hrebendorf is in any way insincere, I disagree. But I don't want this thread to be an examination of his character, just his opinion of what constitutes a troll.
I think it's a fascinating question, and thinking about it forces each of us to examine our consciences.
July 7, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read it again. I never called Tankard a troll. In fact, I went out of my way to avoid making it personal. As opposed to this post, which goes out of its way to make this disagreement VERY personal, and goes out of its way to misstate what I said. As usual...
July 7, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, in reply to a well written, good faith comment by gharlane on July 2, you dismissively called gharlane a troll rather than respond in good faith. That kind of experience might make one tend to read the worst possible intent into other things coming from you.
July 7, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Posting false, controversial or provocative messages in order to gain attention or start an argument."
Reads to me like a standard definition of political campaigning to me.
So at least you got company, Tankard. You. McCain, Axelrod & Obama, baby!
P.S. I think the Bunny just misses Billy.
July 7, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's put both of you (Tankard and Bunny Cat) on the unity ticket.
July 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If nominated, I shall not run. If elected, I shall not serve.
Then you'd be stuck with hrebendorf. How's that for instilling fear into the electorate?
July 7, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quoting William F. Buckley, I see!
July 8, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shurr. Us'n neocon trolls jest luv ol' Bill.
July 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me, trolling is pretending to believe something you don't, pretending to be someone you're not, or exaggerating your argument to make it more inflammatory than you really feel. This requires both dishonesty and intent to annoy/enrage.
Reading the various definitions on-line, however, it basically is a disruptive or incendiary post. Obviously, that's quite subjective.
The thing is, and this might annoy you both, I think you and hrebendorf agree on far more than either of you might be willing to admit.
July 7, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, that's inflammatory!
July 7, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
you and hrebendorf agree on far more than either of you might be willing to admit.
Wrong: I'm willing to admit it.
Right: It's annoying.
July 7, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've agreed with plently of stuff Tankard has said. I even complimented and recommended one of his/her posts recently. We agree on plenty, but I really disagree with the idea of making a disagreement with another person the SUBJECT of an entire post. That is just unbelievably petty.
July 7, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first half of this paragraph is completely true, although you ascribe motives to me in the second half incorrectly, and for which I have already apologized.
Now, care to defend your definition of trolling?
July 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. It doesn't require a defense. It's factual and true.
July 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, I didn't see you object when the targets were David Seaton and Louisville1976. In fact, in comments on that thread, you seemed to want to egg that kind of approach on:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/a-better-class-of-troll.php
You also advocated for selecting out people to spam their threads, not just in a comment in passing, but you went out of your way to put out a full post in endorsement of the practice:
My Secret for Great Veggie Vindaloo
By hrebendorf - June 14, 2008, 11:54AM
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/my-secret-for-great-veggie-vin.php
You and any gang you could muster would decide who trolls were. Most of what I have seen of your posting is that you enjoy gaming other members, not as interested in content at all. In my view, that's certainly very trollish, not to mention adolescent. It's certainly not using the site "in good faith" as to All political viewpoints are welcome.
July 7, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, art, with all due respect, this is the kind of name-calling that I was trying to avoid on this thread. It just confirms certain folks', well, paranoia is too strong a word, but you know what I mean.
I'm certainly not trying to be offensive to you, either, but would you mind making the same points in impersonal terms? I'd really appreciate it.
July 7, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, you don't include what I have thought it is the worst kind of troll activity and its major defining trait: Posting with the sole intent not only to disrupt or inflame the discussion but to take it off track completely. I haven't seen it as much since the primary race ended, but there was a common goal of diverting the conversation over to knee-jerk reactions to the troll's "message" rather than comments on the actual post.
Before the primaries, trolls were accused of being paid Republican or right-wing operatives, who were given their own version of talking points to inject into every discussion, in order to undermine its substance.
I find that far more disturbing than the ham-handed devil's advocacy you seem to be describing in your personal definition.
