patrick.net

is this some kind of preemptive defense knowing youre a complete craven slimeball that everyone despises?

Damn,everyone on Patnet is a troll. I guess all we will be left with is threads without comments. Whoa! Now all the troll will just post threads. I think I just trolled myself.

MershedPerturders says

is this some kind of preemptive defense knowing youre a complete craven slimeball that everyone despises?

Thank you for proving my point, as well as the point that if you say anything worth saying, there will be some idiots who hate you for it.

The truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.

HEY YOU says

Damn,everyone on Patnet is a troll. I guess all we will be left with is threads without comments. Whoa! Now all the troll will just post threads. I think I just trolled myself.

Actually, there are surprisingly few trolls on PatNet. It's just that trolls tend to be highly vocal attention whores.

first they came for the libertarians and i was not a libertarian so i did not speak out.

then they came for me and i was on vacation in Aspen.

Dan,
I like you (sometimes), but in this thread you come off as kinda whiny.

-elliemae

elliemae says

Dan,

I like you (sometimes), but in this thread you come off as kinda whiny.

-elliemae

Sorry if that's your interpretation, but such perception is based on what's going inside your mind, not my writing. Unfortunately, there is little a writer can do to prevent his words from being misinterpreted or to prevent the reader from inserting his or her own emotional context into a piece. You can read any emotion into a posting regardless of how objectively and dispassionately it is written.

Dan8267 says

I do not respond to threads opened to make personal attacks

I'm just saying, by starting a thread that clearly states you don't respond to threads opened to make personal attacks, you've started a thread inviting personal attacks.

Discuss.

elliemae says

Dan8267 says

I do not respond to threads opened to make personal attacks

I'm just saying, by starting a thread that clearly states you don't respond to threads opened to make personal attacks, you've started a thread inviting personal attacks.

Discuss.

A troll will always finds a way to interpret a thread or a post as an invitation to start personal attacks or otherwise piss off people for no other reason than the satisfaction of making other people as miserable as he is. Misery loves company.

My observation of forums suggests that the best way to deal with trolls is simply to eject them from the conversation. Naturally, one should have a certain amount of patience because not everyone who appears to be a troll intends to disrupt conversations and the tone of writings on the Internet -- for some reason I never understood -- are much more likely to be misread than in other writings.

However, there comes a point when the trolling is so obviously juvenile attempts to derail discussions that patience ceases to be a virtual. At that point, the troll should be given one final chance to change his ways, and if he doesn't, he should be ejected from the conversation so that everyone else can continue it.

I'd be willing to accept that a troll has changed his way and is no longer a troll, but I'd have to see proof in the form of his contributing to other discussions rather than derailing them over a long period of time.

In any case, trolling is the lowest form of discussion on the argument pyramid. Anything below contradiction is counter-productive.

So... they need attention.
You are quick to shower foodstamps on potential voters, open the borders to potential voters, hand out free health insurance to potential voters, why not allow the HVAW's to vent on your threads? Who knows, you may reign in another voter!

Dan8267 says

It's just that trolls tend to be highly vocal attention whores.

donjumpsuit says

It's a fine line.

I can be, in which case most people on PatNet give the poster a benefit of the doubt. Patrick has been very, very tolerant of such persons. However, when the poster just repeatedly does the same thing ad nauseum and there's no reasoning with him, it ceases to be a fine line.

SoftShell says

You are quick to shower foodstamps on potential voters, open the borders to potential voters, hand out free health insurance to potential voters, why not allow the HVAW's to vent on your threads? Who knows, you may reign in another voter!

I don't see what you post has to do with this thread, but it does illustrate how some people make false assumptions about other people's political beliefs.

I have little opinion regarding food stamps. I've never advocated open borders or immigration amnesty. I'm actually on the fence when it comes to border fences. And I have no idea what you mean by "HVAW".

It's like when people say I'm pro-Obama when I've never written anything praising Obama and I've written many posts criticizing him severely. Where do people get these ideas? It's like Americans today assume that if you don't agree with every batshit crazy thing they say, you must believe in the polar opposite position of everything their team advocates. Can't a person disagree with both parties?

Dan8267 says

Can't a person disagree with both parties?

No. That's logically impossible. You're either with US or with THEM. There are ONLY two choices.

The Professor says

Dan8267 says

Can't a person disagree with both parties?

