Trolls & Trolling

The social and cultural applications of the internet type called Troll.

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.

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.

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 and 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.

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.


You really don’t like it when people don’t just buy into your little schema do you? You can turn what at first glance might seem to be a troll into a tool for learning if you can open your mind, think philosophically and recognize the limits of your positions while entertaining those of others without shoving them into your own apparently narrow view of the world. I mean…if you can do that that is.

No, what I don’t like is when boys shit all over the place, whine, call me names, and show a remarkable inability to actually understand what is being said, but still demand to be heard.

I bet the members here are proud to be in your company.

This whole thread is cut and paste Satyr. You’re dead wrong. We DO understand. That you came looking for agreement with your spiel and caught flak is just a repeat of long ago nattering. You’re boring, Sabina. There isn’t an original thought in anything you’ve posted. But carry on. You’ve already established your rep here and you will reap accordingly.

The comparisons were bound to happen and can’t be helped. But you know, lets just go with your story - its cut and paste and pure plagiarism. So? Deal with my content is all I say. Forget personality cults and whether I am boring or exciting or whatever, and address me on my core issues.

Didn’t you say you had no comprehension-limitations and I feared the spotlight, and here I am For it and so don’t accuse me now the other way.
If you are not interested in my content and just want to waste my time with your descriptive suspicions and what not, don’t bother.

I read all of this word for word.
You might think I don’t understand it.
You’re describing group think. But, there are actually quite a few people that like to be alone, at least some of the time. There is a difference between common error and grouping instincts/behaviors. Also you can’t just demonize one specific thing, the herd instincts or patterns, that category of things. Human flaw isn’t limited to that. There are very independent individuals which also are born wrong or they acquire a defect. Now when I say defect, I also assume that people won’t know what I’m referring to. Maybe you will. I’m not sure.

I believe in pre-disposed natures. Only certain types of ideas will become popular, for certain specific reasons. It’s non-random, and highly imperfect, but it’s there. Both good and evil predospositions to ideas and knowledge exist. “Trolls” are not according to your own definition either. There are many types which would be called a troll, some bad, some good, but mostly bad, because they are just being reactionists for the sake of it, to disturb instead of to help. The ‘herd’ doesn’t trust everyone. They don’t follow just anyone. They also are way less social than you seem to describe.

In many ways, group think is anti-social, in so far as it would promote often wars and hate between factions and groups of people. It’s not cohesive even if it is conformist. What holds things together is usually moral wills. There’s not a thing which is greatly bad about being with a group of people, unless the actual people of the group is bad. All kinds of negative and positive, groups and individuals have formed in human history. Sometimes the ‘herd’ was good, sometimes it wasn’t. That doesn’t mean we can reduce everything into the two categories, or which ever few categories you would suggest.

I sense insecurity.

I didn’t say you don’t understand.

I am describing how the label “troll” is being applied on the internet to proetect those that should not be on philosophy forums.

Did I go to a church and attack a Christian’s beliefs?
Did I track down a Scietologist to give him a piec eof my mnid?
No.

But if they come here because they think their views are up to a level that they can compete or stand their ground, then why would I not dissect them piece by piece, in an honest and direct way?
Philosophy is not politeness and political-correctness.

From the looks of things, politeness, civility, rules against trolling and slander, only apply to some participants.
The rest can vomit all over the place, attack, make declarative statements with zero content, and get away with it.
I think it’s because they are cute.

I’m not really insecure as far as I know, but, you’re at least replying to me, so in my mind, that deserves some merit.

Satyr was on a never ending rant. He been around for quite a while.
So when someone else sounds like him, people think “oh not this same old sh-t again”.

I’ll believe you that you say you are not satyr. Where did you get your ideas from? Did you get them from books or was it all personal creativity?

Knowledge is second-hand experiences.

A healthy mind uses knowledge to support his/her own experiences and understanding of these experiences.
He doesn’t simply adopt another mind’s experiences but compares them with his own and the ongoing reality.

Then he finds shared recognition of patterns.
Maybe Satyr was on a rant because of the individuals who confronted him as they have done to me.
No substance but insinuations, slander, trolling, and then turning the tables.