What I have seen developing in some of the wars that seem to have erupted between posters (testing and James something come to mind) is an intent to shut down anything that the other posts with accusations of troll-like behavior.
So, Tankard, I don't know if "Posting false, controversial or provocative messages in order to gain attention or start an argument" is incorrect, but I think it doesn't take in the intent that I think both planted and home-grown trolls share: to shut down an open discussion either through undermining or diverting the topic or a major contributor to the topic. I think what's behind the shit-disturbing needs to be factored in, and that, as Ben said about disruptive or incendiary posts, can be subjective.
July 7, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did a very unscientific sampling, and about half of them had diversion as a part of the definition. It wasn't part of how I personally define it, so I didn't include it. The term is definitely ill-defined and fluid, which is no doubt why it's thrown around so much. (I was about to say misused, but if it's not a clearly defined word…)
My general approach is to believe that trolls exist (however one defines them), but recognize that I'm very poor in spotting them. I also don't trust others to point them out for me. That said, I will occasionally point out trollish behavior (per my definition) when I see it. It very well might be unhelpful for me to do so. I usually try to just ignore what I find to be trollish behavior.
July 7, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This would be my definition as well. Perhaps adding an inability to ever concede a point, understand a nuance, admit fault or even agree to disagree moving forward.
July 7, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many self-referential posts do you need to put up before you're satisfied? Jesus. I'm amazed that you're so upset about this that you bothered to post this pathetic bullshit. You seem incapable of accepting the possibility that what you posted was trolling. Read your own post. What was its intent? To provoke a reaction. That's trolling. I didn't call you a troll, and you know it. I said you were trolling. I've complimented your posts in the past and agreed with you, and I've also disagreed with you. But to publish an entire post with the express purpose of criticizing me because YOU can't accept criticism seems particularly petty. Grow the fuck up.
July 7, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many self-referential posts do you need to put up before you're satisfied? Jesus.
First, that guy is not me, just a close relative. Second, dunno. We'll see. As long as it keeps working by attracting useful responses, I guess.
to publish an entire post with the express purpose of criticizing me because YOU can't accept criticism seems particularly petty.
I guess you missed this and the fact that there is not a word of criticism of you in my entire article. I didn't even accuse you of calling me a troll. In fact, I didn't even mention that you accused me of trolling.
But seriously, I apologize for hurting your feelings. No disrespect or offense intended.
July 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got class, Tank.
July 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. You are always very supportive and sweet. I like you.
Do you have something to offer in the way of your own definition of trolling and trolls?
July 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I think of when the word trolling shows up:
**hijacking threads by slipping in overt insults or otherwise demeaning language and thereby instigating disrespectful, nonconstructive conflict
**spamming threads with often inane cut-and-paste crap (I confess to a short career of trolling/spamming as "Hillary's Mnemonic Calendar." I just changed the mnemonic device each day and spammed away. It was fun!)
I admit I'm very subjective about it--for me, it's all about intent. For me, the intent must be malicious (and not just playfully mischievous) to cross that trolling threshold. If a person strokes his/her own ego by instigating conflict at the expense of others, I see it as trolling.
MOTE: Sometimes you have to have some experience with the blogger to know what the intent is. Some people at TPM are sneaky and manipulative...it might not be apparent to other people on the thread that an attempt to hurt and incite conflict is even taking place. These troublemakers are folks I never consider safe, and I've learned to avoid them completely. They learn how to get to your soft, sensitive underbelly. They catalog the information to use against you later, when they really want to hurt you.
July 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, that bottom bunch of words is a "NOTE," not a "MOTE."
July 7, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, that last bunch of words was supposed to be a "NOTE," not a "MOTE."
July 7, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
DAMMIT!!
July 7, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your definitions but find your logic quirky. You claim that trolling is all about intent, but all your bullet points are about behavior.
Your reaction to my impression?
July 7, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's the problem. I guess that's what I mean when I say I'm subjective about it. I look at the behavior in a given context for an implication of intent.
