Internet trolls thrive on bullying, generating outrage, creating fake conflicts, violating community standards, and kicking books out of the hands of nerds in the hallway.   They, like gods, cannot live without attention.  The attention that sustains them, is outrage.   And just like gods, and Tinker Bell, if you don't believe in them, they fade away.

 

If a troll happens to respond to this topic, even here, it's best not to respond to it.  I forget whether the person who starts a topic can remove responses, but if so...  that could happen.  Meanwhile, you can talk about the troll, but not actually respond to it.

 

I don't now what's up with admin.  Regardless, this is the best atheist site on Ning or any other network.  The annual troll visitation will pass, things will settle down, and the sun will shine again.

 

 

Actual unretouched photo taken of a troll.  Via commons.wikimedia.org

Tags: troll

Views: 539

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks Daniel.

If you are talking about cultsmasher, I don't think their purpose is as devious as trolling.  They're simply full of hate and insults, and adopted a racial ideology as a vent for it. 

That's an opinion.  What is the evidence supporting it?

Going on websites just to get people fighting and to get attention is an exotic and strange way for someone to entertain themselves.

The accusation of trolling, taken literally, is that someone doesn't mean what they say - they just enjoy creating conflict etc.

It's much more natural that the people who get called trolls are sincere about their beliefs, and want to express them. 

Along with a whole lot of insults in cultsmasher's case. 

cultsmasher clearly has a lot of emotional stuff going on - seething with anger and hate.  For whatever reason. 

I asked cs whether he'd lost his job and was angry about it.  That would explain his insults, because losing a job tends to be humiliating. 

But he wouldn't say anything about what motivated him.  That tells you something - he's aware of a motivation that he doesn't want to disclose. 

So I'm not saying that cs isn't obnoxious.  He's very obnoxious, and A/N has been used as a vent for his anger. 

Just that stirring up websites and creating conflict isn't likely to be his primary motivation. 

Not feeding the troll is one possible option. Sort of like starving the beast; withholding the 'food' it is seeking being attention. There is another option, which apparently happened here. Enough members vented their wrath and let him know what a despicable person he is. He has stated he is now leaving. 

Just wondering aloud, but which method gets him out of here quicker?

Pat, I don't know what method is quicker or less painful.  I admit when there are topics or posts that I find tiresome, annoying, irritating, it takes a fair amount of self discipline to just not-comment.  What works best for me is to "un-follow" so it doesn't appear in my email.  However, I also try to support Nexus as, if not a moderator, at least as a supporter of the community aspect of Nexus.

How to defeat an internet troll.

Usenet, How to Handle a Troll

Peorian, How to Identify and Defeat an Internet Troll.

I think those are all good articles.  In the conclusion to the last one, which is kind of similar to what happened here

"Learn how to quickly recognize a troll and you've won half the battle.

Mess with them briefly to expose their true nature to others in the audience or the discussion, then kick them to the curb by leaving the conversation. If necessary, report the troll to an administrator."

My recommendation at this point is to unfollow the discussion.  We've done all we can by identifying, giving voice to, instructing, and describing the community standards, and reporting Sligo Malak, so no use egging him on.  But each person has to do what they have to do, and I certainly am not judging the choices.

"Sligo Malak" name is via the troll-name-generator

I did do the unfollow yesterday, Daniel, but I also went back to the pages & deleted what little I did say.

I'm getting the impression that Richard must be on vacation as something like this never usually takes more than 48 hours to take effect.

In looking back over my responses, to his original posting, I noticed 2 things: 1) I never did directly address him, and 2) I think the insults I stated were among the most damning. I'm not saying that's good, and maybe I should not have been so insulting.

But, when I read his tripe, with a picture of Hitler as an avatar, all I could think of were the two elderly Jewish ladies I once knew who were absolute sweethearts. And, who happened to have a series of numbers tattooed on the inside of their forearms. Probably should have just kept my mouth shut, as I don't take kindly to degenerates like him.

In the "for what it's worth" category, I also reported him for racism. 

I think you were wise not to address the troll directly.  Talking about a troll is better than talking to it. 

You and I and everyone else is only human.  Nothing we do will be perfect in our own minds or others.

That is another risk of trolls.  We get excited and upset and start throwing out ad hominems, which are also not consistent with terms of service.  Which puts us at risk as well, but fortunately most of us have long records on Nexus as promoting community and reason, and being compassionate and well rounded human beings.   Avoiding speaking to them, is safer and healthier for us as well as having benefit in starving the troll.

I have known holocaust survivors too.  And survivors of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, and a couple of Bosnians who survived the genocide there.   And some African Americans whose families were persecuted in the US South, including lynching.  Part of what I do for a living exposes me to a lot of people.  What they experienced, sometimes, tortures me.  I understand the emotions regarding someone like Mr. Troll.

That is another risk of trolls.  We get excited and upset and start throwing out ad hominems, which are also not consistent with terms of service.

Exactly.  Never mind the racist putdowns - cs made an interesting assertion - that societies do better if there's racial homogeneity. 

True?  False?  I can think of possible pluses and minuses to it.

What's really toxic is when skin color and people's appearance in general are correlated with status and wealth and the work they do.  It creates stereotypes. 

Would a society where everyone has similar skin color and appearance be healthier than a diverse society where skin color is correlated with the work they do? 

Would people simply develop new, more subtle stereotypes?  England had a class system where lower-class people actually talked differently - cockney.  Even though the English were white, the lower class became demarcated by their speech.  How did that happen?  I wonder if societies tend to develop differences between upper and lower classes; if there aren't racial differences, other differences develop. 

We have big gender differences in appearance anyway.  Societies aren't going to become homogeneous by gender.  Except for a few places like monasteries and nunneries. 

And societies aren't likely to become racially homogeneous any time soon.  The mixing of different peoples all over the world is not going to spontaneously reverse.  That would be like all the gas molecules in a room suddenly moving to one side of it. 

 Maybe if the ozone layer thinned too much, only the dark-skinned people would survive :(

Maybe the light skinned people would become Morlocks.

My dad was in a work camp so, I am impressed that I didn't go after him more than I did.  

RSS

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service