 | Trolling for Trolls |
|
"Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem." -wikipedia:trolls I wonder if, within any network of connections, a cultural value system (See Simon) develops in which aberrations from the norm could be considered trollish in nature. Some questions arise: What happens in the network as a result of the aberration attending there? Does the aberration connect, or reject? Are either the aberration or network altered? How does network theory address this situation? In network theory, is this considered a problem? |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
What an interesting question? I suspect that in responding actively to trolls a network might start to look more like a group - norms, responses, etc. The other approach, to ignore trolls, may fit in better with network theories where poorly connected nodes die away. But .... it's hard to ignore those trolls, I think!! |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
In Discipline and Punish, Foucault discusses the essential function of the deviant or criminal for establishing and maintaining order. Any human society relies on the emergence of certain orthodoxies and norms, and deviants serve to define those norms by throwing their limits into relief, by functioning as the essential other. To the extent that networks operate as societies, we should expect the 'aberration' to alter the network in sense of defining more clearly some aspect of its norms or limits. So trolls are functional, and should serve to affirm rather than undermine the network, although they do so by pushing the network to respond to them with rejection, thus closing off hitherto open possibilities of behaviors within the network. I have watched norms emerge in this way in online communities connected to MMORPGs (text based), where certain forum behaviours are tolerated and others rejected - it is the trolls that provide the stimulus for the definition of norms; the less ambiguous the rejection of their behaviour, the more strongly-established the norm becomes, the more marginalized the trolls become (to the point of ejection from the network.) |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls |
| This is a very good point. It reminds me of an ongoing discussion I have with some colleagues who are collecting evidence of good practice so that they can extract patterns from them. My argument is that without evidence of not-so-good practice, it is hard to see what the patterns in the good practice are - we are particularly good at seeing the differences between things because it is the differences which enable us to differentiate between good and bad. It is an obvious mechanism to help with survival, at a basic level. |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
When www.wondercafe.ca first came on-line, it attracted those who totally detested the United Church of Canada's understanding of social justice and interpretation of the Bible. Members of the community were in shock. Why would people come & say such terrible things. They should be banned was the first reaction, later, it was, we should be able to ignore, etc. The community evolved. In the process, many posters noted that as a moderate they had learned, both about the complexity of issues, the amount of violence in society addressed to certain groups, and how to respond to the ignorant, the hateful, the innocent, and those with differing opinions. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Hi Ed, I'm with you on Foucault and the methods he developed provide a fruitful avenue for investigating education, online learning and connectivism in particular. However I must admit that I find it a hard path to follow. Not only am I lost most of the time but Foucault provides so many interesting side roads that it's easier to wander about looking at the scenery and forget the journey. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
1. "Trolls" is a term that is a hangover from MMORPGs and from the early Internet days of the Well and other geek-controlled venues. It is about thin-skinned geeks, and how they are most intolerant of each other, often enlisting people in fierce tribal loyalities, but more about how they become intolerant of people outside their magic circle. 2. Even if defined in some specific way, i.e. "trolling means inciting anger deliberately by disrupting conversations repeatedly," it rarely applies when people start invoking it -- so when people feel the need to "make up rules about trolls," they never apply them fairly and the person they target is often not guilty of this "crime" they imagined. 3. Each group has busybodies in it who fancy themselves "the soul of the group". This is why contrary to what Clay Shirky says, that the "Group is its Own Worst Enemy," i.e. he privileges the core, I say, no, the core is the group's enemy, because it isn't democratic, flexible, replaceable but rapidly becomes a conservatizing force. 4. There's a fantasy that trolls are "enably thecommunity to define" or "establishing norms" a la Foucault (meh, what a source!). But...what the hell is "thecommunity"? (I always spell it that way to call attention to the fact that people are glorifying it and elevating its meaning over all group members, although in fact all group members don't agree and didn't elect "thecommunity". Those yammering the loudest about the norm are themselves a minority who merely try to outshout the other minority of critics -- the rest are uninvolved, unsure, afraid, etc. 5. There is nothing that you have to "do" about trolls, either "feeding" or "not feeding". Those who feel the need to battle them "in the name of thecommunity" do so anyway, and they're welcome to do so, but they can't be allowed at the levers of free speech and fight so hard that they remove "the trolls". The "trolls" or persistent critics will do as they will. There are seldom really unbiased moderators in this situation, as those pretending to have a vantage point have often taken sides. 6. Forums should be ruled by laws, not moderators or "cores" who are "caretakers of the group". Laws should be basic things like "Do not incite imminent violence or racial hatred" or "do not publish private information like home address and phone number" -- they should be clear, simple, and track real law in constitutional democracies outside the association or company managing the forum. 7. "Trolls" or persistent critics are not aberrations. They're normal. It's the freaks who wish to suppress speech and groom and police conformism that are acting outside the norm, which should be freedom and democracy, not authoritarianism. 8. Networks shouldn't be doing anything, and if networks think they have something to do, they are suspect. The idea that the "network is going around trolls" by "going to the better moderated blogs" is one of the treasured fables of Stephen Downes, but it does not become truer by more frequent telling. 9. The kind of fiskers, nit-pickers, literalists, liars, etc. who stalk and harass every post of a person they don't like, and who are acting in bad faith, usually give up after awhile if their target ignores them or if they are in a free setting where the target can expose their methods. An authentic and sincere critic will go on being a critic as the reasons for his engagement didn't disappar; he is in good faith. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Thanks Catherine for this explanation. I am a net-innocent, in that my experience on-line is limited and recent. So I have had no contact with terms like trolls in the net context until this course. Nor do I have any idea what a MMORPG is. I don't think there are any trolls here. Seems to be a name-calling thing from individuals who are thin-skinned, like you say. As far as how the network handles 'aberrations', I guess I was thinking on this somewhat oddly - in the context of 'is there an automatic network reaction to this, and what is the reaction, and what is the result'. I wasn't looking at it from a 'ought to do perspective', more of a 'what is' the behaviour generally exhibited in a network when an 'aberrant' to the norm surfaces. But I think you answered that question as well. As has Jayne above. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Hi Catherine, I new it you hate Foucault! I'd not read this thread I swear before I posted over at "Networks versus Groups". Any way I think your solution of having forum laws is an excellent point and a very practical solution for online groups. I'm interested though that you include the caveat that these laws must follow the norms of a wider community (constitutional democracies) than the group running the forum. That's not going to work though because why can't the forum be a constitutional democracy and what do constitutional democracies track when they are creating their laws? |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
And if online groups must follow the norms of a wider community, given the global nature of such groups who gets to decide which community? We have seen here that the behaviours of some are not appreciated by others, even though the 'offenders' can claim that they are behaving by the norms of their own culture. If the 'laws' are formulated by the majority based on the cultural norms they are used to, all it means is that others become excluded. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