July 7, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
But wouldn't you agree that trolling is capable of being recognized OBjectively? That is, that reasonable people acting reasonably would likely agree that "this particular example constitutes trolling," even though they might agree with the troller's (let's call him or her "one who trolls" rather than "a troll") underlying point of view?
July 7, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmmmm...objectively recognized. Yeah, sometimes. But not always.
I've been personally trolled in a very sneaky way. And I regret that it surprised me enough and hurt enough that I took the bait and engaged in a verbal fight. Here...re-read this MOTE (hah!) I left in an earlier comment. This happened to me:
July 7, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
They learn how to get to your soft, sensitive underbelly.
Don't tease.
July 7, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were the "Calendar" Girl??? Brilliant!!!
I have to admit I loved the calendar.
The best I've been able to muster up is recipe spam.
I agree there is a difference between trolling and spamming.
In answer to Tankard's Question 2:
"Trolling," as I have experienced it, is someone who chases you around the blogs depositing excreted comments simply because it is you that is commenting or posting. If that person puts you on their "watch list" to see what you're writing and where, shows up to comment on your comments and does so with the intent to pick a fight. Makes comments that are personally insulting, ad hominem attacks, purposefully "misinterprets" your comments to be an attack on them (or their candidate), I'd call that trolling.
If that person's "presence" on a thread makes you reluctant to participate because you know it will spark a fight. (Or if you join a thread specifically to continue a fight.)
"Spamming" is clogging up a thread with stuff where the intent is -- perhaps -- less personal, and more "functional" which is to render the thread useless.
If you post something, your unstated intent is to be provocative -- you do want to provoke someone to comment, to notice what you wrote. That's why we do it. So merely being provocative is not "trolling." Let's call it "marketing."
Simply posting something which is false is not necessarily trolling either -- even if you know it is false when you post it.
"Controversial" is similar to provocative. If we all agreed with each other's opinions, this would be a pretty boring place. Simply being controversial is not trolling either. Sometimes you need to present the extremes of an idea to frame it in a way that enhances your point.
Maybe you guys just don't like each other. Maybe neither of you is a "troll," maybe you just can't co-exist on the same thread.
July 7, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. It was cute spam. And I'm not just saying that because I have a crush on Laura.
July 7, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
(blush) *giggle*
;-)
July 7, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't hurt my feelings. You just made yourself look petty and small. I would NEVER--not in a million years--consider using another poster on this site as the subject of a post of my own. It's just outrageously rude. And you are incredibly dishonest. The personal bullshit in the body of your post implies (intentionally) that I called you a troll. And you know for a fact that I didn't. True, you never said it straight out. But that's your style.
July 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, hreb, try to lighten up a little. You're too serious! And exacting.
Now, take off your exacting lawyer hat and put on your regular-guy-Budweiser-gimme-cap. It has holes cut in it to poke your ears through. If someone said you engaged in an activity characterized as trolling, might you conclude that person is also implying that you're a troll?? Doesn't seem like a stretch to me.
I know Tank's sense of humor--he's a playful dude. And he's playing with you, not trying to humiliate you. In his twisted world, this stuff's close to a show of affection.
Nobody on this thread (or on the previous one) disrespects you--I'm sure of it. (If Billy Glad's on the thread, he doesn't count because he hates anyone who doesn't treat him like he's the most brilliant human who deigns to waste his time on TPM).
July 7, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
My problem with this is that Tankard took our disagreement off-thread. There was no reason for it. If Tankard wants to start a discussion about what constitutes trolling, that's fine by me. But that wasn't the point of this post, was it?
A while back someone put up a post called "The Ballad of Billy Glad". I don't know whether Billy was offended by it or not, but I thought it was a cheap shot and sort of creepy in a way. If you disagree with someone, have the spine to disagree in an honest way. But don't take the argument elsewhere and try to drum up support for your position on another thread. My opinion.
July 7, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmm...I can definitely see how you would feel that this was an attempt at a personal attack. But I sincerely don't believe that was the intent.
