CDZ The Psychology of Trolling

[Holos]

Anonymity isn't a cause, and cannot be, by it's very ontological, philosophical nature.

Yes, anonymity can be a cause, dude.

Where do you get this nonsense?

Do you think that robbers sometimes wear masks because it is a fashion statement?

You are on my ignore list, I am sorry, but I just dont have the time.

It is a catalysis no doubt, but not a cause.

I get your nonsense from your very own self, anonymous or promotional.

 

[OldLady]

Trolling can be defined as posting something with the sole intent of getting a rise out of another. Can it not?

No, not for the purposes of this thread. I went out of my way to be very specific in framing the thread, because I knew some would get defensive over its topic and attempt to deflect it away from its intended point.

So, to quote the OP:

For the purposes of this thread, I want to concentrate on the behavior of reacting to a post or article or column by getting nasty and personal, and staying nasty and personal.

Why do people do this? Specifically, what internal need is being met by this behavior? That's the specific question this thread is posing. Let's (please) try to keep it on that.

You're more than welcome to post a thread on your topic.
.

I've always assumed they are trying to get me off the thread because they disagree with my opinion.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Trolling can be defined as posting something with the sole intent of getting a rise out of another. Can it not?

No, not for the purposes of this thread. I went out of my way to be very specific in framing the thread, because I knew some would get defensive over its topic and attempt to deflect it away from its intended point.

So, to quote the OP:

For the purposes of this thread, I want to concentrate on the behavior of reacting to a post or article or column by getting nasty and personal, and staying nasty and personal.

Why do people do this? Specifically, what internal need is being met by this behavior? That's the specific question this thread is posing. Let's (please) try to keep it on that.

You're more than welcome to post a thread on your topic.
.

I've always assumed they are trying to get me off the thread because they disagree with my opinion.

You ever notice how some posters can seem so reasonable in some threads and then just be total trolls in others , depending on whether facts are with them or not? Wouldn't it be easier to just adjust your opinion to reflect the facts?

 

[OldLady]

I happen to think boors exhibit the same behavior in real life, as opposed to "Internet life." The only difference is that objects of the boor's invective can't really exact retribution (or much of it) over the Internet.

That's probably the gateway to the behavior - the fact that they know they are safe to do it.

So, to the reasons for the behavior - right now I'm torn between whether they're trying to fulfill an emotional/psychological need, or whether they're just acting on impulses.

There has been very little of that question addressed in what I've read so far.
.

Mac, if you're asking the question, shouldn't you be asking trolls? How would WE know why they do it? You should move this out of the CDZ, where trolls fear to tread.

 

[Mac1958]

I happen to think boors exhibit the same behavior in real life, as opposed to "Internet life." The only difference is that objects of the boor's invective can't really exact retribution (or much of it) over the Internet.

That's probably the gateway to the behavior - the fact that they know they are safe to do it.

So, to the reasons for the behavior - right now I'm torn between whether they're trying to fulfill an emotional/psychological need, or whether they're just acting on impulses.

There has been very little of that question addressed in what I've read so far.
.

Mac, if you're asking the question, shouldn't you be asking trolls? How would WE know why they do it? You should move this out of the CDZ, where trolls fear to tread.

Yeah, but I'd rather keep it (at least somewhat) civil. I'm not going to get honest or straight answers from trolls, anyway.

I've always been fascinated by the behaviors of political trolls - who knows why.
.

 

[320 Years of History]

I've always assumed they are trying to get me off the thread because they disagree with my opinion.

I don't think it matters what your opinion is.

I've always been fascinated by the behaviors of political trolls - who knows why.

You may want to take five minutes to read the essay below. Alternatively, you can listen to it and see it illustrated here: The Psychology of the Internet Troll - Academic Earth

At their most benign, trolls raise blood pressures across Internet chat rooms. At their worst, they push innocents to a lethal breaking point. But why? Why engage in such anti-social behavior? Those trying to understand, motivated by the desire to best the troll, find as many answers to this question as trolls themselves. Some assume trolls are bullies, cowards, or sociopaths. Is this true? Sometimes, but as David Auerbach posits in, anonymity as culture: treatise, “…there’s no way to know the views of the participants.”1 They’re anonymous players in a game without rules.

