Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > * Pascal Costanza > | Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps from > | other newsgroups?
> Stop responding to them. > [...]
Additionally, I lower the score on all messages originating from ilias' (and also other troll's) posts. The keys in Gnus are L-r-s-t RET. All messages in the subsequent are marked, and I usually do not read them. Saves me a lot of time.
* Wade Humeniuk | It might not be benevolence that it lent to ilias and his ilk, but a type of | "top dog" behavior.
I have to admit that while I do not start to play this game, I also do not yield when someone wants to be "top dog", so I recognize the mechanism. Still, anyone can be better than ilias without any effort.
| As human beings we still have desires to be the "top dog", to be the | perceived winner/superior/smarter person in a situation.
I think it is bit more complex than that. I believe only a relatively small group of people engage in this anti-social competitive game-playing, but when they do, others not only do not want to yield their position to them, it is a self-protective necessity to prevent competitive people from "rising" in the hierarchy of a group. I consider competitiveness to be a mental disease when it causes people to attach more importance to their personal position than the good of the group they fight to take over and I believe that people who feel the need to challenge whoever they think is the "top dog" for no other reason than their own personal satisfaction to be mentally diseased as well. This anti-social behavior causes nothing but conflict, but not /only/ because we are human when we also refuse to let people like that win, the group that yields to mentally diseased leaders would soon perish. There is therefore an element of self- preservation in fighting the mentally diseased, obsessively competetive whenever and wherever they try to take control. (Part of my great distaste for the entire field of competitive sports is that regardless of whether these morons "win" or not, they have abused their physical health to the point of being crippled, and it is more a testament to the advanced state of modern medicine that these guys can walk at all. Sports-related health care costs are /enormous/ and keep growing without bounds. It is, however, entirely possible that giving the anti-socially competitive an outlet in a field where their fighting has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of society is a good thing. Sports may therefore provide people who would have become criminals and soldiers looking for a war a place to fight amongst themselves.)
| Thus we might put up with a "lower dogs" behavior because it keeps us on top, | no matter what the "lower dogs" views and behavior might be. In fact the | more absurd (and thus obviously inferior) the "lower dogs" behavior may be, | the better.
But winning over the "lowest dog" only means that you are the next lowest dog. That should not be particularly rewarding, should it?
| Engaging in public communication with people as smart or obviously smarter, | breaks all that down and may threaten some. It takes a honest, courageous | and humble person (or psychologically healthy person) to face all that.
Then why do so many who cannot take it engage precisely in public discourse?
| People may not be trying to convert ilias but are just pissing on the "lower | dog".
Even so, they should find a more worthy target.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Tim Bradshaw wrote: > I apologise for my part in this. Very early on I did mistakenly think > that he could be deconfused, but I am afraid to say that more recently > I have been taking a certain evil pleasure in merely baiting him. > This is both cruel - it's pretty much bullying - and a misuse of cll.
It's easy to fall into this trap. Just remember that a non-negligible fraction of the population is mentally ill, and some fraction of those will have access to the internet. The obviously disturbed trolls, while very annoying, in the end deserve our pity. Their lives must not be pleasant.
> good advice, but perhaps too late, witness his asshole thread. which
perhaps you've missinterpreted.
the 'LISP - Assholes' thread. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=amq79c$4p...@usenet.otenet.gr
limits.
> indeed suggests he is no troll, for he seems sincerely hurt that he has > become a laughing stock in c.l.l.
savages can't hurt me.
they are irrelevant.
> but that happened because he first initiated a dialog (good) in which > his contributions were a mess (bad). this smacked of trolldom but now > looks like a deep psychological defect in his ability to sustain a > coherent social interaction. in which case c.l.l. should indeed stop > tormenting the poor guy.
* Kenny Tilton | now comes quasi with a little positive press for CL and... kablam!!!
Are you for real? How much do you want to tolerate if someone flashes his "good intentions" badge? It was not because of his positive press that anything happened, it was because of the way he took other contributors for granted, and then did not back down.
| I am reminded of the partition/split-sequence fiasco. A contrib is met with | nothing (and again I do not think I exaggerate) -- nothing but a lambasting | of the contributor over the /name/.
You exaggerate.
| In both cases we did not even see "neat work, but...".
Where were you?
| This might fit with what someone wrote today about the ilias volume being a | top/bottom-dog thing. Folks seem moved to take up pen only when they see a | chance to grandstand their perceived superiority.
Well, the only thing interesting to you should be: Do you?
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Tim Bradshaw wrote: > all the other people who have been responding have been genuinely - if > mistakenly - trying to help.
