以心伝心 [U]
Link me one a thread where both (1) a new member was being misled by a troll, and (2) you or anyone else simply pointed out that the poster in question was not representative of LvMI or the forums in general and then stopped responding.
So you agree it’s a problem, and therefore you’re going to perpetuate it?
GUILTY AS CHARGED~!
First off I do not think anyone here cannot really claim to be representing LvMI except for perhaps staff and mods. I would be out of place making such a claim myself. Secondly, the point I was making was not that the person concerned recognizes that the troll represents LvMI or not. It’s that they divert the attention of the new poster and distract them from an otherwise productive discussion. Hence the term, Trolling, derailing, ect…And due to the nature of those trolls, the discussion often becomes antagonistic.
At any rate I browsed for about 10 minutes and lost interest. I don’t really owe it to you and quiet frankly my evening is worth more than me the scouring through people’s old posts finding a flaw. If I come across any more in the future I’ll post them here if you like.
Let me reword the point so that you can better understand. Perhaps I over simplified. You cannot perpetuate a troll, any more then you can make a rock more of a rock. Trolls find ways of perpetuating themselves. Responding or not responding has a benign effect on their behavior, all it changes is whom there behavior is directed at. It doesn’t stop or promote anything.
Your tone seems awfully direct with me AJ. Have I offended you?
I just took a look through that thread. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Ignoring people actually does work if you actually follow through with it. You promoted the idea of ignoring that thread at the beginning, and yet you just kept right on posting.
Yes Bloom is opinionated and is likely a fan of controversy. But the fact remains that he didn’t post a SINGLE aggressive thing. And in spite of writing this…
…and multiple other posts to the same effect, this is how he was addressed:
To everyone taking part in this scene, please note two differences:
-
There is a difference between intellectual principle and intellectual intolerance. If you think you aren’t bound to basic standards of civility because you’re on “home turf”, and the other side is evil, you’re wrong.
-
There is a difference between an opinionated iconoclast and a troll. So if you are baying for a purge of opinionated non-anarchists, save your breath: it’s not going to happen.
I knew you’d do that Lillburne. Thanks for taking what I said out of context.
For those who want to take a look at the thread, and exchange - by all means, please do and judge for yourselves, this time without some nit picked, one sided delusion.
The OP lied about my position, ignored questions & a request to remove the strawman (much like someone else here, aye?) & persisted with intellectual dishonesty.
Oh absolutely, who ever denied that? What you need to realise is there is a difference between someone who is intellectually honest and someone who isn’t.
I don’t care what anyone is on this forum, if they can defend their position with logic and arguments - if a rational discussion with them is possible, by all means - lets have that discussion, but when it is OH so clearly not possible, then it becomes a joke - which that whole thread is. Take a look around, there are other non-anarchists, why don’t you see the same response leveled at those people? Eh? Probably because it’s blatantly obvious they are intellectually honest, keen for a real discussion - open to conversion, and aren’t trolls or anything close to it.
Do you think, in the thread you just locked - bloom was being intellectually honest?
Do you at all attempt to differentiate between those who are, & those who aren’t? Imo, some people fall down in specific areas (eg. IP) but they are great on other things… but then you have people who contribute nothing of substance, on any subject - all they do is detract and derail.
But seriously, how about some perspective in your post… you condemn me and the others for lack of “civility” and yet, where are the “basic standards of civility” here?
bloomj31:
I would…get…ready to…willing kill anyone and everyone that got in my way, man woman and childbloomj31:
I support doing what is necessary. If that involves murdering people, so be it.
lmao and you write up a response condemning the number of folks here who don’t appreciate this type of talk on the LvMI forums… So much for Tu Ne Cede Malis, aye? (Oh I forgot, “evil” means something completely different, my bad.. lol.)
Conza88:
He is a coward. You took the much braver stance, of standing by your principles against the wrath of the state. Lesser men cower in the gutter, or do what this guy has done, become chicken hawks - who chant from the side lines, indirectly calling for and supporting the deaths of millions.
How would you describe someone who supports the pre-emptive wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and the million or so who have died, yet refuses to volunteer in a war he is so supportive off, where he’d voluntarily send money, so soldiers can kill individuals over there? He just cheers and claps on the death and destruction from the side lines.
Esuric, you know we’ve gotten along before. I’m sorry about your “Obama is so big and firm” quote I posted. Ancient history. I think your great on economic posts, and I wouldn’t want to have that ruined by our philosophical differences.
Honestly though, I get into some pretty good discussions on these forums. Definitely the place to go to get some good conversation in. I may have different philosophical opinions than a lot of you Libertarians, but at least for the boots on the ground kind of discussion, we share a lot in common. If you want to boot me, go ahead, I won’t come back.
I may be antagonistic at times, but my entry into this forum (the first of any kind I had ever really been an active part of) was certainly a baptism by fire (Nigraham, Angurse), which set the pace for my future correspondence. If that bothers some of my main detractors, I would say look in the mirror. It’s dismissive disdain you treat those who disagree that turns them into “trolls” in your eyes.
I did not join this forum just to antagonize Libertarians. I wanted to learn, but apparently that isn’t allowed until you bow to the Libertarian Gods.
I’ve read Hoppe’s chapter on argumentation ethics, didn’t like it. Listened to 5 of the 10 parts of Hoppe’s DTGTF seminar, couldn’t take it anymore, because I disagreed with the root premise.
Rothbard is great on historical analysis, but I still don’t understand why he gets so hung up on natural rights theory.
If you take a look back at some of the huge debates I’ve had (notably Angurse and filc+Wilderness), you’ll see that they go around in circles constantly, usually due to mutual misunderstanding. I don’t see how that is entirely my fault, and usually, the circular arguments work themselves out. If that’s still a problem for you, then I don’t know what to tell you.
You claimed that this was your reason and offered to link threads supporting it, but there aren’t any. I think the point has been made.
The threads in question disagree with you.
Not at all. I took a look back and I don’t see any “awfully direct” tone. It seems you’re just surprised at my position. You still haven’t realized that the problem cannot continue without your help and the help of others responding in similar ways.
Morning summary:
Troll-baiting reported. Conclusion = ?
Wolfy makes 6 back to back posts, including these gems (then posts in Mansoor’s new echo chamber). Conclusion = ?
The reporting system is a bit weird. What am I supposed to put in my report? Link? Quote? Reason?
Post what that was a response to if you are going to dig it up. I still don’t know WTF that ish was. You were talking some really whack stuff about the evil ideologues and true believers.
I actually don’t remember, honestly, just remembered the picture.
Conza, I am going to send you a private email on this matter.
I think you have to approve a friend request first though, if you would be so kind.
Found it:
Ever heard of Max Stirner? Maybe you should try reading the man’s work before making these responses.
Link the thread JLR. I am 99% sure it wasn’t a thread about your idol Stirner and you introduced this garbage off-topic as usual, thus my knowledge is irrelevant. While you are doing this let’s enjoy my favorite quote from your homie:
Also, I agree with Nielsio that I like some freedom on these forums and my behavior hasn’t been perfect. Sometimes, like say you are claiming that a senior fellow of LvMI advocates slavery, you might want to use more factual arguments though.
In light of this thread, how can you not think that insulting my breath is inappropriate? You know that you are trollbaiting and this is your action today. You knew you were in the Spencer thread by evading my request for proof that Hoppe is a slavedriver and somehow demanding me to show proof-- of what? that your outlandish claim isn’t taken as a given?
But it was about religion and ideology. I posited that they weren’t distinct. I think it’s relevant. Sorry if you don’t. Here’s the thread.
Good quotes. See? Rights have nothing to do with property.
He seems to prefer serfdom to democracy, and according to his own words on his book at Rockwell’s website, he doesn’t consider feudal orders as “states”. I’m sorry, but I disagree.
It was sort of intentionally satirizing the purpose of this thread, which is essentially to boot me and a few others you disagree with off of the forums for trollish behavior. I apologize if I offended you, or the humor was lost on you.
That is complete hyperbole. He seems to prefer me (again, not sure if you are a noble) as a serf, than as a voting citizen, that’s all I’m saying.
I think we must have been on a different forum 6 months ago if you honestly believe that. As somebody who has been on here for some time and been involved in a far bit of controversy, I must say that I think Lilburne has done a fantastic job in improving the quality of discussion.
Look, in an ideal world people would read a lot of the available literature on any subject they’re discussion on these forums, as somebody with slightly different views on most subjects, that’d benefit me a great deal. But, it doesn’t happen, people here have their own lives and must allocate their time wisely, it can’t all be spent reading books and academic papers(and as I student I have to allocate it between the books that I do read). Take the recent discussion on poverty, I’ve read most of the work these people have on the subject yet few, if any, of them have read the works I’m citing like Easterly’s books. Ideally, they’d go off and read the book, come back and we could continue you the discussion. But to expect such a thing is unreasonable, in the meantime the best one can try to do is explain my point of view, suggest sources and if one feels the discussion is going nowhere, ignore it.
I think you guys are committing the Nirvana fallacy, yes, there are problems with the forum as it is. But the rule you are proposing would just go a long way to preventing dissenting opinion. Maybe you’ll make a convincing case and this feature would be added, in the meantime I think you’d be best off by ignoring those you can’t stand and assuming that those who disagree with you are sincere and at least reasonably intelligent.
I won’t pretend to be innocent here. I believe I stated as much already. Bloom is a special case however. In the past people have been burned by going way out of their way in an attempt to honestly help Bloom. It’s not that we are concerned that he will agree with us, but that he will just respectfully agree to disagree rather then being consistently dishonest, which is exactly what he is doing in the other thread.
So in short, people have tried what you gentlemen are recommending. It hasn’t shown to work.
A rating system would be a nice compromise. [:)]
At any rate I can name a few minarchists and non-anarchists off the top of my head on this forum who are probably some of the greatest contributors. It’s not what they beleive that bothers me Lilburne, it’s the manner in which they present themselves.
To the contrary, it agrees with me. But that thread is not a reflection or a reference to what my complaint refers to.
I saw the thread, and ignored it. The best thing we could have done is let the thread float to the bottom, which is what my first comment said(If you bothered to read it). But after 1 person posts it bumps to the top, then another posts, then another. And what we end up with is a huge invitation. But that thread ended up being more humorous entertainment then anything else. However my comments above were not referring or referencing that thread specifically. If you bothered to read you will notice that my complaint was directed at activity that has been going on for the greater part of 2009, and has only carried over into 2010. Negativity breads negativity and the poor method of discussing on this forum grows.
You cannot refute, or confirm my position on that silly thread alone. I wouldn’t bother placing so much energy into it if I were you. Especially if it is your position to do that, prove to me that trolls go away when people stop responding? I await patiently for the evidence.
Here is a more accurate example of what I am talking about.
Here is an example where the poster took his time to respectfully write a critique, a well thought one to. The OP was an oustanding example of how an opposing discussion should start. However the respect the poster offered in his first post didn’t last beyond that. His very second post was extremely childish in nature, and all consecutive posts, once discovered people disagreed with him, were remarkebly petty, short, uninformative, or circular. Ironically he was awarded MVP for such a blatant display of petty bickering over whos right and whose wrong. Fallacy 8! Fallacy 9! Fallacy 10! Thats the same behavior as Bloom in most of his threads. Blatant un-interest in genuine, honest, discussion. Not to mention the lack of ability of keeping things positive.
That is but one example of many, and no my complaint is not directed specifically at Stranger alone. Perhaps what is most disheartening is Stranger has demonstrated his ability to reasonably hold a very powerful argument, but shoots himself in the foot when he tosses the intellectual tactic out the window on the very first response of his own post. I can’t think of a better example than when a person destroys their own post.
Again, it’s not the dissagrement that bothers me, it’s the manner in how it is carried out and the apparent support such behavior this forum grants those members, Bloom included.
Surprised isn’t the word I would use. Hehe. [;)]
Aj in this thread alone you have the evidence you need. lol…
And JLR, if you can link that discussion that would be great, as thats another one I was referring to. 