Josh writes: There’s been a bit of closet trolling recently, a pretence if being polite but blatantly not, and generally trying to derail posts. Fortunately we have a helpful cartoon for that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Village Idiot says:
August 18, 2014 at 3:51 am
“To kick off we could take Sir Christopher Monktons definition: ‘Anyone who disagrees with me’.
Did he actually say that as implied by the quotes? Can you give a link please?
AlecM:
Oh dear……. .
@ur momisugly Vince Causey August 18, 2014 at 6:32 am
Mostly, the posters Monkton calls trolls appear to be folks “pulling a Nick Stokes”. (See the “Moore tour needs some backers” thread.)
Not only was Stokes attempting to hijack the thread but he would rant incessantly even after being shown to be wrong.
One thing I’ve noticed: trolls do not like to be called trolls.
Must be a cultural thing.
Dunno.
Vince Causey:
re your post at August 18, 2014 at 6:32 am.
The statement was not made by Lord Monckton. It is a falsehood presented by the troll who posts under the accurate and descriptive title of ‘Village Idiot’.
The falsehood was refuted (by me at August 18, 2014 at 5:42 am) but your post shows that refutation was not an end to the matter. Thus, the troll has been successful in its objective of deflecting the thread from its true purpose which is amusing troll identification.
Richard
Or he is helpfully providing a practical experience.
Can’t believe that my father’s aggressive style gets through but I get moderated. I really need that style guide.
Getting back to “trolls coming out of the closet”,
I’m wondering whether trolls can legally marry and get equal protection under the law.
M Courtney:
Blunt statement of truth is not “aggressive”.
From my experience .. the typical conversation with a Climate Troll goes like this:
– Poster: There’s been no warming for the last 10-15 years or so, look at the graph.
– Troll: But there is a 97% consensus that CAGW is happening.
– Poster: There’s a new study that shows IR out to space is increasing which goes against CAGW theory.
– Troll: But there is a 97% consensus that CAGW is happening.
– Poster: All the data show decreases in tornados, hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc … which goes against CAGW theory.
– Troll: But there is a 97% consensus that CAGW is happening.
– Poster: according to CAGW advocates, the arctic is supposed to be ice free about now … but it’s just not happening .. look at the pictures.
– Troll: But there is a 97% consensus that CAGW is happening.
…… I think you get the picture. There needs to be a 97% somewhere in that cartoon.
From what little I know about trolls (having lived in Norway for some time), I always thought that they usually have a tree growing on their nose. I kid you not. Whether that is the type of tree that Mann likes to give undue weight to, I do not know.
Dr. Deanster: Wherein the trolling?
Richard Verney: Is making a puerile sideswipe at Micky Mann trolling?
Question:
Who is the idiot, the one who proclaims himself the Village Idiot or one who replies to one who proclaims himself the Village Idiot?
John Who: Off topic (trolling?)
JohnWho:
You pose a good and on-topic question when you ask at August 18, 2014 at 7:25 am
I answer, probably both but the respondent may not be a troll although the Village Idiot is. Indeed, a chosen false name is often indicative of a troll.
Richard
“A troll is someone who attempts to avoid or to inhibit discussion of a subject by deflecting a thread onto other matters. Often the attempt includes offensive misrepresentation of a person.”
Good definition, which can be demonstrated with an example:
“There is no doubt that Climate Change has had a hand in exacerbating racial tensions in Ferguson, Mo., as the poor and disadvantaged demonstrate for Social Justice. Those who blindly deny the effect of Climate Change on poor people’s lives should acknowledge their part in disrespecting Minority voters in America today.”
Thank you for your response Richard.
But, perhaps I should clarify:
What I mean is that once someone is identified as a troll, is it then wise to pursue further verbal intercourse with them?
I will agree that one’s screen name could be indicative of a specific viewpoint.
I’ll go further. Anthony has posted input from climate orthodoxy scientists as guest blog post here. If you feel your contribution warrants a full posting here, I’d recommend submitting it to Anthony with such a request. You might be surprised. We regulars here would not be.
JohnWho:
At August 18, 2014 at 7:49 am you pose the question
There is no simple answer.
Whenever possible it is advantageous to ‘not feed the troll’ because the troll obtains its objective when it engenders any response.
However, a troll’s comment often requires rebuttal so it does not mislead onlookers. And that can result in a skillful troll generating a continuous interchange by use of ‘goalpost moving’ and additional falsehoods which also require rebuttal.
Please remember that some trolls are professionals who obtain remuneration for disrupting threads.