Without the why, perhaps understanding lies in the mechanism for how trolls engage in such behavior. How can someone who outwardly appears to respect social norms (going to work, raising a family) so easily adopt a contrarian alter-ego? In a word, disinhibition – the phenomenon wherein one abandons social inhibitions that would normally be present in face-to-face interactions.

In what he calls, the online disinhibition effect, psychologist, John Suller, explaisn that anonymity afforded by the Internet sets the stage for trolling.2 Similar behaviors were observed over CB radios in the 1970s when airwaves were infected by racist ramblings and disturbing masturbation fantasies.3 Arguably, the Internet is more disposed to this behavior, because, as Auerbach observes, this is the first time where “discourse is primarily written rather than spoken.”

Suller identifies six factors contributing to the online disinhibition effect.

• Dissociative Anonymity and Invisibility: You don’t know me, and you can’t see me.
  Michael Brutsch, a computer programmer, cat-lover, and family man, turned himself into Violentacrez, the infamous Reddit smut-peddler who earned fandom through moderating controversial subreddits like “Jailbait.” The Internet allows one to reinvent him or herself behind an anonymous veil. The obvious irony is that Brutsch was outed by Gawker. A fool-proof system, it is not.

• Asynchronicity: See you later.
  Trolling comes from the fishing technique of setting one’s baited line in the water, dragging it behind the boat, and waiting for a bite. The activity is passive, allowing one to go about his or her business while waiting for results. The same principle plays out online. Brian Limond, a self-confessed troll and atheist prefers going after his own. His chum of choice – posing as a devout Christian. Setting his bait in the Twittersphere, “It’s such a shame that athiests will never know true love. #atheism,” he sits back, enjoys that beer, and watches as the infuriated godless bite.
  
  
• Solipsistic Introjection: It’s all in my head.
  Without the visual cues of face-to-face conversation, one is free to assign characteristics to those they encounter online. Discussing what he calls A-culture, Auerbach asserts that introverts who once found solace and community online felt threatened when Facebook took it away, turning safe anonymity into a competition for attention. Participants in A-culture see outsiders as a threat to their territory.
  
  
• Dissociative Imagination: It’s just a game.
  Violentacrez illustrates how one might dismiss trolling as “just a game.” Reddit assigns “karma points” to popular subreddits, motivating people to actively moderate provocative content. Justifying his anti-social persona in the name of the game, Violentacrez admitted creating racist and misogynistic subreddits in an attempt to accumulate “meaningless Internet points” – he was wildly successful.
  
  
• Minimizing Authority: We’re all equals.
  The Internet provides a unique opportunity for individuals to interact freely across the social strata. This is notably true in politics. Some political parties hire people to troll forums, spreading their rhetoric. Perhaps only online can a troll launch ad hominem attacks “directly” at the President, a privilege once reserved for pundits.

The online disinhibition effect illustrates that trolls are opportunistic, playing an online game rooted in their anonymity. Simple, really. Do note, however, that each factor relies on a common thread to make it viable – people willing to engage the troll. Trolling is not a game of solitaire. Unless we want to actively suppress freedom of speech, the only way to beat a troll is to not play the game.

1 Auerbach, David. “Anonymity as Culture: Treatise.” Issue #15 – Triple Canopy. Triple Canopy, 09 Feb. 2012. Web.

2 Suler, John, Ph.D. “The Online Disinhibition Effect.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 7.3 (2004): 321-26. Psychology of Cyberspace. Rider University. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

3 Tynan, Kenneth (1978-02-20). “Fifteen Years of the Salto Mortale”. The New Yorker February 1978. Web. 18 March 2013.
​

Mac, if you're asking the question, shouldn't you be asking trolls? How would WE know why they do it? You should move this out of the CDZ, where trolls fear to tread.

One need not ask the troll, indeed doing so online seems among the worst things one can do. Swift and unrelenting use of the "ignore" feature (or the manual version of it) is, I think, the only solution that works. I don't think Internet trolls care who responds or how, so long as they get attention.

 

[OldLady]

Trolling can be defined as posting something with the sole intent of getting a rise out of another. Can it not?