Okay. Let's put on our psychoanalyst hats (yes, yours has holes cut for the ears). My take is that this post was probably motivated by defensiveness (due to Tank's perception of having been called a "troll"...??) I think he was genuinely surprised to have someone characterize his post as trolling; and going a bit on the defensive, he created this post to find out what everyone else thinks about it.
If Tankard is guilty of something here, I would say it's ham-handedness. But who of us hasn't been guilty of that at one time or another?
July 7, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must contradict two points.
First, my motivation for this post was two-fold. I wanted to give anyone who cared to do so the opportunity to debate me about trolling without hijacking the discussion about whether defending the Constitution constitutes Left Wingedness. And he-who-shall-not-be-named-again-by-me inspired a real fascination about what trolling acually means. I'd go back and figure out which comment of his actually pulled the trigger for me, but it's not worth the trouble now.
Second, I'm quite done being defensive. Defensive I ain't. In fact, a myriad of folk find me downright offensive. Pa-dump-ump!
Ham-handed? I would strongly prefer to be thought of as pastrami-handed. Pa-dump-ump ching!
July 7, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about being presumptuous. I was projecting how I might've felt if I'd been in your place.
Well, anyway. I was pretty sure there wasn't a malicious element to your intent.
If you're truly able to avoid defensive reactions, that's an amazing accomplishment. Defensive reactions account for so much miscommunication between humans. How much conflict could be completely avoided if we (speaking broadly about humans) could control our defensive reactions to others? It saddens me when I see ill will grow between people who perceive conflict when the trouble is really miscommunication.
July 7, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No apology necessary, and no presumptuousness detected.
One of the great things about debating in a blog, as opposed to, say, arguing with your wing-nut relatives, is that on the internet, as Dogbert says, no one knows you're a dog. The hurtful statement that might incite fisticuffs in person can be absorbed, processed, recognized for the symptom that it is, and replied to civilly -- as though it were a real point and not just a gibe.
As we see with certain players to be named never, this technique drives them absolutely nuts! It's really much meaner than just trading brickbats, and more fun. The madder they get, the kinder you get, applying the occasional tickle from the business end of a laser-sharpened halberd.
What I'm saying here is that defensiveness just makes one look defensive. My technique forces my opponent either to deal with my point rather than his/her preconception of my personality, or drive him/herself further and further into foaming-at-the-mouth self-discreditation. Some take the hint and respond cerebrally -- these we debate. Some seem unable to recognize the failure of their testosterone-fueled tactics -- with these we just continue to condescend. Some fall in-between, retaining the disagreeable tone, but at least making a point as they do so. These offer the greatest challenge.
Maybe one needs to be a cynical old atheistic misanthrope to do this so cold-bloodedly (or at least be able to mimic one). Don't know, but I'm surely enjoying myself here.
July 7, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you should ever feel it is necessary to apply your technique on me, instead, please just tell me how I'm screwing up, simply and directly. If you're respectful and if I'm able to understand my error, I will immediately correct my behavior. A simple request will take care of it--I'm a fair-minded person and admit my mistakes. No need to trick me into correcting my behavior. I absolutely detest anything that feels like manipulation. It's quite possible my feelings have to do with "baggage" from my childhood that I carry around. (Both of my parents were shrinks!) Generally, I think tactics used to manipulate desired responses from others imply an attempt to assert power...and often communicate condescension.
July 7, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do I say this? Analyze my style. I think I (almost always) start just as you suggest, responding to even a obviously "challenging" comment with a clarifying response like, "You're saying...?" or "You don't mean...?" or "Please point out where I...?" or the like. I don't start with condescension -- at least I don't do so intentionally. And when the condescension comes, it comes from my following his/her lead, honestly and logically, at least from my POV.
As for pointing out when you're "screwing up" and applying my technique, unless I'm a really, really terrible judge of people, you'd know damn well when you were screwing up, because you'd be approaching me with nastiness and dishonesty. I don't think that's in you.