Absolutely. I lost a lot of respect for ilias when he rejected my assertion along those lines. Folks continued to respond helpfully long past early signs that he is uncoachable. Quite a tribute to c.l.l., by the way.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > Now, I have to ask all the people who respond to ilias: Who the hell do you > think you are helping? Who could /possibly/ believe something he writes? > Even if such people might exist, /why/ would you care about those people? It > should take less time to think about what he writes than to read a refutation > to realize that he is totally, irrovocably hopeless.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > * Rolf Wester > | I'm German and I'm highly sensitive concerning this kind of words.
> Not my problem.
Please note that "Untermensch" is a more dangerous expression than "Übermensch" (Nietsche never used the former, btw!). You didn't want Godwin's Law to be applied, did you? -- (espen)
After takin a swig o' grog, Kenny Tilton <ktil...@nyc.rr.com> belched out...:
> John Stone wrote: >> Don't let them get you down.
> good advice, but perhaps too late, witness his asshole thread. which > indeed suggests he is no troll, for he seems sincerely hurt that he > has become a laughing stock in c.l.l.
> but that happened because he first initiated a dialog (good) in > which his contributions were a mess (bad). this smacked of trolldom > but now looks like a deep psychological defect in his ability to > sustain a coherent social interaction. in which case c.l.l. should > indeed stop tormenting the poor guy.
It is not necessary for someone to /intend/ to troll a group in order to in fact do so.
There are quite a number of "trolls" out on Usenet that basically suffer from some form of mental illness that leads them to some form of paranoid schizophrenia, which leads to them constructing strange conspiracy theories.
In some cases, (as seems the case here) there is something severely broken about the "troll's" communications skills. There may some intelligence in some areas, but due to the "breakage" in the other areas, it turns out to be impossible for the "troll" to constructively communicate with the community around them.
The net result is that whether the individual /intends/ 'evil' or not, there is no way to hold a constructive conversation. -- (concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@cbbrowne.com") http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/x.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #145. "My dungeon cell decor will not feature exposed pipes. While they add to the gloomy atmosphere, they are good conductors of vibrations and a lot of prisoners know Morse code." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
"Erik Naggum" <e...@naggum.no> wrote in message news:3241944909892877@naggum.no... > * Wade Humeniuk > | It might not be benevolence that it lent to ilias and his ilk, but a type of > | "top dog" behavior.
> I have to admit that while I do not start to play this game, I also do not > yield when someone wants to be "top dog", so I recognize the mechanism. > Still, anyone can be better than ilias without any effort.
This may be a reason that trolls can elicit so much discorse. Part of a troll's attack may be to attempt to be "top dog" and get to people to fight that. But also appearing completely helpless the troll gets people to exercise their "top dog" skills. I have found ilias's threads to be very strange, his insistence on being an expert in an area but presenting it in a totally inane way. Even when other's point out the problems ilias just continues on. Its like he has pasted a "kick me" sign on his back.
> | As human beings we still have desires to be the "top dog", to be the > | perceived winner/superior/smarter person in a situation.
> I think it is bit more complex than that. I believe only a relatively small > group of people engage in this anti-social competitive game-playing, but when > they do, others not only do not want to yield their position to them, it is a > self-protective necessity to prevent competitive people from "rising" in the > hierarchy of a group. I consider competitiveness to be a mental disease when > it causes people to attach more importance to their personal position than > the good of the group they fight to take over and I believe that people who > feel the need to challenge whoever they think is the "top dog" for no other > reason than their own personal satisfaction to be mentally diseased as well. > This anti-social behavior causes nothing but conflict, but not /only/ because > we are human when we also refuse to let people like that win, the group that > yields to mentally diseased leaders would soon perish.
For the last few years I have wondered if there are societal controls against destructive "top dog" behaviour. Does this mean there are opposite societal forces that helps cooperative and humble people rise in a group? I certainly am a believer in the power of humility.
> There is therefore an > element of self- preservation in fighting the mentally diseased, obsessively > competetive whenever and wherever they try to take control. (Part of my > great distaste for the entire field of competitive sports is that regardless > of whether these morons "win" or not, they have abused their physical health > to the point of being crippled, and it is more a testament to the advanced > state of modern medicine that these guys can walk at all. Sports-related > health care costs are /enormous/ and keep growing without bounds. It is, > however, entirely possible that giving the anti-socially competitive an > outlet in a field where their fighting has no bearing whatsoever on the rest > of society is a good thing. Sports may therefore provide people who would > have become criminals and soldiers looking for a war a place to fight amongst > themselves.)
> | Thus we might put up with a "lower dogs" behavior because it keeps us on top, > | no matter what the "lower dogs" views and behavior might be. In fact the > | more absurd (and thus obviously inferior) the "lower dogs" behavior may be, > | the better.
> But winning over the "lowest dog" only means that you are the next lowest > dog. That should not be particularly rewarding, should it?
It might be pleasurable for a few minutes, then one moves onto the next target.
