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.
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.
Stephen Mosher: Of course posts about climate science becomes a discussion of politics. Just compare the politicized summary in the IPCC with the scientific report it purports to summarize. Climate science ( I really ought to call it “science” with the quotation marks) is and has been highly politicized from the onset.
From Wikipedia: “Trolling is a method of fishing where one or more fishing lines, baited with lures or bait fish, are drawn through the water.” Simple to see how the term fits the behavior of some comments. Sometimes the bait is obviously artificial, sometimes it’s alluringly juicy — but it always has the same objective to catch the “fish.”
In defense of the obtuse, that’s just the way some of us are. How do you tell when somebody is being deliberately obtuse versus just plain dense and unreasonable?
Climate science stopped being about science over 15 years ago. It’s about politics. Mosh, if you don’t like climate science being dragged into politics, you need to start policing your own house.
I believe I sat next to a Troll in disquise at breakfast this morning 🙂
“How do you tell when somebody is being deliberately obtuse versus just plain dense and unreasonable?
It reminds me of a current rule of thumb on most of the internet these days: A sufficiently sophisticated parody of a left wing position will always be indistinguishable from the real thing.
(all sex is rape? Check, not a parody. all problems are based on racial discrimination? Check, not a parody. Climate change means you shouldn’t have children? Check, not a parody.)
I and others have been labeled a concern troll here several times for expressing honest concern that some things posted here are detrimental to the credibility of WUWT and the faithful readership. There is no useful response available for such ignorant claims so one is left a loss of respect and a sense of wasted concern. People who respond to real concern with the concern troll card as a first response are among the most ignorant of posters and just add to the things to be concerned about. Intelligent, honest, and constructive criticism is never inappropriate. It is what keeps us from being doomed to repeat historic failures.
dp:
At August 18, 2014 at 9:43 am you write saying in total
An anonymous poster asserts without providing any evidence that there is unjustified labeling of people expressing “honest concern” that some unspecified “things posted here are detrimental to the credibility of WUWT and the faithful readership”.
That reads like concern trolling to me.
Richard
Richard – I think it would be off topic to drag those old posts forward. It would also redirect the conversation to those topics. I have just expressed an honest, intelligent, constructive post and you have demonstrated perfectly the point I made. If you personally would like to see all the evidence available I will send it to you in a private email but I am not going to flood this thread with what can easily be found by searching this site. I appreciate your racing in to prove my point.
dp:
re your post at August 18, 2014 at 10:29 am.
Thanks for confirming my point. And I notice that you have used the same ploy on another thread today in your post here where you convert a reasonable post into a troll comment by addiing
Richard
Richard – I am not going to be a part of another of your many endless streams of pedantry.
dp:
At August 18, 2014 at 11:02 am you write
You need to do much better than that to get me to bite. Try trolling someone else.
Richard
Publicly slandering Lord Monckton with deliberate and complete lies (literally just pulling something false out of your… ear… and saying the person said it when they didn’t) is not just trolling… it’s maliciously destroying a man’s good name because you feel personally humiliated and threatened by his masterful comprehension of the truth (and even more by the truth itself), and by his colossal intellect. Sadly, however, this seems to be one of the most common modern reactions, anymore, to someone who has a colossal intellect who is habitually right.
If there’s one thing liberals can’t stand (aside from anyone actually having a brain that functions independently of the nightly news or liberal textbooks), it’s someone that disagrees with them, who actually has the brains AND the knowledge to prove they’re correct. It’s easy to blow off or humiliate someone who doesn’t know how to defend themselves, just like it’s easy to take candy from a baby. Not so with the exceptionally bright and educated…
M Courtney says:
August 18, 2014 at 8:40 am
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….
Mmmmm, thread hijacking can be due to single-mindedness and metaphorical tunnel vision. If the “troll” has that condition, then there is actually only one topic. That results in a monumental resistance to discussing anything but “their” topic, and every thread is perceived as providing an opportunity to do that. I would ascribe that to a distorted sense of relevance rather than to trolling.