No, not for the purposes of this thread. I went out of my way to be very specific in framing the thread, because I knew some would get defensive over its topic and attempt to deflect it away from its intended point.

So, to quote the OP:

For the purposes of this thread, I want to concentrate on the behavior of reacting to a post or article or column by getting nasty and personal, and staying nasty and personal.

Why do people do this? Specifically, what internal need is being met by this behavior? That's the specific question this thread is posing. Let's (please) try to keep it on that.

You're more than welcome to post a thread on your topic.
.

I've always assumed they are trying to get me off the thread because they disagree with my opinion.

You ever notice how some posters can seem so reasonable in some threads and then just be total trolls in others , depending on whether facts are with them or not? Wouldn't it be easier to just adjust your opinion to reflect the facts?

Have YOU ever noticed, F&B, that what some people call "facts" are actually their opinions? There can be quite a large pile of "facts" on both sides of an argument. I know what you are up to and we will meet another day on another thread to discuss it.

 

[OldLady]

I've always assumed they are trying to get me off the thread because they disagree with my opinion.

I don't think it matters what your opinion is.

I've always been fascinated by the behaviors of political trolls - who knows why.

You may want to take five minutes to read the essay below. Alternatively, you can listen to it and see it illustrated here: The Psychology of the Internet Troll - Academic Earth

At their most benign, trolls raise blood pressures across Internet chat rooms. At their worst, they push innocents to a lethal breaking point. But why? Why engage in such anti-social behavior? Those trying to understand, motivated by the desire to best the troll, find as many answers to this question as trolls themselves. Some assume trolls are bullies, cowards, or sociopaths. Is this true? Sometimes, but as David Auerbach posits in, anonymity as culture: treatise, “…there’s no way to know the views of the participants.”1 They’re anonymous players in a game without rules.

Without the why, perhaps understanding lies in the mechanism for how trolls engage in such behavior. How can someone who outwardly appears to respect social norms (going to work, raising a family) so easily adopt a contrarian alter-ego? In a word, disinhibition – the phenomenon wherein one abandons social inhibitions that would normally be present in face-to-face interactions.

In what he calls, the online disinhibition effect, psychologist, John Suller, explaisn that anonymity afforded by the Internet sets the stage for trolling.2 Similar behaviors were observed over CB radios in the 1970s when airwaves were infected by racist ramblings and disturbing masturbation fantasies.3 Arguably, the Internet is more disposed to this behavior, because, as Auerbach observes, this is the first time where “discourse is primarily written rather than spoken.”

Suller identifies six factors contributing to the online disinhibition effect.

• Dissociative Anonymity and Invisibility: You don’t know me, and you can’t see me.
  Michael Brutsch, a computer programmer, cat-lover, and family man, turned himself into Violentacrez, the infamous Reddit smut-peddler who earned fandom through moderating controversial subreddits like “Jailbait.” The Internet allows one to reinvent him or herself behind an anonymous veil. The obvious irony is that Brutsch was outed by Gawker. A fool-proof system, it is not.

• Asynchronicity: See you later.
  Trolling comes from the fishing technique of setting one’s baited line in the water, dragging it behind the boat, and waiting for a bite. The activity is passive, allowing one to go about his or her business while waiting for results. The same principle plays out online. Brian Limond, a self-confessed troll and atheist prefers going after his own. His chum of choice – posing as a devout Christian. Setting his bait in the Twittersphere, “It’s such a shame that athiests will never know true love. #atheism,” he sits back, enjoys that beer, and watches as the infuriated godless bite.
  
  
• Solipsistic Introjection: It’s all in my head.
  Without the visual cues of face-to-face conversation, one is free to assign characteristics to those they encounter online. Discussing what he calls A-culture, Auerbach asserts that introverts who once found solace and community online felt threatened when Facebook took it away, turning safe anonymity into a competition for attention. Participants in A-culture see outsiders as a threat to their territory.
  
  
• Dissociative Imagination: It’s just a game.
  Violentacrez illustrates how one might dismiss trolling as “just a game.” Reddit assigns “karma points” to popular subreddits, motivating people to actively moderate provocative content. Justifying his anti-social persona in the name of the game, Violentacrez admitted creating racist and misogynistic subreddits in an attempt to accumulate “meaningless Internet points” – he was wildly successful.
  