Thinking people should disagree with both parties. It is all political theatre for the masses. Obamas news conference yesterday was an excellent example. Tweedly Deedly dumb.

I agree with Dan (and the Professor) here and generally in a lot of his views, but certainty not all. But he mostly argues without personal attacks and rage and that is a great quality to possess. People who disagree with both parties are being constantly attacked here, I have never seen such a narrow playing field, even in the US. It's time for a second party.

freak80 says

Dan8267 says

Can't a person disagree with both parties?

No. That's logically impossible. You're either with US or with THEM. There are ONLY two choices.

Speaking of logical impossibilities...

Dan's actual wheels.

But US vs. THEM is so much fun!

Maybe that's why professional sports is so profitable.

mell says

It's time for a second party.

hurr durr

MershedPerturders says

Dan's actual wheels.

freak80 says

But US vs. THEM is so much fun!

Maybe that's why professional sports is so profitable.

Professional sports capitalize on man's instinctive tribal mentality. Basically, sports fans think that their tribe conquered a neighboring tribe when their home team wins a sporting event. There's no actual accomplishment of the fan, but their caveman instinct tells them they've done good.

When the local team wins, "we rule". Of course, when the local team loses, they suck.

Dan8267 says

I do not respond to threads opened to make personal attacks

Well, actually you did, twice.

Dan8267 says

Basically, sports fans think that their tribe conquered a neighboring tribe when their home team wins a sporting event. There's no actual accomplishment of the fan, but their caveman instinct tells them they've done good.

When the local team wins, "we rule". Of course, when the local team loses,
they suck.

You sum up the psychology perfectly, IMO.

The same thing happens in partisan politics, no? Are you on Team Red or Team Blue? ;-)

Religious denominations work they same way, I think.

upisdown says

Dan8267 says

I do not respond to threads opened to make personal attacks

Well, actually you did, twice.

Perhaps I should clarify... I do not respond by playing into a troll's game and operating at his level to such threads, as opposed to standing your ground on a higher position.

Also, HydroCabron's thread was clearly facetious and no reasonable person would interpret it as a personal attack or trolling. After all, if you cannot laugh at yourself, you have no right to laugh at others.

freak80 says

The same thing happens in partisan politics, no? Are you on Team Red or Team Blue? ;-)

Religious denominations work they same way, I think.

Except with politics and religion, money and power are on the line. Sure, for the sport's players, winning means more money, but for the fans such victories are hallow (gambling excepted).

But because of the money and power, political and religious fanaticism are far more vicious than sports fanaticism. Religious and political fundamentalists are willing to commit far greater harm to their communities than even soccer hooligans.

Dan8267 says

But because of the money and power, political and religious fanaticism are far more vicious than sports fanaticism.

True. I guess it's a good thing we have pro-sports as an outlet for "tribal instincts." Better to have a fake "war" on a football field than a real one.

freak80 says

Dan8267 says

But because of the money and power, political and religious fanaticism are far more vicious than sports fanaticism.

True. I guess it's a good thing we have pro-sports as an outlet for "tribal instincts." Better to have a fake "war" on a football field than a real one.

That might be true. However, so might the opposite. The "fake war" might drum up support for war in general. Studies have shown that even vicarious experiences of winning and losing among fans at sporting events changes testosterone levels. When a fan's team win, he is rewarded with a testosterone hit and is more likely to be aggressive or support aggressive policies. Conversely, when a fan's team loses, his testosterone level lowers and he is more likely to become submissive and peaceful. Supposedly this is an evolutionary effect design to maximize conquering for tribes good at warfare and to maximize peace making for tribes most likely to lose wars.

However, similar argument on both sides have been made about violent video games. Some claim that such games encourage violence among their players. Others claim that such games act as outlets and gamers are less likely to be violent. From what I've seen of heavy XBOX users, I'm more likely to believe the later as well as that these games make players physically incapable of inflicting violence upon others who aren't within reach of the couch.

Dan8267 says

these games make players physically incapable of inflicting violence upon others who aren't within reach of the couch.

Good point.

Dan8267 says

Except with politics and religion, money and power are on the line

Theoretically, yes and practically always for the insiders. But oftentimes when it comes to the electorate we find that people vote against their rational self interest to act morally consistent with their ideology and often times they act primitive when it's simply a matter of fitting in with social groups and imagined tribes.