| There is an article about Japanese online dating and social networking that could be relevant to these questions of how virtual communities relate to 'real' ones, how offline culture is reflected and adapted in online interactions - I blogged about it here. How should we think of that relationship between meatspace and cyberspace communities? Are the latter parasitic on the former? Is it symbiotic? |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Oh, I'm all for saying "who gets to decide which community," because so often, a tiny handful of controllers decides they are "thecommunity" and begin demanding rules and ban sticks (it was very easy to see this on Twitter, for example in the "Get Satisfaction" wars over "track ban"). The problem here isn't "Canadian culture versus American culture." It's "certain geeks in Canada who don't like outspoken non-geek Americans" -- different -- plus assorted Euros weighing in to spout their indignation, in favour of certain Canadian geeks. No doubt one could pull 100 non-geek Canadians with different views not as precious about "edu tech" who would cut through the bullshit even faster than I would. It's not really "about" Canada. The point about forming laws is to have the rule of law, and not rule-by-laws. That means the mods are bound by laws, too. That means they are held to account against arbitrariness. I was just reading the "Princeton University Code of Conduct" on its Second Life sim. And it had the typically overbroad, overreaching speech code about not disparaging people which could be wrongfully interpreted to mean any criticism whatsoever. "Your conduct on Princeton University's Second Life islands is subject not only to the Second Life Community Standards but also to the standards and policies set forth in Princeton University Information Technology Resources and Internet Access -- Guidelines for Use as well as Rights, Rules and Responsibilities, which states in part: “Princeton University strives to be and intellectual and residential community in which all members can participate fully and equally, in an atmosphere free from all manifestations of bias and from all forms of harassment, exploitation, or intimidation. As an intellectual community, it attaches great value to freedom of expression and vigorous debate, but it also attaches great importance to mutual respect, and it deplores expressions of hatred directed against any individual or group.” For more information, please visit: http://etc.princeton.edu/sl/" For example, certain persons could decide that it is "intimidation" not for something really serious, like, saying if you go and threaten someone with calls to their home or visits to their house in real life -- which would be what it could be to meet the test of real-life law-enforcement -- but "intimidation" merely for having a "loud voice" or "posting a lot" or "writing posts that are too long". And someone could decide, if they were in charge (unelected, unpaid thought they might be) because they feel they know the "soul of the group," that "expressed of haterd directed against any individual or group" is saying "geeks are controlling" or "certain thin-skinned geeks". The truth defense apparently isn't then accepted in these draconian politically-correct settings. They were intended to stop hatred directed toward people on grounds of race or ethnicity or class or gender, but then once formulated, they can be misused to stop criticism of anything, especially the forums moderators or the system itself or the professors. Trying to point out that branding someone as a "troll" is also disparagement may not work in a biased and politically-correct context like this. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
| I think a lot of the problem is that some people cannot see that their own use of language is directly offensive to others. Simple manners would dictate that once it has been pointed out, the style of communication would be self-moderated in order to provide for communication without offense, but, to use the same metaphor, some people are too 'thick-skinned' to be able to accept the criticisms as genuine. |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls | ||||
|
Hi Pat
But what if some others find that same "use of language" engaging, entertaining, stimulating; what if they find it challenges them to delve & question; what if that "use of language" is simply acceptable to many 'auditors'? How is it reasonable to ask that because some find it offensive it should be moderated to suit them? They have alternatives to engaging with the 'offensive' content. Requiring one person to 'moderate', to censor their output twangs out thru the network & impacts on lots of nodes. (NB just using the vocab here - I resolutely refused to consider myself to be anything as featureless as a node  "Simple manners" are a cultural construct. Which culture shall we opt for here? I've been working around African refugees & some of the cultures are, to softer western ways, loud & argumentative. Some Anglos, (in this case Australians) find this offensive & want to know why the reffos can't be quieter & more reasonable. Meanwhile the Africans find it difficult & yes offensive that Anglos don't make it utterly & emphatically clear where they are coming from. They find that this reticence leads to all sorts of miscommunication. And my experience is that both of these groups are, in your terms, "too thick-skinned" to accept any criticism as genuine. If by that you mean that they reject the validity of the criticism. Of course, there are some peoples from other African cultures that find both Anglo Australian behaviour AND the abovementioned examples somewhat offensive. And they're all refugees from places like Darfur & each has a story which brings a real depth to the sense of what is offensive. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
I am not sure that I am aware of a culture where it is deemed polite (or reasonable) to not moderate oneself to reduce the risk of offending others - that us what I was meaning by my comment about simple manners. That is, of course, quite different to a culture in which it is deemed acceptable to use derogatory terms and repetitive inaccurate stereotypes. If such a culture exists, I cannot help but wonder how it remains connected - or perhaps it doesn't and fractures into many smaller mutually hostile communities? Whilst I would argue that boundaries between subnets are, in general, a positive thing supporting the development of ideas in 'safe' environments, I suspect that the subnets have to have a fairly strong degree of internal cohesion, which this putative culture would not (as far as I can see) provide. Of course, there is a problem with deciding the limits of acceptability within a community. If one person objects to a behaviour is it enough to trigger alarm bells? If we want to be truly inclusive, yes it is, but then that may require dividing the community up. If 10% are offended by a behaviour is that enough to warrant self-moderation? If not, then where is the line drawn? (Assuming there must be a line, which I think there probably should) Does a community work with a truly 'anything goes' mentality? |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
> Does a community work with a truly 'anything goes' mentality? No. Witness Wall Street. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
Yes, too connected.  |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
| Too connected and possibly without enough delays - if there are positive feedback loops, a high rate of transmission can cause them to get out of control. Of course, stock markets could get out of control before the advent of IT as well. Interestingly, of course, as you get more connected with high rates of transmission in such a system, it should also become harder to turn a profit as everyone gets closer to having perfect knowledge... |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Thanks for raising these issues. If we look at this particular venue, I think it is safe to say that the national and cultural diversity present in the Introductions forum is not present in this forum. We could ask why not? but maybe the people who chose not to participate in this forum are no longer around to answer our questions. It's not so much about establishing rules but more about forum participants picking up on exclusive language and statements. Have we done that? However, I am not sure that the CCK blogs are that much more inclusive. Important questions are: How many of the 2k+ participants are actually benefiting from the the course? Who is put off from participating? and why? |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
> How many of the 2k+ participants are actually benefiting from the the course? I'm not just about a judgment term like 'benefiting' but I can say that about 1890 people remain subscribed to the Daily. So people are still tuned in. |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Hi Frances, Good questions about who is participating..and if not, why not. The participation modes have been interesting. I'll provide a rough overview of participation: 1. For-credit learners have participated in forums, blogs, and through emails with instructors 2. Actively engaged in conversation participants: those that are highly engaged in conversations in moodle, often digging down into nuanced considerations of subject matter. These participants do not solely engage with material we have provided. They are also presenting their own views and frameworks of sensemaking. In certain cases, the question is "how does connectivism fit with _____?". These learners may be trying to understand connectivism, but they are also trying to see how it "aligns" with their existing views 3. Actively engaged with course content participants - these are participants who are not engaged in the conversation, but who are reading the daily and providing fairly comprehensive weekly summaries (such as Dave Pollard - http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/categories/businessInnovation/2008/09/26.html#a2251 ). 4. Other modality participants - these participants are reading course literature, but are not active in the main forums. Discussions may be occurring in their preferred language, in Second Life, listservs, or other modes. 5. Peripheral participants - periodically posting in moodle/blog. Subscribed to The Daily, might follow blogs/postings, but are not directly engaged with others. It is also difficult to determine the degree of their engagement with course material as they are not posting reactions or comments. Their continued subscription to The Daily suggests involvement...but life situations, familiarity with content matter, interest or numerous other elements reduce their active involvement. 6. Disinterested/discontinued learners. For what ever reason, these are participants who signed up, but have since discontinued the course. I don't know about percentages - i.e. how many fit into which category. I suspect enrolled and active participants are the majority... |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
| I think what you mean is that the use of the word "socialist" or "communist" to describe something bothers you terribly. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Oh, I don't play the game of worrying about "which country's constitution" you use, because you can use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if you like, signed and ratified by numerous countries, or use the EU constitution or the US constitution. The point is to use actual legal formulations to avoid TOS overreach. Example: TOS or internal forums rules often make elaborate conditions about how you can't "defame" persons or groups. But this isn't at all modified with real life legal considerations of what it takes to meet the test for mounting a defamation case, i.e. not a public figure, statement demonstrably false, malice, and loss of livlihood. So every thin-skinned geek whose idea or business you've criticized legitimately puts his fat finger permanently on the abuse-report button to the mods to try to get you removed. This statement doesn't make sense to me: "what do constitutional democracies track when they are creating their laws?" |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
| You see, your 'real life legal considerations' only apply in one juristiction - they are different elsewhere, so your criticism of the internal forums rules loses validity for a global community which has to develop its own norms. Even the various Human Rights documents are not accepted everywhere. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
What you're doing now with this literalism and fisking is a good example of what people mean by "trolling". Legal norms on freedom of speech are pretty similar among the EU, Canada, and the US, where the overwhelming number of participants in this class come from. Those from Latin America or Asia, even if they live in countries with more restrictive laws, especially driven by notions of "honour" and "dignity" and "defamation," are the types of people who seek greater freedom of expression, at least for themselves (they may not extend this to others; that can be a problem for any country). Art. 19 is as good a rule as any, and the majority of UN members did in fact sign this treaty. If you want to claim this premise of tracking legal norms of real communities is compeltely repudiated by a few edge cases like North Korea, you can do that, but it exposes you as a North Korean proponent then. You live in a country benefiting from these freer laws; why suddenly get all PC and faux-concerned about the rule not applying everywhere? It *applies in enough places* to stake the claim: let's not have backward oppressive regimes (like a Belarusian government or a North Korean government) be our norm here in the name of "egalitarianism" or "100 percent participation in global norms," let's go with the center of gravity. This notion of 0/1, or 100 percent or fail is common to geeks and they don't even apply it to themselves, as you expect to go on enjoying the moderators' liberal practices and his refusal to "toast" his forum, now, don't you? Thus, YOU lose validity by pestering us with edge cases like a troll, instead of promulgaging the norm *that you yourself benefit from*. It's a hallmark of some actual products of Western civilization that they can't keep protecting themselves from the onslaught of illiberalism precisely because of their compulsory overextension of the concept beyond common sense. My point in trying to reference RL norms is to get people away from macho Well culture, geeky edge-casing and arbitrariness and tribalism, and more toward an actual rule of law by some already accepted *and acted upon* norm. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Catherine Why do you use the label of "geeks" to define a behaviour? I know in other forums I partake in, which have very few technical people, the same dialogue occurs. Are your only encounters of the behaviour you reference above from IT folks? |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
| I took it for an ironic attempt on Catherine's part to model a certain variety of trolling for us. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
| I assumed she keeps using it, and the communist accusations to try and get an emotive response - but on reflection that just means you are right Ed. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
| No, I'm not somehow malicious trying to "get a response" or "incite" anything. I'm merely reporting on what I see. "Communist" and "geek" are good descriptive terms for what's happening in general among the people trying to run the Internet these days, whether in IT or 'edu tech". |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Those 'trying to run the Internet' are advocating revolution to abolish capitalist class society? Shocking news, indeed. Then again, capitalism is showing signs of imploding under its own contradictions, so maybe the 'geeks' won't have to kick over too many statues. I'm finding it difficult to discern which of your posts are intended seriously. |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
I don't know if Catherine has a different definition of communism than maybe some of the other people participating. I think it's a point that needs clarifying. She may be equating communism with fascism, which is easy to do considering the way communism has played itself out on the world's stage. I don't necessarily think that it's respecting the difference of the theory and the way it was implemented (and it's certainly arguable that Lenin, Mao et al are not communists at all). |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Jon, your definition is highly sectarian. Whenever there's a discussion of communism, there's always someone who pops up who wants to "save the purity of communism" and try to convince us that this pure doctrine was merely sullied by bad practitioners like Stalin, or this pure doctrine is in fact not at all the same thing as the Bolshevism of Lenin. To which I can only point back to all their writings and the results from them. But it's not likely you can have a serious and critical discussion with someone whose motive at the outset is to "save" communism from its detractors by urging us to see it as a "good" ideology that was must mismanaged or a "pure" ideology that others diverted from. Criminality and mass murder are contained within the ideology as it is. It's a hallmark of this ideology to constantly cover its tracks in this regard. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Yes, indeed, they are, Ed. Do you pay attention? Joi Ito, for example, do you know who he is? He defiantly describes what he does as "venture communism". Everywhere, you can find figures like Clay Shirky railing against representative democracy and capitalist organizations and advocating a destruction and replacement of them by activist Internet groups. Shocking? No. Commonplace, in fact. Here's a typical contribution from a Second Lifer: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977449983&nav=Namespace Basically, what she is doing is advocating doing away with the systems of valuation supporting commerce for centuries, in the name of a band of geeks who are the only ones who understand technology, and can therefore decide how to value things in "social capital" through ratings systems they themselves code. What's funny is that you'd wonder if *I'm* serious, given your own posts lol. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Jayne, you yourself are a geek. So you're proving the point. No need to worry about non-geeks then. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