We should talk at length about the idea of manipulation, but not now. I'm afraid you would not approve of my thoughts on the subject -- suffice it to say that I think there is very little in the way of human interaction where manipulation is not flowing in both directions all the time. But this is a conversation that deserves its own thread.
Besides, I don't want you to see what a prick I am, just when you're warming up to me.
July 7, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. In this case with hreb, you did try--respectfully--to identify and discuss--fairly--where you might've given him reason to draw his conclusions. That's why I was frankly surprised that he went from critical to offended so quickly and easily.
--------------
You're not a prick. No way. I won't believe that until I see proof. In fact, you and Ben are two of the most prick-tolerant non-pricks here, I believe. Seriously. You guys tolerate shit I'd never tolerate.
--------------
About my position on manipulation : Imagine growing up with shrinks for parents.....analyzing everything you do for what you really mean with X behavior.....using different techniques to extract the repressed anger they're so sure you're expressing by "forgetting" to make your bed.....using techniques to "correct behavior" like you're some kind of lab animal. After enough of that, you start to question whether you really understand any of your motives. If your head isn't screwed up before you're subjected to that crap, it certainly is afterward. Sheesh.
July 7, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you didn't take my last comment as a belittling of your sensitivity to manipulation. Let's postpone the manipulation discussion for another time. Meanwhile, if you're interested in <irony>a pleasant light beach book</irony> on the topic, try B. F. Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Maybe coming from your environment, you're already familiar with it.
July 8, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aaaack!!!!
B. F. SKINNER??????
NOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo...............
July 8, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
My super-human empathic skills indicate that you are somewhat familar with Dr. Skinner.
July 8, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW: Ben? Now there's a prick.
July 8, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's certainly nothing ad hominem in your comment.
You are mistaken in your assertion that I meant to imply anything at all about you or your character except that I seem to infuriate you. That is hardly a criticism.
Look. You don't like me. Too bad for both of us. I will live through the trauma, however. May you do the same and have a wonderful interesting life.
I'm tired of being patient with you, and will simply ignore you from now on, if possible.
July 7, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said I didn't like you. But you chose to make this post personal when it really doesn't add anything to your post to do so. That's a little stalker-like in my book. Kinda creepy, don't you think?
July 7, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Golly, do I ever welcome your request to mouth off on this, as this forum of late is exhibiting an especially pernicious variant of that old forum classic, the summer slide. It's a real turn off at times to even surf it; the more minutes I spend, the more I feel embarassed with myself for having done so. So I am at the point that I don't care what others think of me for saying the following.
First point, to address your post title:
I remember some of your pre-February TPMCafe posting as verging on trollish; some interactions with member Mike7Woodson come to mind as an example. You tried to bait certain people. That said, you were never appeared to me to be a "real" troll. Since that time, however, I have been impressed with your transformation in writing and debating style away from trollishness. I would therefore put forth the suggestion that we have a case here of "it takes one to know one"? :-)
Second, more important point:
Wikipedia's definition:
It's hrebendorf that fits that definition perfectly to a T on this June 23 thread of yours:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/opinions-you-are-unlikely-to-a.php
and on several other threads from around that time. My two cents on that: he should have been banned at that time for the health of the forum.
The reason for this behavior doesn't matter (some childish feud with another poster in this case), as it's treating a public forum like a personal playground. He showed absolutely no respect for other users of the forum outside of his personal clique concerns, no recognition that there are many readers and users here besides the group he considers "the regulars," no sense of a larger audience or of a host site with a reputation to maintain to attract grownup contributors. He continues to do this now with this personal obssession with Tankard.