> | Engaging in public communication with people as smart or obviously smarter, > | breaks all that down and may threaten some. It takes a honest, courageous > | and humble person (or psychologically healthy person) to face all that.
> Then why do so many who cannot take it engage precisely in public discourse?
It is like anything, you have to use it to develop it, especially if one has lost in on the way to becoming an adult. If a person is psychollogically unhealthy it just means the person's mind is divided or unbalanced, the good parts are still there and just striving to be expressed. The person may be in conflict doing it, but it can still be good for them.
> | People may not be trying to convert ilias but are just pissing on the "lower > | dog".
> Even so, they should find a more worthy target.
> -- > Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
> Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. > Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
t...@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Adult-child interactions are different, though. It is *not* okay to > quietly ignore a misbehaving child. In the real world, if a child is > shouting and running around and being a jerk, you chide, or correct, > or punish, the child. You don't ignore it.
AFAIK, they ignore children misbehaviours in Japan. At least, until age 5 years. :)
Erik Naggum wrote: > ilias' ISP behaves exactly as > stupidly as every other ISP and refuses to do anything about him. There is > no way to stop the criminals.
Er, ilias is certainly an idiot, but how is he a criminal?
On 25 Sep 2002 13:10:02 +0000, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> wrote:
> Are you for real? How much do you want to tolerate if someone flashes his > "good intentions" badge? It was not because of his positive press that > anything happened, it was because of the way he took other contributors for > granted, and then did not back down.
Incorrect. Please reread the thread, if you must. I immediately agreed about that matter and since have asked for and been given permission by the relevant people. I protested to the uncalled for unfriendliness & "thou art a noise maker & copycat" tone. Whatever justification I gave was to explain myself and my actions. If you call /that/ as not backing down from the original point, then you did not get the point. At all.
Tim wrote: > I apologise for my part in this. Very early on I did mistakenly think > that he could be deconfused, but I am afraid to say that more recently > I have been taking a certain evil pleasure in merely baiting him. > This is both cruel - it's pretty much bullying - and a misuse of cll.
Mea culpa. I am guilty of this too[1]. On reflection, if this were to happen to somebody like my two year-old son I would be very upset. Even if he put himself in the way of it. Mocking[2] the afflicted is never justified.
In my defence I should add that some of my -- albeit oblique -- comments were intended to cause some form of reassement or adjustment of self but to no avail.
I wish that in fact the whole sorry episode turns about to be an enormously elaborate hoax.
(sigh)
Will
[1] Maybe this is an northern english thing -- or maybe I'm secretly your alter ego ;) [2] I think at the time I thought that I was merely mithering but given the nature of
Erik Naggum wrote: > * Pascal Costanza > | Are there any successful patterns how to deal with trolls, perhaps from > | other newsgroups?
> Stop responding to them.
> I get much more pissed off by the people who cannot understand that ilias is > literally completely hopeless than by ilias, as I have made an exception to > my general principle not to kill-file people but listen to what a person has > to say regardless of his record, but ilias stood out as hopeless from day 1. > He wore a sign on his forehead telling everyone that he is a useless specimen > of the human race when he walked in the door. There is no point whatsoever > in responding to him, as he gave every evidence of being learning-impaired > and worse from the outset. Yet even people I have deemed really smart keep > responding to him, keeping him alive, evidently believing that the community > is somehow helped by it, at least by refuting his misinformation. It is not.
> This breed of untermensch lives for the response they get from real people. > Unlike reasonably social human beings who attach importance to what they say > and do not need a response, this breed of untermensch attaches importance to > how people respond to what they say, and only their responses. If they have > to pester and annoy others to elicit a response from them, so be it. If they > have to break laws and regulations to cause others to notice them, so be it. > If they have to deface buildings with spray cans, so be it.
> When the Internet became a public resource, criminals had to come with it. > We have spammers, Nigerian 419 scams, trolls on newsgroups, etc, just like we > have criminals in the real world. The difference is that our governments sit > on their hands and refuse to deal with them. ilias' ISP behaves exactly as > stupidly as every other ISP and refuses to do anything about him. There is > no way to stop the criminals. They even have anti-social defense lawyers on > the Net to "protect" them from criticism, in our community exemplified by > Coby Beck, who attack those who criticize the untermensch and want them to > have free reign of the newsgroups while ordinary, decent people are left with > no choice but to stop reading newsgroups that are taken over by untermensch.
> If it had helped to kill-file ilias, the problem would have been gone by now. > The problem is all the people who think that /anyone/ in the known universe > would believe anything that he produces. The crucial point when it comes to > deciding whether to refute some claim or not is to decide whether anybody had > reason to believe it to begin with. If not, and you refute it, you gave it > credibility it did not deserve. If somebody did believe it, and you did not > refute it, were you responsible for their confusion, for how long it took > them to unconfuse themselves, for their spreading more confusion?