I happen to be a tech in this forum which has attracted a number of technical participants. I also partake in a forum with subjects being parenting, health & aging, politics, religion & faith, social, popular culture, relationships. In this forum, there are many who don't know how to copy & paste, let along do anything which could get them to be called geeks. The same behaviour you are naming as from "geeks" happen in those forums by non-techs. So you have two sets of people, one has a large tech population, the other does not, and they both have the same behaviour. My sense is that the geek-dom of the individual is irrelevant. The point more likely made, is that your analysis is quite poor, once again. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
No, there's a special kind of clutchiness that tekkies apply to technical subjects that you just won't find in a forum about religion or parenting. Forums behaviours may be universal; the desire of geeks to stop criticism of themselves and technology is a very specific phenomenon, however, well documented. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
you're joking right? you are implying that a tech would be more protective around software, than a person of faith would have around their faith or a parent would around around say, breastfeeding do's and don't.? |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Yes, techs are more protective of software than a parent is about breastfeeding, imagine. It shocks even me. In fact, techs imagine that software can help us with everything, including breastfeeding. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
So, Catherine You are stating that a technical person is significantly more defensive of technical knowledge/experience than a person of faith is regarding their faith a same-sex person is of their right to marriage a breast-feeding mom is over her right to breastfeed. ******************************************* hmm, is there such a term as geek-phobic? |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Um, I'm not geek phobic. Here's my essay on the Geek Religion, for example, which gives more background, and which provides a long list of attitudes that I -- and even you -- find reprehensible and destructive of liberal democracy which hopefully should cause you to examine your chosen culture more criticially. But you may be phobic to criticism of geeks. Guess what, sweets. I'm a breast-feeding mom! Yes, two of them, til the ages about 18 months! Imagine! And I've been on numerous fora about breast-feeding, and I have never seen the level of crankiness, control, restraint, hatred, banning, muting, etc. that I see on tech forums. Maybe it's all that oxytocin... I'm also happy to endorse same-sex marriage and would vote for it if that were a proposition. I've been in these debates, too, and I don't see anything near the level of sheer insane cultism that you find on tech forums. I'm Catholic, and I take part in various religious discussions. I've never seen anything as doctrinaire, ideological, and scholastic, even on various Islamic and right-wing Catholic disputes I've followed, as I've seen in the geek world. Nothing compares 2 u. Tech is the religion of our time; Internet is its temple. Fear its wrath. The sheer nastiness, defensiveness -- and of course, insecurity of the tekkie who imagines that because everything is now digitalized *he* should be in charge of all kinds of policy and law is, well, breath-taking. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Interesting, we have quite different experiences. I will leave it to others to judge their experiences & comment. In addition, having reviewed your "geek religion" post, I will agree with the individual who commented "Anyway, the geek religion seems to be just a blend of things you don't like (or believe contrary) and where you, whenever someone happens to show *some* of those, you label him (or her) geek." |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Um, well, naturally geeks *will* say that sort of thing in response, Jayne. And I think I've nailed the traits spot on. People tend to show most if not all of these traits, which could be summed up with terms like "arrogance" or "self-referentiality" or lack of awareness, i.e. believing that someone in the mid-West driving an SUV a mile to the supermarket or work is somehow more inherently evil than they are, driving their BMW 20 miles from their posh LA suburb and jetting around to VW conferences. Who's really got the bigger carbon footprint? It's not just "people I don't like" -- I had no a priori reason to dislike them; I observed and classified the traits. They're remarkably conformist. Anyway, this conversation isn't interesting, it wasn't interesting to start with, either. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
I really recommend anyone reading this thread, look at Catherine's post on how she defines geeks. It sure helps to explain Catherine's theories, as if she truly believes that about geeks no wonder she has such distress around anyone who she identifies as a geek. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
At least it 'clarifies' what she means by geek - now I can search and replace the word in her posts with something made up (like 'sqrfl', perhaps) so that it is more obvious that the word is being used with a completely different meaning. Maybe they will make more sense now |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Er, nice try, but both of you exhibit some of these very traits. Literalism, for example; 0/1 for example. The "gleeful gotchas". The self-righteousness and bossyness -- it's all there. If you don't happen to believe in the Singularity, as some of your confreres do, that is merely a matter of different sects within the same religion : ) BTW, the mere fact that you look for trolls, imagine they exist, try to define ways to "fight them" or "not feed them" are all examples of that geeky controlling Internet behaviour I'm talking about. But literalism and eliminationism, like "I will take this definition very narrowly and literally and because I don't see my name on it, assume it doesn't apply to me" fits the geek mind to a "T". |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
But the thing is, those are all examples of your behaviour here on cck08 - so how is one to tell between what you dismiss as geekdom in others and the same qualities from your posts? I don't see how one is to 'believe' in something which hasn't happened yet, by the way. I can imagine it may occur, but to either believe in the Singularity or disbelieve in it would both seem a little foolhardy right now. That doesn't mean we shouldn't establish ways of working that will help societies cope with it if it does happen though. |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Another attribute of a Troll is Genus and Species. Oftimes a Troll will have a basic set of arguments repurposed over and over to suit the particular topic of conversation. Boring. There are inspired lurkers and imaginative wallflowers but Trolls tend to push boundaries of patience rather than revolutionary thought or behaviors. This type of person rarely is self policing and can become very tedious to others who are actually interested in exploring other branches of understanding. Many, many Trolls are actually masturbatory in that they are delighted to see how they can derail and twist a conversation into their tired refrain - subconsciously or not. A real critic should be an expert. A Troll usually desires to be seen as one. A self proclaimed critic is usually a Troll because a self proclaimed expert is rarely that (one does not need to proclaim their "expertise" when it can be easily inferred from their superior tone) and the Troll also tends to "lie in wait" seemingly polite, until a trigger phrase comes along, unleashing the "routine". It is interesting to have so many types of educators here. Thanks for saving us from ourselves, Cat. ;) |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Om, does free discourse on the Internet scare you? So that you have to imagine that it is like a butterfly with species and sub-species and study it and chloriform it and pin it to mats? When people keep making these tired "Troll" tropes and classifications, resisting it can be rather dull, but it's a job that needs doing. I don't "lie in wait," I don't try to "derail and twist". I just think freely, and share my thoughts. I'm sorry you find that so disturbing to your delicate and fragile ego. |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
What an interesting discussion! After following through the various responses, I am pondering on 1. Do we want to be right? Or to be happy? Or both when discussing about questions on trolling on trolls? If we (our participants in this forum, at least) are right in our "answers" then must someone be "wrong"? Or are we both right? Is it a matter of personal perception and interpretation, whether one is an aberration or not? Or something else? 2. Are there any other "alternatives" in treating the aberration? That's other than the "Fight", "Flight" or "Being assertive", or even silence...that I see might have been happening in this forum...This is just my observation, please don't see it as my judgment....and I respect your views. 3. What is the best approach? |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
aaah, the answer would be, based on network diagrams, is to engage those on the fringes, talking around the individual attempting to influence. It always depends, just as it would in person. One's response to the individual will be based on your emotions at the time, whether they touched any buttons. In other forums, not this one, where words which cause great pain ot others are expressed, I am always impressed by those most hurt being able to counter the arguments, engage others, and in the process increase knowledge. Whether it be around gender identity, same-sex marriage or the staggering weight of caring for a medically fragile child, they time & again educate me on wisdom of dealing with the ignorant. It also depends on the forum's relationship with the poster. Is there is a sense the person you are engaging with has slipped over a line, such as a bi-polar individual or someone dealing with signifcant depression, or just someone having a bad day. In those cases, one will tend to do care around the individual, rather than engaging them. In the few rare cases, where it is thought that someone is breaking a hates hate lawsas defined within our country, then, a request to an independent moderator should result in removal of the post , with caution/education. It takes very vile posts to break the rules, and sadly, I have seen it done. In the even rarer cases, where someone repeatedly does so, then blocking can and should be done. In addition, if someone is consistently disrupting hte public peace, then again, the forum may just need a breather. Again, that would be an independent moderators responsibility. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
| An informed and insightful response, Jayne. And you outline basically the approach I am taking with this forum. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
The sound of head-patting is thunderous there, Stephen. Aren't you all clever with this concept: "engage those on the fringes, talking around the individual attempting to influence." Except...I just proved in my thread analyzing the blog content that the "individuals attempting to influence" *are the same people as those on the blogs you are feting*. And now we're hearing an interesting theory: people are not allowed to influence on networks of the Main Influencer, yourself, doesn't like them lol. Every means must be sought to get away from those evil influencers! Your concept of what is tolerable in a forums, Jayne, is rather restricted. And yet you feel as if you are "in charge" here and can decide to "welcome" someone lol. Uncanny. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
And yet you feel as if you are "in charge" here and can decide to "welcome" someone lol. This is a perfect example. Rude, pointed, inaccurate, uncalled for, derogatory, unproductive and completely lacking compassion. It is easy to see how someone uttering such things would be found living under a bridge amongst the fungi and damp molds, warty, perpetually irritable and charging their pound of flesh to all who would pass over the bridge to reach a conclusion or explore a path. It may have been born on a BBS, but some terms stay because they are apt. Others, like your perpetually myopic use of the term "Geek" serve to expose your ignorance of the subject. Welcome to the inter-web, "expert". |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Actually, what's damn rude, pointed, inaccurate, uncalled for, and derogatory is Jayne's *completely over the top* response to me elsewhere, asking me if "now I feel more welcomed" -- as if she is the Welcome Wagon Lady, and as if expressing one's opinion or countering others' opinions is some hazing ritual that people "need" to go through in order to "feel welcome". Ugh. And gosh, what touching concern for being "compassionate," when Jayne's posts to me have all been nasty, pointed, rude, and seeking to play "gotcha". I push back. Deal with it. I can always tell a controlling geek a mile away by their use of the faux-ignorant trope "inter-web". Gosh, that's funny, hearing that tic the millionth time. I think I've done a pretty good job of flushing out the characteristics of "Geek" which are on display here: "perpetually irritable and charging their pound of flesh to all who would pass over the bridge to reach a conclusion or explore a path." |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
I push back. Deal with it. Except that in every instance, the first insults come from you - nobody else seems to have a problem with anyone else which rather suggests where the root of the problem (if there is one) might lie, no? |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
No, actually, you need to research your topic better. I began merely by expressing *skepticism* about the ideology being taught here; I criticized what I saw as its problematic premises. This caused some people to get into a lather; I responded to them. Others, disliking controversing, began to call for suppression of this criticism. I pushed back. I haven't made any insults first. You have, however. There isn't any problem, really, except, as I characterized it a number of times already, certain thin-skinned geeks. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
What a nutball. The post itself was rude etc. having nothing to do with your personal history (which is impossible to ascertain from the post you responded to). The rudeness was a perfect example of a Troll-like activity. A sour Geek might also be called a troll... but are you saying all Geeks are trolls? What about Geeks that don't blog, don't like SL, breastfeed more passionately than they code and have a clue about the real history of the net, not your warped version? It really is getting tiring seeing your interference when you could be assisting the process here. I'm not asking anything of you other than to stop making ridiculous generalizations that you can't hold up, like the Geeks and Nursing tripe. Others I have been subjected to include some endlessly ongoing diatribe against whatever you think a Geek is. and a Communist. I can only guess that because you claim to speak Russian, you assume the mantle of expert opinion giver of all things Communist. Seriously. Then there was the litany of authoritative statements about the Open Source Software movement and the motives behind same, where you exhibit a dazzling display of complete and utter ignorance of fact in favor of your hastily cobbled together opinion. Who the hell cares about Second Life anyhow? Does that make you a non-tekkie? and therefore somehow more human? Too weird. After all this, you keep poking sharp sticks by calling me thin skinned directly where I never evidenced any whining about my hide, just the ridiculous claptrap you keep spewing as fact. The things you post here are so far off base and far fetched that they usually demand a response, but merely doing so 'proves' your thesis that everyone has a yen to argue with you. What-evurrr.... I mentioned "inter-web" not out of faux anything, but as a sarcastic reminder to you that you come across as a nincompoop riding the three things you are so obviously against and then launching a completely unscientific 'research study' to refute one aspect of a speech given by one human being about a pretty broad topic. Have you noticed that even without your 'valuable' interjections puhlenty of folks here and abroad have been asking honest questions about the method and assumptions presented in this clearly proclaimed "Experiment" ? Is it a sign of weakness that these thin skinned, lilly livered, intellectual pantywaists ask a polite question? Is it an 'obvious' sign of nefarious motives that the instigators of this experiment tend to respond to every such question with what appears to be a reasonable reply that doesn't ever reject the questioner out of hand? I mean seriously. I have tried to engage you directly to respond with something other than arguments 1, 2 and 3 about why these two men suck and why geeks and tekkies suck and how Open Source is an affront to fair minded techno capitalist saviours who work for such egalitarian institutions as Micro$oft. Ugh. Double Ugh with a pound of your flabby ass on it. Ol' Bill stole DOS, deliberately lied to his customers, illegally manipulated the market and literally destroyed the livelyhoods of a fair number of creative entrepreneurs while creating the tech industry of "Partners" to install, configure and repair his broken proprietary crap and who had to sign agreements to NOT offer anyone else's product solutions. Is that what capitalism is all about and why communism is stupid? Get off it. Much of the OS community released their wares precisely because what the commercial market was making (vs what it was worth) was obscene. Many 'tekkies' spent a great deal of time trying to explain this to people like you I'm sure. Fundamentally though, the technology shouldn't have been so slow to develop. Your free market actually retarded progress to maintain another product marketing cycle on more than a few occasions along the way. PLease for the love of whatever feathery faery winged SL god you chew the toenails of, please try to pull a creative idea out of your thinkhole and contribute to what is happening all around you Catherine the "could-be-great". We get it. You are deathly afraid that Mr. Siemens will take over the world with his ideas. ok. Meanwhile a whole lot of interested people are looking in his box to see what he has. If it works, then fine. if they come across a better idea, then, better. What you are doing seems to be confusing the issue and possibly turning people away from this place for no reason whatsoever. Why not let others see what is going on here and find a way to converse with, instead of against them? It isn't so hard to do. Love is the most radical, revolutionary act you could engage in right now. Steer this titanic another direction with the powers of thought that you posess. I'm hearing that Connective-ism is what you don't want to take over education... mindless following of a potentially dangerous educational fad concerns you... how many times can you make the same point? Are you seriously waiting for George to shut down the Moodle, burn his notes and go home crying? Really? Trolls are a part of many online experiences. Asberger's is part of society. ok, then what? What I am getting out of this experience is that the tools being used, the connections created and methods of interaction that are already happening all around us deserve to be looked at in a way that could show us all how to help others reach understanding in a rapidly changing communications landscape. Tools and methods of seeing are on the verge of arrival that will be another quantum leap forward to illustrating what we all think clearly and cannot always describe. The inherent power of connectivity is producing an energy potential that will dwarf all these interpersonal games because lives are at stake. In my opinion Catherine, we need you to help figure out what is going on in a way that creates understanding. Be a maverick, show us a big idea, tell us about your experiences. Can you do it without offensively generalizing in a way that is so innacurate? |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Um, Om? Do you realize that every minute you spend kvetching about trolls and whining about someone whose posts you don't like is time spent away from the substantive course material. It's a waste of time even for me to bother with your nasty invective, but I do it to keep the record straight, and to help sway any weak minds that are undecided on these matters : ) <What a nutball. Gosh, that was indeed mature, and I notice Stephen Downes isn't running to the rescue to cry "ad hominem". But that's ok, I don't mind people calling names, it's ok and allowed in a robust democracy. >The post itself was rude etc. having nothing to do with your personal history (which is impossible to ascertain from the post you responded to). No, Jayne Little was rude herself, as is her amen corner (which includes the professor). As for my "personal history," I don't get the reference, but it's immaterial, you're welcome to Google witch-hunt. Just spell the name right. >The rudeness was a perfect example of a Troll-like activity. A sour Geek might also be called a troll... but are you saying all Geeks are trolls? What about Geeks that don't blog, don't like SL, breastfeed more passionately than they code and have a clue about the real history of the net, not your warped version? It really is getting tiring seeing your interference when you could be assisting the process here. I'm not asking anything of you other than to stop making ridiculous generalizations that you can't hold up, like the Geeks and Nursing tripe. Geeks tend to subscribe to one level or another of the Geek Religion, which is variously described as the California Ideology or technolibertarianism. In fact, those most obsessed about "trolls" exhibit the traits themselves, as you do. I hardly think I need to accept these warped histories of the net told by you or Jayne Little or anyone else with a biase toward the Founding Fathers. As for passionate breastfeeders, in my experience of various forums, the geeks are in fact very much anti-breast feeding, I can think of some really nasty posts in this regard putting down the practice. I'm not interested in "assisting the process" which is some collectivist subbotnik that I'm not going to be forced on, as I will not subscribe to the party line. If you find my statements "ridiculous generalizations," you can either look to your own eye-logs, or turn the page. I think I've fairly well established my generalizations *yet again* -- there are always a handful of hard core "group minders" like yourself who begin to berate and browbeat and bully and use coarse and harsh language and vivid horror pictures to try to drive someone who criticizes their tribe off the forums. Sorry, it won't be working on me. >Others I have been subjected to include some endlessly ongoing diatribe against whatever you think a Geek is. and a Communist. I can only guess that because you claim to speak Russian, you assume the mantle of expert opinion giver of all things Communist. Seriously. I don't have to "make up" something about geeks. Geeks are in full regalia, in full peacock display on this forum, which is a rich matrix of some of the geekiest in edu tech. And the behaviour has been abundantly true to form. Some people hate it when you make judgements and observations on group-think. Group-think is real, and at work here, and naturally the group-thinkers won't like to be called on their group-think lol. I don't "claim" to speak Russian. I *do* speak Russian. I don't claim to be "an expert" but in fact I do know a lot, and certain have a qualified opinion about Communism. Seriously. You're simply bullying and name-calling and harassing. I have good company in my opinions on open source software -- programmers, proprietary software makers from companies like Dell, even leaders of the OS movement itself who have turned critical of it. Like my favourite, Nikolai Bezroukov, example here. My opinion may be non-expert, but it isn't hastily made or cobbled together, but the product of many years of observation. As for Second Life, well, your mileage may very. It has way more non-geek users than geek users, and the battle with the tekkies plays out there very vividly as a result. Let me suggest that you exhibit thin-skinnededness by having to huff and puff and write long answers. It's long past the sell-by date. As for me being "far off base," well, here's a course where the professor claims that knowledge is "no(thing)" and isn't transferred and scarcely exists except as a set of connections, and where people have posted all kinds of wacky stuff. I'm pretty much in the mainstream with my ideas, which are merely outside the magic circle. Once again, my research here about the blogs isn't in reaction to one line in one speech on a broad topic. It's merely that a link to that one line was provided. But you can find a dozen posts here in the forums and on the Daily where Stephen Downes is driving people to the blogs and deriding the forums. This doesn't need providing, you just need to look for it. It's completely scientific to remain curious about the obvious falsity in Stephen's propagandistic drive, after of course seizing the telegraph station himself in The Daily and on his blog, which of course has the lion's share of eyeballs. Whenever someone says "inter-web" they are inherently faux, and inherently cynical and in bad faith. Actually, not very people have been asking questions about the assumptions and methods. There are actually only about 3-4. The rest ask questions to imbibe the doctrine as they don't want to be left behind on the lastest fashion, but they aren't critical. In fact, what most of the replies consist of are as follows: George: "we'll get to that later in the course, thanks" and Stephen: "actually, you're wrong, as you can discover by reading my dense article on the subject." As for "why geeks suck," you're proving my point. Are people who work for Microsoft saviours? No, they just make a product that works for most of us, unlike Linux, which isn't usable. <Double Ugh with a pound of your flabby ass on it. Well, that seems like I really over-the-top personal attack. It's good that you can then be easily discredited with making this sort of vulgar statement. <Ol' Bill stole DOS, deliberately lied to his customers, illegally manipulated the market and literally destroyed the livelyhoods of a fair number of creative entrepreneurs while creating the tech industry of "Partners" to install, configure and repair his broken proprietary crap and who had to sign agreements to NOT offer anyone else's product solutions. Is that what capitalism is all about and why communism is stupid? Get off it. This is a narrative that script kiddies and opensourceniks tell each other from Mom's Basement. It's their narrative of victimology. Microsoft strikes me as being about oligarchy, not communism or capitalism, but it practices oligarchy within an open capitalist system that could make choices and doesn't -- Linux is unusable. >Much of the OS community released their wares precisely because what the commercial market was making (vs what it was worth) was obscene. Thanks for making this sort of lurid comment, it lets us know we are dealing with a pathological cultic opensourcenik. >Many 'tekkies' spent a great deal of time trying to explain this to people like you I'm sure. Fundamentally though, the technology shouldn't have been so slow to develop. Your free market actually retarded progress to maintain another product marketing cycle on more than a few occasions along the way. Gosh, um, the horrah. I'll see what I can do to manage "my product cycle" in "my free market" better next time. >PLease for the love of whatever feathery faery winged SL god you chew the toenails of, please try to pull a creative idea out of your thinkhole and contribute to what is happening all around you Catherine the "could-be-great". We get it. You are deathly afraid that Mr. Siemens will take over the world with his ideas. ok. I am contributing. I'm not afraid of either Siemens or Downes. George is a pretty nice guy, and has a redeeming virtue: he believes in objective reality, and he also wants this ideology to be "nice" and "sell". He is looking for consulting gigs. He will not become too extreme as a result. Stephen is the more dangerous and destructive of the two as he doesn't believe in reality. However, perhaps he can be reached by invocation of certain practical shared experiences, such as staring at the same hotdog going round and round on the rotisserie at the 7/11 (that is where his first Connectivist seditious and insurrectionist thoughts may have occurred to him). >Meanwhile a whole lot of interested people are looking in his box to see what he has. If it works, then fine. if they come across a better idea, then, better. What you are doing seems to be confusing the issue and possibly turning people away from this place for no reason whatsoever. Why not let others see what is going on here and find a way to converse with, instead of against them? It isn't so hard to do. Oh, once again the horrah. Imagine, grown people with DSL lines and high-end computers, many of them employed as edu techs and IT geeks, being "driven away" because somebody said "I prefer not to" and "I don't believe". Imagine, "confusing the issue" because I ask merely common-sense questions from a pretty mainstream non-specialist and non-technical perspective that seldom penetrates the magic circle. I fail to see why people can't see the material they want to see, and if their sensitive thin-skin is set aflutter at the idea of criticism, they can turn the page. There is always another thread. >Love is the most radical, revolutionary act you could engage in right now. Steer this titanic another direction with the powers of thought that you posess. I'm hearing that Connective-ism is what you don't want to take over education... mindless following of a potentially dangerous educational fad concerns you... how many times can you make the same point? Are you seriously waiting for George to shut down the Moodle, burn his notes and go home crying? Really? One of the reasons "Love" gets a bad name is that it is wielded as a heavy ideological, controlling, and bullying stick by someone as nasty as you. Um, I'm not going to be engaging in any revolutionary acts. I'm hoping George will keep up the Moodle because I won't be able to digest all the material in 12 weeks, and hope to come back to it throughout the year. However, that depends on "gardeners" like you getting pushed back so that they don't "prune" everything. >Trolls are a part of many online experiences. Asberger's is part of society. ok, then what? Do you suffer from this condition? >What I am getting out of this experience is that the tools being used, the connections created and methods of interaction that are already happening all around us deserve to be looked at in a way that could show us all how to help others reach understanding in a rapidly changing communications landscape. Pablum. Overstatement. Giddy silly lala-land. The Internet is just a big telephone with trucks hooked up to it. Twitter is like a bigger, persistent version of the 6th grade book called "the slam book" or "blab book". >Tools and methods of seeing are on the verge of arrival that will be another quantum leap forward to illustrating what we all think clearly and cannot always describe. The inherent power of connectivity is producing an energy potential that will dwarf all these interpersonal games because lives are at stake. Oh, dear Jesus on a crutch. "Lives are at stake." Get up from your computer and take a walk. You are suffering from Internet toxicity. >In my opinion Catherine, we need you to help figure out what is going on in a way that creates understanding. Be a maverick, show us a big idea, tell us about your experiences. Can you do it without offensively generalizing in a way that is so innacurate? Uh, what do you mean "We", white man? You don't need to do squat. I don't need "help". Go be a maverick yourself and stop behaving like a typical geek controlling nit. It's unattractive, and a time-suck. I already tell about my experiences, I already contribute, and I also find little of value in continuing to talk to you, you are an invalid interlocutor. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Um, Cathrine? I love how when faced with your same invective, your tone becomes so rational and balanced. That shows some real potential. You have no idea what brand of geekdom you would place me in. If by reading the dozen or so posts here on this forum, or the fact that I reject your use of the term makes me a geek then you are proving your own point and it doesn't merit any further discussion. It is a wild generalization that is factually meaningless and lumps together a wide variety of people into one subclass. To come into an internet based forum and sling around the word geek is bound to garner a response or two. Trollish behavior. Bill Gates did steal Dr. DOS and the rest of that 'narrative' is entirely accurate, no fable here. Micro$oft has been a clear example of technocapitalists taking advantage of their client's non technicality to lock in a sale. I'm not an opensourcenik. That term could only mean a person who virulently argues in favor of open source (or free as you might describe) versus commercial (or potentially obscenely overpriced and promulgated through illegal means as I might say). I have and continue to use open source tools (not linux, which actually is quite workable in its various flavors happily for millions of people) and benefit from the ability of others to participate in product development without having to rewrite the entire aplication or start a software publishing corporation in order to share their innovation with others. Why is IBM among the more prominent commercial ventures who have "bought into" OS so deliberately since 1999 ? Why can't you think of it as Democratic Software ? How dare you take a small group of anything and ascribe them powers over the rest of us? Or infer that since I defend x or y from your blanket statements that I am a bona fide member of that group. You express ignorance often and on many levels. Does that feel clever to you when you say such categorical things? As for the rest of my assertions and your responses, they are meaningless. Would you like me to refute every quote? Spend time on an analysis of every inaccurate statement or blanket assertion? Would that help you to be less abrasive followed by more persistent fits of rationality? You don't "merely" push back, you instigate (Well, perhaps you do, but from what I have noticed, the initial push you are responding to seems invisible more often than not). Are you offended by something here? You choose to stay... to help others see the light? Sounds like a noble cause, so why not act like you care about what you say enough to apply your own critic's eye to your own editing process. You have no real idea if I am a man of color who has been educated in White schools, or even a man for that matter. Does your SL character have any female attributes? Does using the word "controlling" make you a woman-victim with the right to attack mindlessly and then act rational when reactions pop up? What does all this mean in the first place? If you had used the word "orphan" instead of "Geek" would you feel as justified to say "They all..." this and that? If you had merely parenthetically enumerated the word "Geek" clearly as your own invented definition we might not be having this conversation. Yet you profess to speak for all Geeks and ascribe motives to "their" actions. Pathetic. I do not make money from the tech industry. I have raised a deaf child for three years so far and can tell you a thing or two about marginalized communities and because of who I am; prejudice. I did, ten years ago, get paid $50/hour to design/fix Windoze networks, but my beef with commercial software practices in the enterprise go way beyond that experience. You speak in terms that make perfect but unsubstantiate-able sense to you. Awesome. I can refute every proof you provide and vice versa. Then What? Is that a conversation? I feel that I have proven my ongoing interest to engage you in a dialogue (this last post notwithstanding) and draw out your ideas in a way that might be productive. You have actually, at times, seemed to soften a bit and sound more rational. That's awesome. You don't need to fight to create change, or attack to prove a point. There are quite a few examples of questioning the basic assumptions of the experiment. Re-read the responses to your own posts for starters. And yes, lives are at stake. I knew you would try to dismiss that one but the facts are plain. What educators decide to stand up for or let slide impacts lives directly. The policies educators accept, the rights they teach about, and the passion with which they convey important messages about history and freedom has a very real impact on what a society accepts as morally acceptable. A million or so Iraqi's are dead. More than Hussein could have ever dreamed of killing on his own. The US Gov't is complicit in horrors as a matter of foreign policy and the evidence is in the public record. No guessing involved. It usually comes out 30 years too late to sway public opinion, but the fact remains and should serve as a motivator. Interconnected humanity spreads a message that bleeds out onto the streets and can result in profound outreach among a wide diversity of population and species groups. So, yes, lives are at stake to the point of making this tit-for-tat seem idiotic. That's why I performed my own experiment, visible above. We (you and I) have bigger things to explore here and possibly elsewhere, including solving whatever things present themselves on our personal radar screen. Connectivism is on yours apparently and I hope you use your intellect to help out a bit more, mostly because I'd like to hear your critique expanded to redirect the dominant theories toward a more accurate path. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Blustering; not very intelligent. Not an interesting conversation -- not worth the time to refute -- especially as the author is anonymous. Geek Religion: "Fan of: Paolo Soleri, Bucky Fuller, Laurie Anderson, Jello Biafra Dream of: Shaping life enhancing experiences by providing soul satisfying subliminal user experiences Care about: wellness, positivity, learning, expression Learning: sign language! Also, a meaning and use of epistemology which is anathema to a dissertation on zen  "I hate it when people on the Internet tell you about some life hardship or tragedy in an effort to trump some argument -- not acceptable. Most of the people killed in the Iraq war, which I oppose and urge to be ended, are killed by terrorists, not by the U.S. I don't hear a plan to deal with terrorism, other than by disabling the U.S. Not valid interlocutor. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
"Most of the people killed in the Iraq war, which I oppose and urge to be ended, are killed by terrorists." If by terrorist, you mean death squads known to be forming in the vacuum of power and chaos since before the 'invasion' then one must examine the motivation to create such chaos in the first place. Not many 'Geeks' know or care who Paolo Soleri is. We are back to your personal definition which (you thankfully agree) isn't worth arguing about. You are free to have your personal definitions. It is customary to preface those with a disclaimer though. Proving my background to you is a gift, not a trump. You accused me of participating in fables and claim to "know a lot" i.e. 'more' is how you come across. Cease and desist. I dream of and care about: would take a lot more room and time than I felt like spending at that moment. Surely you have been through the same? It does require that I accept the risk of being interpreted by the yardstick of any passer by.. and here you are. Plans to deal with terrorism require an unobstructed view of the guilty and applying the balm of justice to old festering wounds. We would be well served to break open the CIA archives and sincerely end our duplicitous behavior. "We kill for good" is completely nonsensical. Wrecking the constitution is not a plan, supporting zionism is not a plan, and saying whatever it takes to get elected does not make you a leader. What is your opinion on week 4? |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Hi Om Design Thank's for making things much clearer about this 'troll' subject. I'm newbee in forums, I have not cracked the code, yet, but your post helps me a lot.  I think it is important with a sceptic, and critical approach to what we are presented for. And I think Catherine seems to be very sharp in her thinking, but ( as much as I understand of the conversation) there is an underlying agenda that I disagree with. I think you make things understandable and then still including everybody in the process. I didn't know what a nutball was, so I looked it up: Nutball: (Urban Dictionary) A person of extreme (nutty) beliefs. A zealot who wishes to force others to accept their fringe belief system. Usually reserved for persons of right wing (conservative) persuasion. A nutball is so sure they are right, they may do physical harm to anyone who disagrees with them. "That nutball is trying to get evolution out of our school." Some common nutball types are: bomb-packing terrorists, christian evangelists, creationists, way-right republicans, war-mongers, hate-mongers, white supremacists, nazis, extremests. It is funny, in a way, but deviation of the course for the discussion might be set in. Is Steven a nutball? Jorgen C |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
>there is an underlying agenda that I disagree with. Heaven forfend! Trust the Urban Dictionary to give us a left-wingers' definition *chuckles*. "Usually reserved" lol? No. "Nutballs" could include those who think of themselves on the left or libertarians like Singularists, Extropians, Ron Paulians, etc. Now there's a nutball, Ron Paul. And also on the left like anarchists, Bolsheviks, etc. I am a registered Democrat, I vote Democrat straight ticket, occasionally voting for the Green Party. My only deviation is my 9/11 mugged liberal vote for Patacki (governor of NY). I'm going to be voting for Obama. Yeah, guess that makes me a nutball : ) |
 | Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Catherine, Intersting Political voting pattern. Do you see yourself as a conformist politically? LOL. On other subjects you have talked about you appear to be a non-conformist. I would have expected you to vote independent. (I do not expect people to get into details about their politic views. I was once taught that politics, sex, and religion one does not talk about in polite conversation. I myself do strategic voting becasue I know who I don't like and don't want in, but I find all parties, leaders and ideologies wanting. I wish we could have a more representive system. Sometimes when teahcing my poltical science calsses (yes I do that as well), I not the Canadina system is not really democratic. The idea 125 years ago was more about the rule of law and roder than rule of democracy. In the 1993 Canada election I spoiled my ballot becasue I did not like Mulrooney, Cretien, or the NDP leader. I researche dfor weeks to find something I could identify with and finally decided spoiling my ballot at least gave me the right to complain about the system and who stood for what.) Brad |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
There aren't good enough independent candidates. They are often sectarian and weird. Like Ron Paul and his supporters, the Libertarians, on the right, or Cynthia McKinney, on the hard left. Do I need to explain the problem with Ralph Nader? Etc. It would be good if the U.S. parties split into 4 parties and if there were more parliamentary rather than fake bi-partisan politics. Well, now that Gorbachev has created a political party at last, all those write-in votes for him in the U.S. may start to mean something lol. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
Catherine I am sorry that you feel that all my posts are abusive to you. I do welcome you to re-review them, as I was looking to understand your viewpoint. Possibly upon subseqent reviews, you may see them in a differet light. |
| Re: Trolling for Trolls |
|
I don't accept your statement as sincere, whatsoever, given your track record. No, I suggest that you review entirely your concept that you can decide who is welcome, and who isn't, and that you can make a judgement about whether a person is acting "in order to feel welcome" as if they are...the Welcome Wagon Lady. This is key, as the problem with groups is they always generate cores who fight for the "soul of the group" as they understand it, and stop progress and true networking in a democratic and liberal spirit. For example, think of the closed e-learning group on Ning. In addition to having Connectivist Stephen Downes incite everyone to go to moderated blogs to screen out people, some of the best pupils are inciting people to go to their closed Ning discussion group lol. |