I would suggest that “true” trolling is conducted with some level of malice. It may range from contempt for an argument or the knowledge of the commenter, through effectively libelous views of the commenter or article author being trolled, to systematic propagation of :”big lies.” The persistent assertion of “consensus” and “the science is settled” memes is the latter.
Mr Courtney,
Your overenthusiastic use of the term “troll” and labeling argument as “trolling” devolves
to simple name calling and mislabeling of argument, which in itself is just another type of trolling.
Josh
¿Trolls? ¿Really Josh?
I suggest rather that an apropos cartoon on perceptions of ‘trolls’ haunting WUWT might be based on the following idea.
As Don Quixote tilted at windmills imagining they were people who were his opponents, so on some skeptical threads we see regular commenters tilting at other commenters by repeatedly using the illogical argumentation of childish troll name calling against those other commenters.
Name calling people as trolls is becoming so frequently used illogically in discussions on some types of threads here that there should be a way to conceptually define those commenters who recursively resort to schoolboy troll name calling at other commenters on these skeptical threads.
John
All lefties are trolls.
/troll
John Whitman: “on some skeptical threads we see regular commenters tilting at other commenters by repeatedly using the illogical argumentation of childish troll name calling against those other commenters.”
Indeed.
I have on several occasions been on the receiving end when I simply tried to, say, point out a weak point in the head post. Since I made my living as a lawyer, that was always just another day at the office for me. But it was disappointing that it most frequently came from Christopher Monckton, who thereby compromised his effectiveness among the more-discerning readers. He has great gifts but could benefit from making his arguments more bullet-proof.
I recall having read the “anyone who disagrees with me” quote by Lord Monckton. If I remember correctly, he was not referring to himself, rather he was being sarcastic while criticizing blogs such as “Real Climate” for shouting down legitimate dissent and disagreement on their discussion threads by falsely labeling the dissenters as “Trolls.”
As I am going from memory, I cannot provide a reference. Even so, the idea is a valid one to consider. And, I would like to say that WUWT’s commenters are almost never guilty of that behavior.
@Joe Kirklin Born
I enjoyed the narrative, thanks.
@richardscourtney
“Please remember that some trolls are professionals who obtain remuneration for disrupting threads.”
I wish solid evidence about this “profession” were made publicly available. Not anecdotal. Solid.
haha
“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.”
#########
I added something to my definition but didnt modify it.
Bwaaah
You added something so you could ensare more people. So for the record
please provide your FULL and complete description
please provide how you tested this definition.
Do you think your description or definition could pass a double blind test
“Jim Brock says:
August 18, 2014 at 8:55 am
Stephen Mosher: Of course posts about climate science becomes a discussion of politics. Just compare the politicized summary in the IPCC with the scientific report it purports to summarize. Climate science ( I really ought to call it “science” with the quotation marks) is and has been highly politicized from the onset.”
yes an a reasonable person could judging that switching the topic to politics was trolling.
Brute:
re your post at August 18, 2014 at 11:49 am.
Please define “Solid”.
I ask because your post at August 18, 2014 at 11:43 am demonstrates you have a problem with the meaning of words: Joe Born provided unsubstantiated assertion and not “narrative”.
Richard
“Thankyou for your clear demonstration of trolling with the start of your post at August 18, 2014 at 8:17 am which begins saying”
your definition of trolling
“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.”
1. I did not avoid the topic of trolling. i commented on YOUR DEFINITION of trolling
2. I did not inhibit discussion, in fact, many people including you responded.
3. the thread has not been deflected, it has focused on the issue you raised: what is trolling”
4. I haven’t characterized you as a person.. however the opposite is not true.
In short, I am not sure you recognize trolling.
Discussing trolling definitions in a thread about trolls is not trolling.