Being a man I doubt he has the patience of a woman.
I also think he enjoyed the fight.
When he realized there was no hope for anything serious, he tried to make lemon juice, and went into the cesspool with the swine.

Why would you throw pearls before them?

I think he liked sloshing around in the mud with pigs.
He said that he could always come out, wash up and be clean again, whereas the pigs always remained pigs.
He has a Redneck way about him.

Alright. So you also have a healthy mind? If so, I think that is a very rare thing.

I think part of being human is the desire, both conscious and subconscious, to reshape our environment into a more favorable one. When you make your threads, you might consider them pearls, but I think what you might want is a better world, and through self expression you are sending out this form for the world.

Me, on the other hand, I post because lately it just feels right, or feels appealing. I am guessing it is also a subliminal attempt to improve my environment, or the remains of an instinct.

I happen to believe in very strong predisposition in human nature. That means a dummy will be doomed to be a dummy, even if someone wise says something wise to them. However, we can also be doomed to be wise, so it is both good and bad.

Why does everything have to return to personalities, with you people?

Can a man who is unfit not say that fitness is good?
Cannot an ugly girl admit that beauty is not skin deep, but that it signifies genetic health?

Does everything have to benefit you for it to be most probably true?

I see what the problem is.
Is it because you cannot think or accept anything that does not benefit you immediately that you accuse all of this terrible mental deficiency?

I just wanted to know if you believe you have a healthy mind or not. I am interested in the posters more than their posts in some ways at least.

What did I say about value judgments?

Sober Sabina

My mind is healthy, or ill, in comparison to who, to what?
I’m not a schizophrenic, so are you the comparison?

But Satyr has written on Schizophrenia and Narcissism, if it interests you.

Ideally I’d like you to compare yourself to a wide variety of humans and animals. Then you can judge it as below average, average, or above average. Also ideally I’d like you to know your strengths and weaknesses too, since I believe intelligence and mental health is very relative to what aspect of the mind is most developed and how each part effects the other part.

You asked me elsewhere if I have a mental illness. I answered, then I decided to ask you something a bit similar.

It’s funny how if someone were to interject something here, it’s obvious from the above, that he would be counted as some kind of troll, or some hanger on, and it seems like the internet is no different from regular face to face walk of life. We really do not know the persons we are talking to, and we kind of take trolling both ways: one the non conformist maybe messed up outsider, whom are both: chastised and admired. When this dual vision comes up, then the sense of taking a so called objective stance is called for, and let the games begin. It’s obvious, that the ego is involved, and the recipient troll, can equally play the game, if he can, of becoming objective, in a different sense though, one where the subject is bracketed, and looked at, as if from the outside. This is the troll, the existentialist, the loner, who is somehow ashamed of trolling, and knowing well, that it will never get him into the herd. But of course, the duelist turned nihilist will come bouncing back with the utility of the void, and all of a sudden out fly the diagnosis, the alien, the disruptive, the manipulator, the flasher, the bigot, the opportunist,why, we brought it out, (of the box). Well why not let him try to put himself back. So in a sense, the dare is presuming, that once “outed” in this way, the nakedness of trolling will be exposed for better and for worse.

 Reality testing bilaterally will take place, as if that type of designation can really touch the enlightened.  It is not that, it is not even the herd, there are those, who are able to function, and those that withdraw in a shell.  But is anyone sure, that this is want we used to call the noumena is,the Being in itself?  

Nothing really exists for the existentialist, even the thought, that when at death’s door none may be there to hold one’s hand, the mimic will go down in terror, and the imeme will be able to slide into the companions he had with him all along’. He will have worked it out in his mind, that guys in a sense trolling is really a dare, of who knows what he knows what she knows, etc. It’s a circle, and we all hold hands, we are all trolls, we are all trolling to a different tune. We are just hanging into an inclusive definition of belonging, and excluding. Don’t let go,because you might be next.