Third point:
One of the best things about TPMCafe in its first couple of years was that the word "troll," was hardly ever misused (well, ok, maybe sometimes on Larry Johnson's threads :-).) Usage was rare and was relegated to a few actual trolls who came to disrupt the forum. With the takeover by the Election Central crowd in February, the word troll started occurring in nearly every other thread, giving the distinct gloss of an adolescent chat room, circa 2000. Most users prior to that time then cared more about content and not personalities or making friends or enemies, they didn't come here to play friends or enemies games, nor to role play with other members, they came to get interaction about content including interaction with movers and shakers in the real world, contributors who may get increasingly hard to book if the teenage group therapy zeitgeist here doesn't improve.
A couple of humble suggestions to management about necessary first steps: ban the use of the word "troll," relegating it to private complaints to management via email. That should get this place back to a college freshman level. Then tell people like hrebendorf to stop trying to play social games, much less psyching out and stalking other members, and to focus on the actual content of each post or comment. That will make busy grownups with jobs feel more welcome.
July 7, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely said.
July 7, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I completely agree with your assessment of what I was doing on that post. I'm not going to get into explaining why I did that because it's an old wound, and nobody's picking that scab, but I've said that I shouldn't have done it and that I especially shouldn't have done it on someone else's thread. So I agree: it was completely inappropriate.
July 7, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have admitted elsewhere in a conversation with Laura that I have been trollish in the past. I'd like to excuse myself and claim that I was only that way in response to other folks who were being trollish in my eyes, but that's a thin excuse. And yes, Mike and I went at it regularly and caustically. As I told Laura, I can be a jerk -- I once considered going pro.
Thanks very much for posting that definition from Wikipedia. It made realize that the key to any definition of trolling is the inclusion of the manifest desire to appeal to negative emotions. Sometimes we do this without trolling, but we never troll without doing this. Agree?
My two cents on that he should have been banned at that time for the health of the forum.
I completely disagree with this. Healthy discourse requires not just disagreement but disagreeability -- even hatefulness. (And for the sake of The Living Shit, this is not to be construed as accusing any particular person of being either disagreeable or hateful, no matter how eager that person might be to take offense. I am stating a principle, not making an accusation. FWIW, I am not even subscribing to your depiction of anyone's behavior.)
I also disagree with any proposal to ban any one or any word except under the most extreme circumstance -- massive spamming, creation of liability, widespread disruption. On second thought, even widespread disruption isn't enough. We should still allow Billy Glad to post here.
You and I have also had some dust-ups where hard feelings might ensue, so I particularly appreciate your compliment. It not only makes me feel good, it reflects favorably on your agility and ability to change.
July 7, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post IS a social game and it's also a stalking maneuver. Tankard is pissed off because I criticized one of his/her posts. Here's the ENTIRE CONTENT of the post I criticized:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/speaking-out-against-abuse-of.php
That's it--that's the entire post.
In that thread, DiegoUK made the entirely reasonable request that people actually try to put some content into their posts, rather than simply posting a headline and a bit of snark:
I said that Tankard wasn't blogging, but rather trolling.
An argument ensued over what constitutes trolling. Tankard, tired of discussing it on the thread where it started (and where he/she had failed to make his/her case), brought it here. That's fine, but the fact is, there was NO good reason to mention me in this post. None whatsoever. It was a cheap shot. A backbiting snipe. The use of my name adds nothing to the discussion, and Tankard knows it. Tankard's goal in mentioning me was to drum up criticism of me from people like you.
July 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
was NO good reason to mention me in this post.
You have a point there, and I apologize once again. Keep in mind however, that I didn't intend any criticism of you (despite your opinion to the contrary), and to me there was really no reason not to use your name. Again, note that I defended you very early on.
In the other post, I was trying to discuss the difference between criticizing abuse of the Constitution (as I saw it) and left-wingness. In that post, you insisted on debating whether or not I was trolling.
To keep the last post on topic, I attempt in this post to define the concept of trolling and whether or not I was doing so. But here you insist on debating whether or not I am criticizing you.
Given these last two I think I could make a case that you are the one doing the trolling. If I wanted to. But it wouldn't be productive.
If I open another post on whether or not I am cricizing you in an attempt to keep this one on topic, what will you insist on debating?