Richard
trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.
Trolls just want to have fun – Erin E. Buckelsa, , , Paul D. Trapnellb, Delroy L. Paulhusc
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324
That’s peer reviewed.
ATTP has made a self-reference:
I guess if you don’t really know what you’re talking about, but don’t want to admit that, then that might be the only way to engage in such exchanges (ooops, is that a little too robust again, sorry).
“A troll is someone who attempts to avoid or to inhibit discussion of a subject by deflecting a thread onto other matters. Often the attempt includes offensive misrepresentation of a person.”
and then
Indeed, a chosen false name is often indicative of a troll.
#####################
watch how the definition will grow and change to fit the circumstances.
But let’s get down to the difficultly of defining a troll.
1. Deflecting the thread onto other matters.
The problem here is the problem of judging what is germane. There is no algorithm that will
tell you when a comment is on topic or off topic.
For example, what is the topic of this post?
well its a cartoon. And the cartoon says paraphrasing “if it walks like a duck …. then its a duck”
Or the equivalent of ” I cant define pornography but I know it when I see it”
So, the topic one could argue is “what is trolling” Of course it is on topic to discuss ANY
incidence of trolling as an example to illustrate a point. And it might be on topic to discuss trolling at other blogs. its also on topic to discuss the drawing of the cartoon.
The post also has some text
“Josh writes: There’s been a bit of closet trolling recently, a pretence if being polite but blatantly not, and generally trying to derail posts. Fortunately we have a helpful cartoon for that.”
so it would be on topic to talk about politeness and rules for conversation. Its on topic to talk about thread de railing, And what does it mean to be on topic. Here we might make our case by bring in other examples.. say poster X on old thread Y. Of course then the topics of that post get brought up again.
As people make comments the topic evolves. It grows, it morphs. And then someone crosses a “line” none of us draw the line in the same place.. what is on topic to you might seem off topic to me. At this junction some Nanny throws the troll flag.. an offensive misrepresentation.
And then people argue about whether calling someone a troll is
1. OFF TOPIC
2. offensive.
Thread Nannies try to control the discourse until the jack boot of the moderator can come down on somebodies neck.
Now, go back through old posts. Look at comments. See how many times a post about
climate science becomes a discussion of politics… to some this is “on topic” to others it is
“off topic”
Josh/Anthony:
“AND THEN THERE’S TROLLS”
Grammar issue:
Shouldn’t that be “AND THEN THERE ARE TROLLS” ?
“There’s” is singular, isn’t it? Unless the grammar issue was done on purpose for some reason…..
Steven Mosher says at August 18, 2014 at 8:17 am.
Very good comment.
But I would argue that there are clearly defined cases where thread-jacking is trolling.
1) The thread is moved into a circular conversation. Epitomised by the Monty Python sketch (this is not an argument, yes it is, no it isn’t…). That’s the extreme case but we have all seen a discussion devolve into repetitive contradictions rather than a sharing of views and different perspectives with novel evidence being introduced. The thread is killed when it circles.
2) The thread is shifted to a subject that has recently been covered elsewhere. No new light can shed as the subject has just been covered completely. That starves the thread of value.
3) The thread is polarised by raising a subject for which there is no definitive answer but very high passions. Anyone claiming that they know the true God (or proof of none), true political creed (or ideological proof of another’s wickedness) or many cultural values such as “All modern art is rubbish”.
Those thread-jacks are trolling as the debate isn’t merely moved but mangled.
Mosher,
Hint, go through the Greenpeace Patrick Moore thread and see the trolling attempts of the person for which this cartoon was designed, if you really care, before pontificating and spouting obtuse crap.
And my comment is awaiting moderation again…
Steven Mosher:
Thankyou for your clear demonstration of trolling with the start of your post at August 18, 2014 at 8:17 am which begins saying
There was and is no attempt to “grow and change” the definition of a troll that I have often posted on WUWT prior to stating it in this thread.
The definition was mine and the descriptive addition is NOT a modification of it.
Similarly, a church may be defined as being a place of worship, and an addition may be that the style of windows is often indicative of a church.
Goalpost moving is a troll activity. You often do it. I don’t.
Perhaps your most extreme example of ‘goalpost moving’ was when you tried to redefine the scientific null hypothesis.
The remainder of your post is an excuse for trolling based on your pretended difficulty with understanding what is “germane”. Yes, Steven Mosher, you often display that difficulty, but it is usually not clear if your difficulty is deliberate or not.
Richard