  
• Minimizing Authority: We’re all equals.
  The Internet provides a unique opportunity for individuals to interact freely across the social strata. This is notably true in politics. Some political parties hire people to troll forums, spreading their rhetoric. Perhaps only online can a troll launch ad hominem attacks “directly” at the President, a privilege once reserved for pundits.

The online disinhibition effect illustrates that trolls are opportunistic, playing an online game rooted in their anonymity. Simple, really. Do note, however, that each factor relies on a common thread to make it viable – people willing to engage the troll. Trolling is not a game of solitaire. Unless we want to actively suppress freedom of speech, the only way to beat a troll is to not play the game.

1 Auerbach, David. “Anonymity as Culture: Treatise.” Issue #15 – Triple Canopy. Triple Canopy, 09 Feb. 2012. Web.

2 Suler, John, Ph.D. “The Online Disinhibition Effect.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 7.3 (2004): 321-26. Psychology of Cyberspace. Rider University. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

3 Tynan, Kenneth (1978-02-20). “Fifteen Years of the Salto Mortale”. The New Yorker February 1978. Web. 18 March 2013.​

Mac, if you're asking the question, shouldn't you be asking trolls? How would WE know why they do it? You should move this out of the CDZ, where trolls fear to tread.

One need not ask the troll, indeed doing so online seems among the worst things one can do. Swift and unrelenting use of the "ignore" feature (or the manual version of it) is, I think, the only solution that works. I don't think Internet trolls care who responds or how, so long as they get attention.

I don't like the idea of being in an echo chamber or a bubble, so I use ignore as little as possible to make sure I'm not missing anything. Different perspectives are important, even coming from someone giving you personal insults. If there is a decent conversation going on in a thread, sometimes you can "ignore" the troll and continue the conversation, but only if the other posters do the same. I've been interested in conversations where a troll or three (they like to travel in packs) dropped in and the discussion degenerated into a "You are" "No, YOU are" discussion about who was gay for three pages....
In those cases the troll wins. That seems unfair to me, but on USMB, anyone with cojones is expected to accept it as a fact of life.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Trolling can be defined as posting something with the sole intent of getting a rise out of another. Can it not?

No, not for the purposes of this thread. I went out of my way to be very specific in framing the thread, because I knew some would get defensive over its topic and attempt to deflect it away from its intended point.

So, to quote the OP:

For the purposes of this thread, I want to concentrate on the behavior of reacting to a post or article or column by getting nasty and personal, and staying nasty and personal.

Why do people do this? Specifically, what internal need is being met by this behavior? That's the specific question this thread is posing. Let's (please) try to keep it on that.

You're more than welcome to post a thread on your topic.
.

I've always assumed they are trying to get me off the thread because they disagree with my opinion.

You ever notice how some posters can seem so reasonable in some threads and then just be total trolls in others , depending on whether facts are with them or not? Wouldn't it be easier to just adjust your opinion to reflect the facts?

Have YOU ever noticed, F&B, that what some people call "facts" are actually their opinions? There can be quite a large pile of "facts" on both sides of an argument. I know what you are up to and we will meet another day on another thread to discuss it.

Oh, I agree with you 100% some people confuse facts with opinions and as you well know I don't believe that any one side has a monopoly on trolls.

 

[320 Years of History]

I use ignore as little as possible to make sure I'm not missing anything

Miss something like what? The one time all year the troll says something insightful? Good on you. I'll take my chances on missing out on those fleeting pearls. LOL

 

[OldLady]

After reading the whole thread, these are my favorite insights into trolls:

But I also must confess that, when it becomes too easy to wind up a toy and watch it dance there is great temptation to over-wind. Sometimes to enjoy the spectacle of a more ludicrous dance; other times in hope of breaking the mainspring. Henry B.Hough

Poke, observe, poke, observe. Ravi

I'll stuff facts at someone until they either place me on ignore or they surrender to my will. Fair & Balanced

To be honest, I've only ever seen true meanness toward someone personally, the type cited in the OP article, once here. Most of the insults are too stupid to be taken seriously. Although this board has given me a lot of the infuriating older brothers that I never had growing up. Takes practice ignoring them, at times.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

After reading the whole thread, these are my favorite insights into trolls:

But I also must confess that, when it becomes too easy to wind up a toy and watch it dance there is great temptation to over-wind. Sometimes to enjoy the spectacle of a more ludicrous dance; other times in hope of breaking the mainspring. Henry B.Hough

Poke, observe, poke, observe. Ravi

I'll stuff facts at someone until they either place me on ignore or they surrender to my will. Fair & Balanced

To be honest, I've only ever seen true meanness toward someone personally, the type cited in the OP article, once here. Most of the insults are too stupid to be taken seriously. Although this board has given me a lot of the infuriating older brothers that I never had growing up. Takes practice ignoring them, at times.

Thank you for acknowledging that I bring facts to the discussion.

THAT is in fact the true meaning of my latest name. I state the facts and then my opinion fall where it may. Sometimes that is on the left, sometimes on the right, most generally though it's somewhere in the middle as invariably most on BOTH sides of any given issue are denying simple facts.

I've actually seen people on here in a thread you'll post something like " the guy pointed a gun at the cop" here's the video that shows it and they will respond with "that's just your opinion" no you dumb shit, the FACT is the guy pointed a gun at the cop, now you can certainly have a differing opinion on how the cop should have reacted but you can't just pretend like the guy didn't point a gun at the cop"

and other similar crap all too often.

 

[OldLady]

After reading the whole thread, these are my favorite insights into trolls:

But I also must confess that, when it becomes too easy to wind up a toy and watch it dance there is great temptation to over-wind. Sometimes to enjoy the spectacle of a more ludicrous dance; other times in hope of breaking the mainspring. Henry B.Hough

Poke, observe, poke, observe. Ravi

I'll stuff facts at someone until they either place me on ignore or they surrender to my will. Fair & Balanced

To be honest, I've only ever seen true meanness toward someone personally, the type cited in the OP article, once here. Most of the insults are too stupid to be taken seriously. Although this board has given me a lot of the infuriating older brothers that I never had growing up. Takes practice ignoring them, at times.

Thank you for acknowledging that I bring facts to the discussion.

THAT is in fact the true meaning of my latest name. I state the facts and then my opinion fall where it may. Sometimes that is on the left, sometimes on the right, most generally though it's somewhere in the middle as invariably most on BOTH sides of any given issue are denying simple facts.

I've actually seen people on here in a thread you'll post something like " the guy pointed a gun at the cop" here's the video that shows it and they will respond with "that's just your opinion" no you dumb shit, the FACT is the guy pointed a gun at the cop, now you can certainly have a differing opinion on how the cop should have reacted but you can't just pretend like the guy didn't point a gun at the cop"

and other similar crap all too often.

Yes, but the point is the "submitting to my will" part. Having taken part in gun control discussions with you, I have no doubt that you think that's a totally reasonable outcome of all discussions with you. LOL.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

After reading the whole thread, these are my favorite insights into trolls:

But I also must confess that, when it becomes too easy to wind up a toy and watch it dance there is great temptation to over-wind. Sometimes to enjoy the spectacle of a more ludicrous dance; other times in hope of breaking the mainspring. Henry B.Hough

Poke, observe, poke, observe. Ravi

I'll stuff facts at someone until they either place me on ignore or they surrender to my will. Fair & Balanced

To be honest, I've only ever seen true meanness toward someone personally, the type cited in the OP article, once here. Most of the insults are too stupid to be taken seriously. Although this board has given me a lot of the infuriating older brothers that I never had growing up. Takes practice ignoring them, at times.

Thank you for acknowledging that I bring facts to the discussion.

THAT is in fact the true meaning of my latest name. I state the facts and then my opinion fall where it may. Sometimes that is on the left, sometimes on the right, most generally though it's somewhere in the middle as invariably most on BOTH sides of any given issue are denying simple facts.

I've actually seen people on here in a thread you'll post something like " the guy pointed a gun at the cop" here's the video that shows it and they will respond with "that's just your opinion" no you dumb shit, the FACT is the guy pointed a gun at the cop, now you can certainly have a differing opinion on how the cop should have reacted but you can't just pretend like the guy didn't point a gun at the cop"

and other similar crap all too often.

Yes, but the point is the "submitting to my will" part. Having taken part in gun control discussions with you, I have no doubt that you think that's a totally reasonable outcome of all discussions with you. LOL.

It IS a totally reasonable outcome OldLady because ALL my opinions are based on facts, not feelings.

An example is gay marriage. I don't particularly like the idea of gay sex, but the fact is that the government has no right to tell people who they may have sex with (consenting adults of course) or whom they may marry, so my OPINION is that those who wish to use the government to tell gays they can't marry etc don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[OldLady]

After reading the whole thread, these are my favorite insights into trolls:

But I also must confess that, when it becomes too easy to wind up a toy and watch it dance there is great temptation to over-wind. Sometimes to enjoy the spectacle of a more ludicrous dance; other times in hope of breaking the mainspring. Henry B.Hough

Poke, observe, poke, observe. Ravi

I'll stuff facts at someone until they either place me on ignore or they surrender to my will. Fair & Balanced

To be honest, I've only ever seen true meanness toward someone personally, the type cited in the OP article, once here. Most of the insults are too stupid to be taken seriously. Although this board has given me a lot of the infuriating older brothers that I never had growing up. Takes practice ignoring them, at times.

Thank you for acknowledging that I bring facts to the discussion.

THAT is in fact the true meaning of my latest name. I state the facts and then my opinion fall where it may. Sometimes that is on the left, sometimes on the right, most generally though it's somewhere in the middle as invariably most on BOTH sides of any given issue are denying simple facts.

I've actually seen people on here in a thread you'll post something like " the guy pointed a gun at the cop" here's the video that shows it and they will respond with "that's just your opinion" no you dumb shit, the FACT is the guy pointed a gun at the cop, now you can certainly have a differing opinion on how the cop should have reacted but you can't just pretend like the guy didn't point a gun at the cop"

and other similar crap all too often.

Yes, but the point is the "submitting to my will" part. Having taken part in gun control discussions with you, I have no doubt that you think that's a totally reasonable outcome of all discussions with you. LOL.

It IS a totally reasonable outcome OldLady because ALL my opinions are based on facts, not feelings.

An example is gay marriage. I don't particularly like the idea of gay sex, but the fact is that the government has no right to tell people who they may have sex with (consenting adults of course) or whom they may marry, so my OPINION is that those who wish to use the government to tell gays they can't marry etc don't have a leg to stand on.

The government tells me I cannot marry my cousin, that I cannot marry if I am under a certain age, that I must have certain blood tests first, that I cannot marry two men at once. The government does indeed seem to have some right to tell us who we may marry. Your opinion that it shouldn't is not a fact, it is an opinion.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

After reading the whole thread, these are my favorite insights into trolls:

But I also must confess that, when it becomes too easy to wind up a toy and watch it dance there is great temptation to over-wind. Sometimes to enjoy the spectacle of a more ludicrous dance; other times in hope of breaking the mainspring. Henry B.Hough

Poke, observe, poke, observe. Ravi

I'll stuff facts at someone until they either place me on ignore or they surrender to my will. Fair & Balanced

To be honest, I've only ever seen true meanness toward someone personally, the type cited in the OP article, once here. Most of the insults are too stupid to be taken seriously. Although this board has given me a lot of the infuriating older brothers that I never had growing up. Takes practice ignoring them, at times.

Thank you for acknowledging that I bring facts to the discussion.

THAT is in fact the true meaning of my latest name. I state the facts and then my opinion fall where it may. Sometimes that is on the left, sometimes on the right, most generally though it's somewhere in the middle as invariably most on BOTH sides of any given issue are denying simple facts.

I've actually seen people on here in a thread you'll post something like " the guy pointed a gun at the cop" here's the video that shows it and they will respond with "that's just your opinion" no you dumb shit, the FACT is the guy pointed a gun at the cop, now you can certainly have a differing opinion on how the cop should have reacted but you can't just pretend like the guy didn't point a gun at the cop"

and other similar crap all too often.

Yes, but the point is the "submitting to my will" part. Having taken part in gun control discussions with you, I have no doubt that you think that's a totally reasonable outcome of all discussions with you. LOL.

It IS a totally reasonable outcome OldLady because ALL my opinions are based on facts, not feelings.

An example is gay marriage. I don't particularly like the idea of gay sex, but the fact is that the government has no right to tell people who they may have sex with (consenting adults of course) or whom they may marry, so my OPINION is that those who wish to use the government to tell gays they can't marry etc don't have a leg to stand on.

The government tells me I cannot marry my cousin, that I cannot marry if I am under a certain age, that I must have certain blood tests first, that I cannot marry two men at once. The government does indeed seem to have some right to tell us who we may marry. Your opinion that it shouldn't is not a fact, it is an opinion.

No, it's a fact.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power.

First, let's remove the issue of age limits, because of COURSE the government has the right to protect children and thus set consent laws.

On the other issues, you're correct. The government shouldn't be able to tell cousins they can't marry, or require blood tests, or any of the other issues you mentioned.

 

[Moonglow]

THAT is in fact the true meaning of my latest name.

What were some of the older names? Facts only...

 

[OldLady]

After reading the whole thread, these are my favorite insights into trolls:

But I also must confess that, when it becomes too easy to wind up a toy and watch it dance there is great temptation to over-wind. Sometimes to enjoy the spectacle of a more ludicrous dance; other times in hope of breaking the mainspring. Henry B.Hough

Poke, observe, poke, observe. Ravi

I'll stuff facts at someone until they either place me on ignore or they surrender to my will. Fair & Balanced

To be honest, I've only ever seen true meanness toward someone personally, the type cited in the OP article, once here. Most of the insults are too stupid to be taken seriously. Although this board has given me a lot of the infuriating older brothers that I never had growing up. Takes practice ignoring them, at times.

Thank you for acknowledging that I bring facts to the discussion.

THAT is in fact the true meaning of my latest name. I state the facts and then my opinion fall where it may. Sometimes that is on the left, sometimes on the right, most generally though it's somewhere in the middle as invariably most on BOTH sides of any given issue are denying simple facts.

I've actually seen people on here in a thread you'll post something like " the guy pointed a gun at the cop" here's the video that shows it and they will respond with "that's just your opinion" no you dumb shit, the FACT is the guy pointed a gun at the cop, now you can certainly have a differing opinion on how the cop should have reacted but you can't just pretend like the guy didn't point a gun at the cop"

and other similar crap all too often.

Yes, but the point is the "submitting to my will" part. Having taken part in gun control discussions with you, I have no doubt that you think that's a totally reasonable outcome of all discussions with you. LOL.

It IS a totally reasonable outcome OldLady because ALL my opinions are based on facts, not feelings.

An example is gay marriage. I don't particularly like the idea of gay sex, but the fact is that the government has no right to tell people who they may have sex with (consenting adults of course) or whom they may marry, so my OPINION is that those who wish to use the government to tell gays they can't marry etc don't have a leg to stand on.

The government tells me I cannot marry my cousin, that I cannot marry if I am under a certain age, that I must have certain blood tests first, that I cannot marry two men at once. The government does indeed seem to have some right to tell us who we may marry. Your opinion that it shouldn't is not a fact, it is an opinion.

No, it's a fact.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power.

First, let's remove the issue of age limits, because of COURSE the government has the right to protect children and thus set consent laws.

On the other issues, you're correct. The government shouldn't be able to tell cousins they can't marry, or require blood tests, or any of the other issues you mentioned.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power
That makes no sense to me.

That the government "shouldn't" be able to tell us who to marry is your OPINION, not a fact. "Of course the government has the right to protect children" is also an opinion. What is a FACT is that the government DOES put these restrictions on lawful marriage. That is the fact, not that you don't believe they should, or whatever that other argument was about. I see your problem is a genuine lack of understanding of what is a "fact," and what is an "opinion." It's a hard concept for some people for some people to grasp. Good luck.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Thank you for acknowledging that I bring facts to the discussion.

THAT is in fact the true meaning of my latest name. I state the facts and then my opinion fall where it may. Sometimes that is on the left, sometimes on the right, most generally though it's somewhere in the middle as invariably most on BOTH sides of any given issue are denying simple facts.