July 7, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's put it this way: if you choose to do that, it will reflect on your character, not mine. Rest assured, if I have a disagreement with you, I'll keep it on whatever thread it starts on.
July 7, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am too new here to offer much on this topic.
But I wish all of us could be kinder to other posters we disagree with..and I'm not implying anyone on this thread has been unkind.
I know that within three posts of arriving here at TPM, someone called me an "asshole"! The provocation was saying something about FISA.
For a while I got harsh also, but decided to chuck that mode of being and just mellow out.
It sure makes posting easier for me at least, when I follow St Thomas More's dictum: "Do None Harm. Say None Harm. Think None Harm."
My two centavos. FWIW
July 7, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes being called an asshole is a compliment. If you do a site:talkingpointsmemo.com search for the word asshole, you'll see that, used properly, it can be a rich and subtle term. :)
July 7, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that! But since I often AM in real life an asshole, I took it at face value!
When I read it, still new to the site, I thought, "Gee, this is kind of a rough neighborhood on the internet!" But since hanging around boring everyone with my longwinded ravings, I have started to like the place!
July 7, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that within three posts of arriving here at TPM, someone called me an "asshole"!
Well, that's because you are an asshole.
Just kidding. Stop apolgizing for being the new kid on the block. For one thing, you're not anymore.
The Light in the shadow of God? Am I translating correctly? Is that your own construction or what? Sounds kind of Augustinian.
July 7, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Light is the shadow of God."
Don't know where I picked that up. I remember long ago when I was in school, I used to write down latin phrases, hoping people would not think me as ignorant as I really was, if I used them.
I had a little book of mottos that had lots of such short expressions. I gave it to a department chair 20 years ago and always regretted the gift. I think "Lux... comes from that and is somebody's family motto.
Always stuck in my mind so I used it here.
Light is the Shadow of God...something to think about and feel wonder!
July 7, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's like a red-hot iron ball: you try to vomit it out, but you cannot.
August 8, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Light is the Shadow of God...something to think about and feel wonder!
I just wonder where I left my lighter. I'm old. Bad memory. Atheist and all.
But congrats on a way cool moniker.
July 7, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the most truely spiritual people I know are atheists!
Here's another quote for you on light. This one is from a Zen figure (I won't call him a "master") who lived a few centuries ago in Japan, by the name of Ikkyu:
"We live in an amazing prison of light."
Yes indeed.
July 7, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah? Well, don't call ME spiritual unless you're itchin' for a fight.
July 7, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooooh, I bet you are spiritual, Tank. It's possible to be spiritual without believing in God.
Uh oh! Is this part of your soft, sensitive underbelly??
July 7, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That does it, put 'em up! I'll teach you to call ME spiritual!
July 7, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tank. Maybe you'd feel better if Laura spelled it Spear-A-Troll?
July 7, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you considered a career in diplomacy, quinn?
July 8, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
just s-trolling along.
July 8, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's possible to be spiritual without believing in God."
Let's see...two feet, check. two arms, check. one heart, check. Ground under my feet, check. Sky above my head, check!
QED.
July 8, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have gone over my head here. Can you help me understand this, or would it be like giving away the secret handshake?
July 8, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You seem to have gone over my head here."
Right there! That's it!
July 8, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa! Heavy shit, dude!
July 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. I did my best....
hrebendorf said something about pear blossoms being naturally white (or was it pink?). There's the secret handshake!
July 8, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotcha.
Messages back to Central:
-- The wet duck never flies at night.
-- Can it be that the spring is not the spring of our ancestors?
-- Forget about one hand clapping.
-- If a man makes a statement in the forest and there is no wife nearby to hear him, is he still wrong?
July 8, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
With Sacred Mysteries like those you should form your own religion.
July 8, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer to allow Republicans to retain their patent on the propogation of violent, self-serving mythology, so I probably won't be doing that.
But if I were to be involved in religion, it would be one like this.
July 9, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hallelujah!
July 9, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink