Trolling and politics

[EvMetro]

Civilized political debate or discussion is an oxymoron. People can pretend for a little while, but that turns into a time bomb of even more hate. I absolutely prefer seeing all the lefties troll my threads with evasion, which they do, than to see them silenced. Even if it sounds like juvenile Beavis and butthead posts trolling me from a basement or a foreign enemy expressing their deepest hatred for me, it is better than fascism and censorship. At least it is what they really want to say. Trying to fix trolling on a political board where trolling is the native language is ridiculous.

I've been on here for about 5 years now and to this day I try to have civil discussions here. I actively look for it. I rarely rise to people who try to bait me and I tend to not engage with those that are obviously here to do nothing else. In my personal experience, it hasn't led me to "hate" those I disagree with. It has frustrated me on plenty of occasions but hate is something I have a hard time feeling for people I will most likely never personally meet.

As to your OP. Trolling indeed has been a time-honoured tradition in political discourse. Agent-provocateurs have been around before the US was even conceived. Having said that the advent of the internet has changed the objective of trolling. It used to be used as a way to provoke a response from your political opponent in order to show them to be unreasonable or as a justification for advancing your own policies. It seems to me that modern-day trolling has evolved as an objective by itself.

If the only thing you are trying to achieve is frustrating your political opponent without a clear policy goal in mind, I fail to see a point to it. Besides feeling the satisfaction of being the kid that breaks other peoples toys.

Very well written and civilized post, thank you. I don't see the point of much of the juvenile trolling and baiting that I see out there, and I prefer to stay civilized as well. I am disgusted with the members who resort to such ugliness, but not as disgusted as with the admins who censor it. I like to remember that the juvenile troll may feel genuine hate and ugliness that match his posts though, and how ugly cancel culture and censorship are as well.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Trolling is also something the trump haters here all specialize in,insisting there was no evidence of vote fraud and then when you prove them wrong with videos and links and whistleblowers,they cover they close their eyes and cover their ears never addressing your evidence or facts pretending you never made that point or made that post. Same with the virus hoax,the exact same thing.we got lots of paid shills that have penetrated this site that troll,one being a mod even.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Civilized political debate or discussion is an oxymoron. People can pretend for a little while, but that turns into a time bomb of even more hate. I absolutely prefer seeing all the lefties troll my threads with evasion, which they do, than to see them silenced. Even if it sounds like juvenile Beavis and butthead posts trolling me from a basement or a foreign enemy expressing their deepest hatred for me, it is better than fascism and censorship. At least it is what they really want to say. Trying to fix trolling on a political board where trolling is the native language is ridiculous.

I've been on here for about 5 years now and to this day I try to have civil discussions here. I actively look for it. I rarely rise to people who try to bait me and I tend to not engage with those that are obviously here to do nothing else. In my personal experience, it hasn't led me to "hate" those I disagree with. It has frustrated me on plenty of occasions but hate is something I have a hard time feeling for people I will most likely never personally meet.

As to your OP. Trolling indeed has been a time-honoured tradition in political discourse. Agent-provocateurs have been around before the US was even conceived. Having said that the advent of the internet has changed the objective of trolling. It used to be used as a way to provoke a response from your political opponent in order to show them to be unreasonable or as a justification for advancing your own policies. It seems to me that modern-day trolling has evolved as an objective by itself.

If the only thing you are trying to achieve is frustrating your political opponent without a clear policy goal in mind, I fail to see a point to it. Besides feeling the satisfaction of being the kid that breaks other peoples toys.

Very well written and civilized post, thank you. I don't see the point of much of the juvenile trolling and baiting that I see out there, and I prefer to stay civilized as well. I am disgusted with the members who resort to such ugliness, but not as disgusted as with the admins who censor it. I like to remember that the juvenile troll may feel genuine hate and ugliness that match his posts though, and how ugly cancel culture and censorship are as well.

Boy do they ever censor it.

 

[forkup]

Civilized political debate or discussion is an oxymoron. People can pretend for a little while, but that turns into a time bomb of even more hate. I absolutely prefer seeing all the lefties troll my threads with evasion, which they do, than to see them silenced. Even if it sounds like juvenile Beavis and butthead posts trolling me from a basement or a foreign enemy expressing their deepest hatred for me, it is better than fascism and censorship. At least it is what they really want to say. Trying to fix trolling on a political board where trolling is the native language is ridiculous.