Now I do have to comment on inclusion/exclusion, this is in no way an attempt to devalue communication, or enhance the value of a hermenauticism. It is the apparent versus real game that’s neat, and can only be played a few, who actually feel they know the rules of the game. I don’t, do you?

 I wrote this silly addendum to point to the futility of thinking in terms of in and out, either or, and I resent this pre kierkegaardian notion, where I know, that certain limits described have to do with it, what is tolerable, proper, beyond redemption, or whatever. The average troll would feel bad, and feel he is giving privy to satisfaction given.  But the extra ordinary troll will not feel this way, and by that simple act, will give up any notion of being exclusively objective, he will oscillate between the two.  

Now not knowing your stuff and acting like you do, is another thing altogether. Satyr may have been an interesting person, but than what of it? And what happened to him? For those of us here only a year or so, such new information is like a fog, unless there is time to scour through ILP archives which for all practical purposes seems like a unaffordable and unlikely endeavor.

A synopsis of what happened:

Satyr posted his views. Some agreed, other disagreed.
Many, not all, of the ones who disagreed did so with the usual one-liner dismissals, accompanied by some patronizing remark.
Others went straight for the insult.

Satyr didn’t complain, we liked it. It was an opportunity for him to really say what he felt, without pussy-footing around.
I guess he was so effective in dealing with the “retards”, that some must have bitched and whined about it to the "boss, who, let’s face it, is a liberal and a modern, and says nothnig outside the common.
They found a welcoming ear, wanting an excuse to reprimand.
Only Satyr get’s banned for a short while. Other might have gotten a slap in the hand.
Faust was one of the ones in charge back then.
His angle was that Satyr was taking this place too seriously. that people just came here to unwind, make friends, share ideas, not test them.
Satyr considered this false advertisement. Philosophy is about debate, dialectics, not saying anything we like, we hope, we dream of, and having the other nod.

Satyr told him that once you give unwarranted respect to the mediocre, include them in the adult table, all hell breaks loose.
The conversation is lowered to the one who is the lowest in any group, particularly if he is loud. If you include anyone, based no democratic principles, then you get ochlocracy.
The mediocre will always be settled upon, and all will become some social gathering where sexuality, networking, friendliness, a casual get together is under way, but not philosophy.
A place where women and children become the focus.

Satyr considered this a shame.
Why call the forum ILovePhilosophy is your interested in mass participation, popularity, respecting every view, on the grounds that all have equal merit?
In the meantime they continued to ban him when he did not comply with the hypocrisy.
He raised his audacity, wanting them to ban him permanently.
For a while they backed off from this, for obvious reasons, but then they did so, under the cries of the many, the majority, those who now rule this forum and spread their little goblets of feces in every thread as if they had a clue.

I think he had discovered Know thyself, through apaosha by then.
It was, and still is, apaosha’s forum.

Funny that these days you find Faust trying to find a rational philosophical debate in an environment he helped produce as unwelcoming to anything more than modern day adolescent banter.

But it is the perfect place to prove some points and to experience the reality of modernity, and this nihilistic culture we live in.

but don’t take my word on it.
Using your own experiences in that one year, do you think this sounds like plausible scenario?
Other than 4-5 members here, do you think any of the others are thinkers of any kind which is above the average?

Did you not see the scenario reenacted when the name Satyr was mentioned?
Did you not see the emotional hysteria his views brought on?
Did they not insult, degrade, debase, slander, and troll?

Perhaps you ought to go back to the beginning and do some reading. You might find that all the slander, ad homs, and put downs permeated every post Satyr wrote. Was any of it justified? Some perhaps. Were the retorts by other members justified? Some, perhaps. But the totality of the exchanges were toxic. If you wish to believe that tossing around insults is doing philosophy, then that’s your take. Some of us see it differently.

But all of this is just “proof” that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. That’s all you came here to do. You wanted push back, you went out of your way to get pushback, and that is your confirmation that you’re right. You mentioned that satyr warned you what to expect, and so you came with your preconceived ideas, not to ask questions but to deliver sermons. All you have is your scripted self-fulfilling answers. But that’s OK, because that’s the only reason you’re here.