Natural Citizen
American Made
- Aug 8, 2016
- 28,906
- 29,058
- 2,445
Anyway. I'm repeating myself fro ma previous thread on the exact same topic here, but so far as defining a so-called ''Troll,'' there's really no such thing as a ''troll.'' Not really.
You're either capable of making your case, which theoretical ''trolls'' aren't interested in anyway, and if they see you doing that, they'll go away....which makes them a non-entity. Trolls aren't interested in functional debate. They're only interested in destroying it. But If they are met with functional debate consistently, are shown that you will not back down from encouraging and expecting them to participate relevantly, fruitfully and functonally, they will go away. Because that's the opposite of what they're looking for. It's antithetical to their function.
Or...you can't make your case or defend your own spew and rely on the ease of just calling them a troll as some kind of defense mechanism, and to avoidaccepting any kind of responsibility for not demonstrating the capacity to make your own case or to defend your own spew. And, of course, that's when 'trolls'' actually spring into existence. Their entire existence is dependent upon you're own ability or inability to support your own argument. Your ability to enforce the expectation that they contribute to discussion fruitfully. If they recognize that they simply won't be expected to contribute in a meaningful, fruitful, functional way, because you yourself aren't placing that intellectual burden on them, they'll flourish. Or, as I'd mentioned, spring into existence.
Calling a low-value poster a troll is kind of like when people go blaming things on the devil. Its so much easier to do that than to take responsibility.
You're either capable of making your case, which theoretical ''trolls'' aren't interested in anyway, and if they see you doing that, they'll go away....which makes them a non-entity. Trolls aren't interested in functional debate. They're only interested in destroying it. But If they are met with functional debate consistently, are shown that you will not back down from encouraging and expecting them to participate relevantly, fruitfully and functonally, they will go away. Because that's the opposite of what they're looking for. It's antithetical to their function.
Or...you can't make your case or defend your own spew and rely on the ease of just calling them a troll as some kind of defense mechanism, and to avoidaccepting any kind of responsibility for not demonstrating the capacity to make your own case or to defend your own spew. And, of course, that's when 'trolls'' actually spring into existence. Their entire existence is dependent upon you're own ability or inability to support your own argument. Your ability to enforce the expectation that they contribute to discussion fruitfully. If they recognize that they simply won't be expected to contribute in a meaningful, fruitful, functional way, because you yourself aren't placing that intellectual burden on them, they'll flourish. Or, as I'd mentioned, spring into existence.
Calling a low-value poster a troll is kind of like when people go blaming things on the devil. Its so much easier to do that than to take responsibility.
