Trolls & Civility

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

Trolls…an internet term used to degrade and differentiate an individual or a group that does not fit into the “norm”, as this is defined by a community of minds.

The term is supposed to explain why some do not or cannot participate in as manner the majority finds appropriate and “positive”.
Since all minds take themselves and their own experiences and understanding as a starting point, the notion that someone may not care to be liked or to be a part of their group seems odd.

Other than the motive of causing a stir and drawing attention upon himself the Troll cannot be comprehended by a mind entrenched in herd psychology. For it being appreciated and accepted by as many people as possible is the highest of all goals and so to display behavior that prohibit this seems ill or a psychological dysfunction they cannot relate to other than ascribing to it a motive they can comprehend, and one which is most often true: the desire for attention.

Of course the other possibility of someone holding onto positions they would find insulting and hurtful and the uninhibited drive to express these positions is alien to their common sense.
That someone would find participating within a group who share ideals this mind detests as being vile and difficult, is also incomprehensible to these manimals.

They consider social behavior as one leading directly to their own herd psychology, having on other example of a group which is not as slavish and based on the cult of victim-hood.
They cannot understand how less can be more or how quality can be preferable to quantity, to the point where one would rather go without rather than settle for the mediocre and the base.
For them to be popular IS to be good; and to be rich IS to be a genius; and to be liked IS to be virtuous.

But we can already see the effects of fragmentation in reaction to increasing uniformity. Those who resist or who stand opposed or who offer an alternative to the common n uniforming principle of the majority must be slandered, shamed and explained in the most degrading ways so as to explain and make virtuous their own inability to think outside the herd’s box.

Anyone who disturbs their common peace must be someone who resents their “happiness” and anyone who rejects their soothing laments must be someone who is envious of their common love.

It is always those we hate that defines who we are, and this is also so with groups and sueprorganisms.
We are, in effect, who we refuse to be or who we do not wish to be like.
For the modern Judeo-Christian mind, now reinvented as a secular humanist and liberal, this hatred is associated with a vice and so the members so infected cannot admit to it. Instead they turn their own self-pity outwards in an act of projecting upon another their own self-hatred, pitying those who cannot or refuse to participate in their herd.

At it’s most basic level a Troll is one who disrupts.
In most cases, this is true, this is done purposefully to cause all eyes to turn in the direction of the one disturbing the herd’s communal peace but in a very few it is simply an honest opinion offered and which now must be stifled and censored and kept a secret as a way of not disturbing a peace and quiet; the peace and quiet of the regurgitating herd’s slumber.
Just as in the case of conspiracy theories one must only utter the term, associating all with the ridiculous so as to dismiss it as being unworthy of consideration.

Calling the 9/11 theories as being conspiratorial only associates it with alien abduction and lizards in the White House theories making them all seem one and the same.
Similarly calling the one who uses shock and aw to draw attention upon himself with someone who speaks his mind honestly only to find his views as being considered too hateful or vile by a group which can never think anything that exceeds their communal principles is a perfect way to dismiss the last by associating him with the easier and much more common first.

The herd can never accept any idea which inhibits cohesion and mass participation, as its values are guided by the standard of quantities measured with numbers.
Since one of their shared myths is free-expression and tolerance they require a fantastic caricature to find an exception to their common delusions.
The Troll is born as much more than an easy way to dismiss anything that threatens their unified delusions; it also functions as an emotive caricature…ugly and alien and inhuman, acting as a monster that threatens the masses closer and closer together in the surrounding night.

2

When mass participation is the goal then the level of discourse is reduced to the point where the majority can follow it and are not overly disturbed or insulted by it.

This reduces what topics are permitted to be explored seriously but it also forces upon the participants a self-censorship.

The prohibition of seriousness is founded on the concept that some ideas are “self-evident”, since the majority have agreed upon them in some ambiguous form, though is pressured very few of them would be able of offering a coherent and shared definition and/or argument in their support.
That these concepts are taken as being a “given” makes them unapproachable and unexplored; most parroting them with no real understanding of their promises.

This also sets-up the potential to ridicule or slander anybody who dares to differ in this regard.
This leads to a form of lynching where the many fearing to be exposed to ideas they cannot deal with or forced to defend their own “self-evident” position which they have little to no understanding of, settle for this mob rule where all are protected form their own simplicity while claiming the upper-hand in the domain of morality.
Any retribution using similar tactics or tactics adapted to deal with this kind of mod-rule are quickly dealt with by the administrators who are on the side of the many since they share with them the same delusions and so the same "self-evident certainty and ignorance, but also because they serve their need for popularity making them side with the greater number as a matter of logic.

The other angle of self-cesorship is supported by a communal rule of etiquette which states that the weakest must be protected form the strongest and the dimmest from the brightest which relates ot the rpevious in that intelligence is rare and so is always at a numerical disadvantage to the more common and the most base.

The lowering of the quality of discourse by using moralistic and emotional methodologies built upon the premise of communal unity, communal identity, Christian morals, now evolved into humanitarianism, inhibit any honest and lucid and direct exploration of reality.
All must be filtered through the human prism of shared interests where the lowest shared interest is the most valuable one, because upon it an entire edifice of unity is maintained.

Anyone who dares cross these lines of shared weakness faces condemnation, mass assault, character assignation, mocking, casual dismissals and the usual methods of defensiveness which are reinforced by the fact that they are shared and common and that they serve a common goal which is sometimes implied but never stated outright.
The only forms of debate or conflict permitted within the herd are only those which deal with the justifications and structures their communion will take, never dealing with the need and the foundations and the reasons why this communion is necessary at all. As such, all dialogue is restricted to subjects and approaches which are deemed appropriate and so always remain entrenched within communal limitations: thinking within the box.

All of this is an aspect of feminization as it is firmly rooted in the necessity for social cooperation and the superstructures (institutions, states, churches) this evolves into.
The masculine energy being more confrontational, anti-authoritarian, wanting to replace the existent order with its own, antagonistic and disruptive is automatically considered a Troll.

Of course unbridled masculine energy, that is masculinity which has failed to find some self-discipline or that exhibits a quality which cannot be dealt with in the usual culling methods of nature, can be far too much for any herd to handle; like a rabid dog would be disturbing to a pack of dogs.

3

The accusation of “trolling” is the internet version of political-correctness.
It simply and easily implies the other’s intent; his/her “bad faith” in participation, and dismisses him/her as not worth responding to, especially when you don’t have a response to his challenge.

The label attempts to promote an internet social etiquette based on the desired outcome of mass participation (more is better - the victory of quantity over quality), respect for all and their ideas and ideals (relativism pushed to its absurd nihilistic conclusion) - no matter how stupid and ignorant they might be - and a repression of any opinion which might even hint at an insult or a hurtful conclusion against anyone…except the instigator of “trolling” that is.

Here the Christian, humanitarian ethos steps in to offer a solution: do not hate anyone but pity them in this way remaining true to your self-serving slavish morality while at the same time projecting your self-hatred upon the other and showing compassion for it; a form of self-forgiveness for being born so weak and stupid and cowardly.

Now this is not to say that the phenomenon of trolling is not a real one but it is to say that it has now been hijacked and is being used as a condemnation of unwanted positions, in the same way that racism is a real phenomenon and so is sexism but both terms are now taken up by those who wish to dismiss any legitimate positions that threaten their egalitarian Judeo-Christiane nd secular humanistic/Marxist moralities without having to deal with them.

The feeling of weakness or of being at a disadvantage might not be admitted, not even to one’s self, but it is obvious.
The majority just parrot opinions, adopting the ones they were brought up to not question and that are conveniently soothing and flattering and hopeful and forgiving. They quickly find themselves unable to defend what they cannot doubt or have ever explored, considering their positions self-evident, when they come across someone who has thought things over and that can defend his own positions as well as attack weaker ones.

The modernistic moral code of “live and let live” need not be uttered.
Nobody likes anyone who makes them rethink what they hold as being sacred particularly when they’ve invented a lifetime on its certainty.
The concept of “troll” which usually accompanies the concept of “racist” and “sexist” and “cynic” and “pessimist” or any word that can produce an autoimmune response is how the average simpleton deals with reality and with anyone impolite enough to remind him or her of its indifferent threats outside of the feel-good comforting idealisms most prefer to numb themselves with.

4

As an example of all that was said I offer you Exhibit A:

On Being Called a Troll - ILP Farm

The entire gamut of defensiveness, herd psychology, cooperative grooming, exclusionary self-righteousness, self-evident presumptuousness and a deep, yet unstated, fear of the object of hurt.

According to their “logic” or psychology any hunter is a Troll for the herd of deer.
Weakness must be protected, because it is felt in their own bosom, and suicide becomes a terrible thing in an overpopulated world where most would not even exist if it were not for sheltering.

Notice how the entire subject is dedicated to figuring out “what do do with those trolls” or the big bad world that confronts our safety and sense of identity.
Here we have a real-time example of how identity is built on the negative of “what I am not” or “what I choose not to be”.
In the former there is no capacity for a choice and so the only option is one: fleeing.
In the latter the implication of a choice is obvious: one chooses not to be like the other when he can or has been.

In the first case, which is here what is offered as an example, the incapacity to have an alternative option concludes in a defensiveness seeking methods and ploys to avoid what reminds them of their incapacity.
In effect they gather to share tactics of saving face in lieu of their obvious weaknesses.
They agree, in fact, that these trolls or “bullies” cannot be defeated or ignored, being too clever to be ignored, and so the only alternative is to block them, through intervening moderators, fight them risking being exposed for what you are, or to “toughen your skin” so that their words do not hurt as much.
If we take the concept of a bully we see how here the teacher is asked to intervene so that the sickly, weak boy can be protected form tis own deficiencies, because here all -inclusion is a given and natural selection does not apply - we are dealing with an idealistic, utopian reality vying for the position of paradise.
The bullied is not held accountable, for he is “innocent”, being born the way he is and a perpetual victim of his nature. We can see how being weak is now converted using some form of nihilistic alchemy into a strength and the fallibility which makes it incapable of defending itself and which attracts abuse offers it virtue.
Ironically the “victim” here comes looking for a challenge, presumably to test his opinions, but then screams for support when his arrogance proves to be misplaced.
Why do they come to a “philosophy forum” when they do not wish to be hurt or challenged? What presumptuous stupidity to assume that anything and everything that can be said about reality or humanity must be positive or must lead to an inspiration or a conclusion that benefits all.
The possibility of being called stunted or retarded because you might be, or because it is the result of the other’s judgment that you are, eludes them, for anything hurtful stated must be guided by a motive outside a description of what is real…which is what philosophy is dedicated to.

In their haste to pretend that they are or can be as rouygh as the others that make them feel weak, they settle upon insults with no content or a thrashing about in an unconsecrated attack, failing to see that substance can be a part of an insulting conclusion and a personal motive need not be a part of it.
If I were, for example, to engage a christian convinced that the Rapture were imminent and I were to call him intelelctually stunted, while also offering my rasons as to why his positions expose him as being so, then this retard would probably call me a “troll” or that I am seeking attention by being controversial and vulgar. All, you see, deserve respect, no matter how stupid and childish they are; all opinions must be defended from exposing the mind that holds them as true as being what it is.

It’s funny how I am mentioned repeatedly by the very one who came here to “teach me a lesson” and then fled like a woman to cast aspersions form behind the fences where he is protected.

5

The sheer power of the censoring device of language, is mind boggling.
One can only stand, mouth agape, before its force.

The term Troll, is enough, to pretend that something is dismissible or to be ignored, with no reply required.
If you read most on-line definitions, then it almost always contains some element of being impolite.

It does not matter what you say, just as long as you are polite about it.

Politeness is, of course, a form of self-censorship, a bowing down before the threat of social ostracizing.
Who, but a madman would stoop to that level of turning a blind eye to all the possible social repercussions of disrespecting anyone in the group.
Not even in an on-line venue full of anonymous participants, will this openness and honesty be tolerated.

Only an arrogant fool would consider himself above the popular decree.
A “god or a madman” as the case may be.

The premise is that no matter how much of an idiot the other is, he deserves and should be offered the minimum of respect expected by all and deserved by all.
It does not matter if this respect lends credence to stupidity, making it confident and loud, when it should be made to cower and to remain silent, because the potential dangers for allowing stupidity the illusion that it is making sense, pales in comparison to the possible hurt we may all face if civility crumbles.
Where would we be, truly, if everybody spoke their mind?

The motive here is not to attain some higher level of discourse and to raise individuals, those who can, above the mediocre…bu ti is to comfort, aid and protect, the many who must be included into the fold and made to feel cared for, loved and respected.

The label “Troll” is like the scarlet letter, of old. It is meant to send a message to all those who may be considering going outside the group’s norms.
Far from indicating a controversial topic, now it presumes the role of excluding from discussion anything and anyone who challenges the popular myths and who contradicts the fundamental principles of the herd.
The, so called Troll is disruptive, not always intentionally, but simply by being truthful and open.

The average dolt cannot imagine anyone holding onto positions which are the antithesis of what he or she considers a ‘done deal’ and an established fact.

Who, but a madman, would believe things that will get him into trouble or that are so unflattering and difficult to swallow, by the mediocre mind?
The “normal” and “healthy” man, remains comfortably within the social parameters, and does not rock the boat, even if he could.

6

What of the deranged child who, finding himself in a world of paraplegics, chooses to have sport with them, pushing them down steep inclines, and secretly greasing their wheels with feces?

I would have chastised, such a child, back when I was a child myself, but having been brought up in this crippled world, that wanted me bedridden and comatose, I have come to know the real humility and charity of the sickly.
They would sooner break your knees that allow you to run around their rotating spokes.

7

One must be forgiving to one’s neighbors, lest he face a similar treatment.
If wrath is to be exposed, then it must only be directed to those you fall outside the shared narrative, and the social agreements.
I’ll not speak of your lies, if you do not speak of mine…so let us rejoice in our shared, declarations of value and mirth and happiness.

And if he drops his pants in public, once in a while, who, but I, shall stoop to pull them up, around his exposed arse, before he regrets it, too much, the next morning.
It comforts me to see him in such a condition, because it makes me feel less hopeless and ashamed.
Facing myself in the mirror, day in and day out, has become a burden. I require the help of my neighbor, no less pathetic than I am, to validate my condition and to make me feel not so insecure.

I know, that he will not let me down, if he wants to be confident that I will not let him slip.
The silence is deafening.
All we can do now, to meet each other’s eyes, is speak of the weather, and our children, and the game last night.
Who, but an insane person, would break such a holy covenant?

8

The common beast finds comfort in the fields it has littered with its own feces.
A familiar smell, to make it feel at home.
Our homes are full of our dead skin cells and our fallen hair follicles, not to mention the rest of what comes out of us, adding an invisible layer on the walls; a carpet of propriety, everyone can sense on a visceral level.

Common spaces are no different.
Within them the shared flatulence, and burps, and sweat, and exhales, makes them distinguishable to anyone who has participated and added his own filth to it.
It feels, comfortable.

It feels so comfortable that the slightest disturbance, a different smell, is immediately noticeable, and not immediately acceptable.

What would a disturbance that does not comply with the odor standards be called, if not a smelly Troll?