I've actually seen people on here in a thread you'll post something like " the guy pointed a gun at the cop" here's the video that shows it and they will respond with "that's just your opinion" no you dumb shit, the FACT is the guy pointed a gun at the cop, now you can certainly have a differing opinion on how the cop should have reacted but you can't just pretend like the guy didn't point a gun at the cop"

and other similar crap all too often.

Yes, but the point is the "submitting to my will" part. Having taken part in gun control discussions with you, I have no doubt that you think that's a totally reasonable outcome of all discussions with you. LOL.

It IS a totally reasonable outcome OldLady because ALL my opinions are based on facts, not feelings.

An example is gay marriage. I don't particularly like the idea of gay sex, but the fact is that the government has no right to tell people who they may have sex with (consenting adults of course) or whom they may marry, so my OPINION is that those who wish to use the government to tell gays they can't marry etc don't have a leg to stand on.

The government tells me I cannot marry my cousin, that I cannot marry if I am under a certain age, that I must have certain blood tests first, that I cannot marry two men at once. The government does indeed seem to have some right to tell us who we may marry. Your opinion that it shouldn't is not a fact, it is an opinion.

No, it's a fact.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power.

First, let's remove the issue of age limits, because of COURSE the government has the right to protect children and thus set consent laws.

On the other issues, you're correct. The government shouldn't be able to tell cousins they can't marry, or require blood tests, or any of the other issues you mentioned.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power
That makes no sense to me.

That the government "shouldn't" be able to tell us who to marry is your OPINION, not a fact. "Of course the government has the right to protect children" is also an opinion. What is a FACT is that the government DOES put these restrictions on lawful marriage. That is the fact, not that you don't believe they should, or whatever that other argument was about. I see your problem is a genuine lack of understanding of what is a "fact," and what is an "opinion." It's a hard concept for some people for some people to grasp. Good luck.

so you think I'm wrong about the government having a role in protecting children? Because that is actually the entire purpose of government , to protect those who are to weak to protect themselves. That is a FACT

And there are tons of laws, and court precedence to back up the fact that the government has the right to protect children.

You'd be hard pressed to find ANY evidence to suggest that government was ever intended to have any authority over marriage.

 

[JoeMoma]

Yes, but the point is the "submitting to my will" part. Having taken part in gun control discussions with you, I have no doubt that you think that's a totally reasonable outcome of all discussions with you. LOL.

It IS a totally reasonable outcome OldLady because ALL my opinions are based on facts, not feelings.

An example is gay marriage. I don't particularly like the idea of gay sex, but the fact is that the government has no right to tell people who they may have sex with (consenting adults of course) or whom they may marry, so my OPINION is that those who wish to use the government to tell gays they can't marry etc don't have a leg to stand on.

The government tells me I cannot marry my cousin, that I cannot marry if I am under a certain age, that I must have certain blood tests first, that I cannot marry two men at once. The government does indeed seem to have some right to tell us who we may marry. Your opinion that it shouldn't is not a fact, it is an opinion.

No, it's a fact.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power.

First, let's remove the issue of age limits, because of COURSE the government has the right to protect children and thus set consent laws.

On the other issues, you're correct. The government shouldn't be able to tell cousins they can't marry, or require blood tests, or any of the other issues you mentioned.

The fact that we have GIVEN the government some power over marriage doesn't mean that they actually HAVE that power
That makes no sense to me.

That the government "shouldn't" be able to tell us who to marry is your OPINION, not a fact. "Of course the government has the right to protect children" is also an opinion. What is a FACT is that the government DOES put these restrictions on lawful marriage. That is the fact, not that you don't believe they should, or whatever that other argument was about. I see your problem is a genuine lack of understanding of what is a "fact," and what is an "opinion." It's a hard concept for some people for some people to grasp. Good luck.

so you think I'm wrong about the government having a role in protecting children? Because that is actually the entire purpose of government , to protect those who are to weak to protect themselves. That is a FACT

And there are tons of laws, and court precedence to back up the fact that the government has the right to protect children.

You'd be hard pressed to find ANY evidence to suggest that government was ever intended to have any authority over marriage.

The line between fact and opinion can be very thin and blurred depending on one prospective.