I've been on here for about 5 years now and to this day I try to have civil discussions here. I actively look for it. I rarely rise to people who try to bait me and I tend to not engage with those that are obviously here to do nothing else. In my personal experience, it hasn't led me to "hate" those I disagree with. It has frustrated me on plenty of occasions but hate is something I have a hard time feeling for people I will most likely never personally meet.

As to your OP. Trolling indeed has been a time-honoured tradition in political discourse. Agent-provocateurs have been around before the US was even conceived. Having said that the advent of the internet has changed the objective of trolling. It used to be used as a way to provoke a response from your political opponent in order to show them to be unreasonable or as a justification for advancing your own policies. It seems to me that modern-day trolling has evolved as an objective by itself.

If the only thing you are trying to achieve is frustrating your political opponent without a clear policy goal in mind, I fail to see a point to it. Besides feeling the satisfaction of being the kid that breaks other peoples toys.

Very well written and civilized post, thank you. I don't see the point of much of the juvenile trolling and baiting that I see out there, and I prefer to stay civilized as well. I am disgusted with the members who resort to such ugliness, but not as disgusted as with the admins who censor it. I like to remember that the juvenile troll may feel genuine hate and ugliness that match his posts though, and how ugly cancel culture and censorship are as well.

First, let me say that I agree in principle that speech should be as free as possible. But the thing is, "as possible" implies I accept that there are certain limits. In a place like this, those limits are the ones put forth by the owners of the site. They are the people who are liable for what occurs here. They are the ones who have spend the time, effort, and money to set this up. I have no problems with the concept that they make the rules.

In a society as a whole, the limits of speech are when it hurts other people. "Hurting" in this context has to be as narrowly defined as possible. Hurt feelings for instance don't count. A person being bullied in committing suicide would count.

I have a problem with how cancel culture is now being defined. If I grant you the right to say whatever you please, (something I do). I expect you to respect my right to be insulted by it. And even to criticize what you say and refuse to interact with you. It seems to me that yelling "cancel culture" every time there are consequences to pissing people off is just as much trying to limit speech as those idiots that think that saying something offensive means the person is evil incarnate.

 

[EvMetro]

First, let me say that I agree in principle that speech should be as free as possible. But the thing is "as possible" implies I accept that there are certain limits. In a place like this, those limits are the ones put forth by the owners of the site. They are the people who are liable for what occurs here. They are the ones who have spend the time, effort, and money to set this up. I have no problems with the concept that they make the rules.

When we introduce site rules and owner rights, we are on a new topic. There are endless ways to justify censorship, but no rules or rights will change the meaning of censorship or change the fact that trolling is the language of politics.

 

[forkup]

First, let me say that I agree in principle that speech should be as free as possible. But the thing is "as possible" implies I accept that there are certain limits. In a place like this, those limits are the ones put forth by the owners of the site. They are the people who are liable for what occurs here. They are the ones who have spend the time, effort, and money to set this up. I have no problems with the concept that they make the rules.

When we introduce site rules and owner rights, we are on a new topic. There are endless ways to justify censorship, but no rules or rights will change the meaning of censorship or change the fact that trolling is the language of politics.

Your OP is advocating no censorship and no site rules despite owner rights existing. Is that not in itself an attack on personal freedom? Doesn't ownership of a site implies you have the right to set your own rules? If I come to your house and you start yelling at my kid. Don't I have the right to throw you out and call the police to do so if you refuse?

Yes, it is a justification of censorship but I don't think it's a justification most people have a problem with.

 

[EvMetro]

First, let me say that I agree in principle that speech should be as free as possible. But the thing is "as possible" implies I accept that there are certain limits. In a place like this, those limits are the ones put forth by the owners of the site. They are the people who are liable for what occurs here. They are the ones who have spend the time, effort, and money to set this up. I have no problems with the concept that they make the rules.

When we introduce site rules and owner rights, we are on a new topic. There are endless ways to justify censorship, but no rules or rights will change the meaning of censorship or change the fact that trolling is the language of politics.

Your OP is advocating no censorship and no site rules despite owner rights existing. Is that not in itself an attack on personal freedom? Doesn't ownership of a site implies you have the right to set your own rules? If I come to your house and you start yelling at my kid. Don't I have the right to throw you out and call the police to do so if you refuse?

Yes, it is a justification of censorship but I don't think it's a justification most people have a problem with.

Please quote me where I said anything about not having rules on this site or anything about the site owner's rights.

I get that you love censorship and feel a need to justify it, but don't claim that I have said things that I haven't.

 

[forkup]

First, let me say that I agree in principle that speech should be as free as possible. But the thing is "as possible" implies I accept that there are certain limits. In a place like this, those limits are the ones put forth by the owners of the site. They are the people who are liable for what occurs here. They are the ones who have spend the time, effort, and money to set this up. I have no problems with the concept that they make the rules.

When we introduce site rules and owner rights, we are on a new topic. There are endless ways to justify censorship, but no rules or rights will change the meaning of censorship or change the fact that trolling is the language of politics.

Your OP is advocating no censorship and no site rules despite owner rights existing. Is that not in itself an attack on personal freedom? Doesn't ownership of a site implies you have the right to set your own rules? If I come to your house and you start yelling at my kid. Don't I have the right to throw you out and call the police to do so if you refuse?

Yes, it is a justification of censorship but I don't think it's a justification most people have a problem with.

Please quote me where I said anything about not having rules on this site or anything about the site owner's rights.

I get that you love censorship and feel a need to justify it, but don't claim that I have said things that I haven't.

The notion that the language of politics can be eliminated on a politics specific forum is absurd. Complaining about or censoring perceived trolling on a political board is absurd. On a gardening forum yes, but NEVER on a political board.

And after I pointed out that ownership brings with it the right to censor you replied this.

When we introduce site rules and owner rights, we are on a new topic.

How am I exactly supposed to take this not as you advocating for no censorship on this site?

By the way, since I did as you requested kindly state how you got to the conclusion that I like censorship? Stating the right of people to censor in certain circumstances is not the same as liking it when those rights are exercised.

 

[EvMetro]

First, let me say that I agree in principle that speech should be as free as possible. But the thing is "as possible" implies I accept that there are certain limits. In a place like this, those limits are the ones put forth by the owners of the site. They are the people who are liable for what occurs here. They are the ones who have spend the time, effort, and money to set this up. I have no problems with the concept that they make the rules.

When we introduce site rules and owner rights, we are on a new topic. There are endless ways to justify censorship, but no rules or rights will change the meaning of censorship or change the fact that trolling is the language of politics.

Your OP is advocating no censorship and no site rules despite owner rights existing. Is that not in itself an attack on personal freedom? Doesn't ownership of a site implies you have the right to set your own rules? If I come to your house and you start yelling at my kid. Don't I have the right to throw you out and call the police to do so if you refuse?

Yes, it is a justification of censorship but I don't think it's a justification most people have a problem with.

Please quote me where I said anything about not having rules on this site or anything about the site owner's rights.

I get that you love censorship and feel a need to justify it, but don't claim that I have said things that I haven't.

The notion that the language of politics can be eliminated on a politics specific forum is absurd. Complaining about or censoring perceived trolling on a political board is absurd. On a gardening forum yes, but NEVER on a political board.

And after I pointed out that ownership brings with it the right to censor you replied this.

When we introduce site rules and owner rights, we are on a new topic.

How am I exactly supposed to take this not as you advocating for no censorship on this site?

By the way, since I did as you requested kindly state how you got to the conclusion that I like censorship? Stating the right of people to censor in certain circumstances is not the same as liking it when those rights are exercised.

The reason why you are not able to quote me talking about not having rules on this site or talking about the owners rights is because it never happened. You are introducing this new topic because you are looking for a way to defend censorship. You are a lefty, and you are defending what lefties do to enforce leftyism.

 

[forkup]

First, let me say that I agree in principle that speech should be as free as possible. But the thing is "as possible" implies I accept that there are certain limits. In a place like this, those limits are the ones put forth by the owners of the site. They are the people who are liable for what occurs here. They are the ones who have spend the time, effort, and money to set this up. I have no problems with the concept that they make the rules.

When we introduce site rules and owner rights, we are on a new topic. There are endless ways to justify censorship, but no rules or rights will change the meaning of censorship or change the fact that trolling is the language of politics.

Your OP is advocating no censorship and no site rules despite owner rights existing. Is that not in itself an attack on personal freedom? Doesn't ownership of a site implies you have the right to set your own rules? If I come to your house and you start yelling at my kid. Don't I have the right to throw you out and call the police to do so if you refuse?

Yes, it is a justification of censorship but I don't think it's a justification most people have a problem with.

Please quote me where I said anything about not having rules on this site or anything about the site owner's rights.

I get that you love censorship and feel a need to justify it, but don't claim that I have said things that I haven't.

The notion that the language of politics can be eliminated on a politics specific forum is absurd. Complaining about or censoring perceived trolling on a political board is absurd. On a gardening forum yes, but NEVER on a political board.

And after I pointed out that ownership brings with it the right to censor you replied this.

When we introduce site rules and owner rights, we are on a new topic.

How am I exactly supposed to take this not as you advocating for no censorship on this site?

By the way, since I did as you requested kindly state how you got to the conclusion that I like censorship? Stating the right of people to censor in certain circumstances is not the same as liking it when those rights are exercised.

The reason why you are not able to quote me talking about not having rules on this site or talking about the owners rights is because it never happened. You are introducing this new topic because you are looking for a way to defend censorship. You are a lefty, and you are defending what lefties do to enforce leftyism.

Complaining about or censoring perceived trolling on a political board is absurd. On a gardening forum yes, but NEVER on a political board.

This is your quote, right? Note your own highlight.

 

[EvMetro]

First, let me say that I agree in principle that speech should be as free as possible. But the thing is "as possible" implies I accept that there are certain limits. In a place like this, those limits are the ones put forth by the owners of the site. They are the people who are liable for what occurs here. They are the ones who have spend the time, effort, and money to set this up. I have no problems with the concept that they make the rules.

When we introduce site rules and owner rights, we are on a new topic. There are endless ways to justify censorship, but no rules or rights will change the meaning of censorship or change the fact that trolling is the language of politics.

Your OP is advocating no censorship and no site rules despite owner rights existing. Is that not in itself an attack on personal freedom? Doesn't ownership of a site implies you have the right to set your own rules? If I come to your house and you start yelling at my kid. Don't I have the right to throw you out and call the police to do so if you refuse?

Yes, it is a justification of censorship but I don't think it's a justification most people have a problem with.

Please quote me where I said anything about not having rules on this site or anything about the site owner's rights.

I get that you love censorship and feel a need to justify it, but don't claim that I have said things that I haven't.

The notion that the language of politics can be eliminated on a politics specific forum is absurd. Complaining about or censoring perceived trolling on a political board is absurd. On a gardening forum yes, but NEVER on a political board.

And after I pointed out that ownership brings with it the right to censor you replied this.

When we introduce site rules and owner rights, we are on a new topic.

How am I exactly supposed to take this not as you advocating for no censorship on this site?

By the way, since I did as you requested kindly state how you got to the conclusion that I like censorship? Stating the right of people to censor in certain circumstances is not the same as liking it when those rights are exercised.

The reason why you are not able to quote me talking about not having rules on this site or talking about the owners rights is because it never happened. You are introducing this new topic because you are looking for a way to defend censorship. You are a lefty, and you are defending what lefties do to enforce leftyism.

Complaining about or censoring perceived trolling on a political board is absurd. On a gardening forum yes, but NEVER on a political board.

This is your quote, right? Note your own highlight.

The reason why you are not able to quote me talking about not having rules on this site or talking about the owners rights is because it never happened.

 

[EvMetro]

Ten points to anybody who can post a link to the mainstream media broadcasting civilized discussion of Trump that is not trolling. Trolling is the innate language of politics. Trolling is the language of political discussion boards across the internet. It is the language of the mainstream media. Civilized political debate is pipedream and an oxymoron.