> Now, I have to ask all the people who respond to ilias: Who the hell do you > think you are helping? Who could /possibly/ believe something he writes? > Even if such people might exist, /why/ would you care about those people? It > should take less time to think about what he writes than to read a refutation > to realize that he is totally, irrovocably hopeless.
> Previously, kill-filing people was based on their annoying opinions and their > tendency to stir up conflicts and flame wars. There is real danger in being > insulated from "unwelcome" information with this practice, meaning that which > tests your convictions, but if there is anything the Internet can offer us > that the offline world could not, it is the free flow of counter-information, > which is routinely suppressed by the formal publishing channels. However, if > you listen to people who believe weird things, you realize very quickly that > they will more likely than not be crackpots, which is why other people ignore > them. It is your task, then, to be able to discern a crackpot from someone > who has an valuable alternative view, and actually /listen/ to what people > are saying, which sometimes require that you be much smarter than they are, > or think much more about it than they have. People who protect themselves > from alternative views therefore tend to be unable to distinguish crackpots > in time, as well. When presented with an unfiltered medium like the Internet > and Usenet newsgroups, those who have grown up on the filtered media will of > necessity feel bewildered and confused. In very many cases, it helps to poke > them with a cattle-prod and yell "THINK!" at them or treat them harshly as > long as they do not engage their brain. Few cases are literally hopeless, > but when one comes along, it /should/ be easy to detect because you know how > to sort an ignorant from an opinionated asshole and a person who believes in > some faulty premises from an actual retard or nutcase.
> I am puzzled by the fact that people who have lent no benevolence to people > who have held intelligent views differing from their own, lend benevolence to > ilias and his ilk. It is as if they cannot deal with intelligent rejection > of their beliefs, but have no problems with misbehaving children. If people > think and manage to enunciate their arguments instead of defending themselves > personally and attacking their critics, their contributions may be still hard > to deal with because it is intellectually demanding, but if you argue and > listen with them, you may learn something valuable that changes the way you > deal with the world around you. Now, this is what I cannot figure out: What > could anyone possibly gain from converting ilias to his way of thinking?
Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> writes: > I am afraid to say that more recently > I have been taking a certain evil pleasure in merely baiting him. > This is both cruel - it's pretty much bullying - and a misuse of cll.
I see nothing wrong with amusing myself by abusing people like this.
>>I apologise for my part in this. Very early on I did mistakenly think >>that he could be deconfused, but I am afraid to say that more recently >>I have been taking a certain evil pleasure in merely baiting him. >>This is both cruel - it's pretty much bullying - and a misuse of cll.
> It's easy to fall into this trap. Just remember that a non-negligible > fraction of the population is mentally ill, and some fraction of those > will have access to the internet. The obviously disturbed trolls, while > very annoying, in the end deserve our pity. Their lives must not be > pleasant.
Sorry to say that, but I disagree. If the reason for certain behavior is really some kind of mental illness, then pity doesn't help at all but pity rather feeds the illness. The only help that is appropriate is professional help, but mentally disturbed people are usually only willing to ask for professional help when their level of suffering is considerably high.
So, perverse and cruel as it might sound, anything that increases their level of suffering actually might be a step towards a real improvement of their situation. So don't feel ashamed if you happen to feel like poking fun at them - you are not the reason for their illness.
Newsgroups cannot be some kind of self-help group or a substitute for psychotherapy.
Pascal Costanza wrote: > Sorry to say that, but I disagree. If the reason for certain behavior is > really some kind of mental illness, then pity doesn't help at all but > pity rather feeds the illness.
Rubbish. The mentally ill benefit enormously by not having their odd behavior taken at face value. In mild, non-threatening cases one needs to look past the immediate offensiveness of the behavior to the suffering (or simply confused) individual behind it. Compassion will then arise in anyone at all mentally well.
> ...anything that increases their > level of suffering actually might be a step towards a real improvement > of their situation.
Self-justifying fiction. Abuse only makes them dig their heels in further, becoming more and more attached to their delusion/confusion with each exchange. They do /not/ miraculously discover their own confusion (what a concept!) and seek help, they sink in deeper.
But break off the attack and they can find their way back to clarity. Then "catch them" being normal and reinforce that.
Two things help the reality-challenged: psychotropic drugs and compassion. We can offer only the second. Imagine a mile in ilias's shoes.
disclaimer: pardon the holier-than-thou tone. i am as big an asshole as anyone. it's just that i have been very close to many a nutcase, and loose screws aside, they have been the most interesting, intelligent, decent, and -- precisely beacuse of their suffering -- compassionate, accepting people I have known.
* Len Charest | Er, ilias is certainly an idiot, but how is he a criminal?
Breaker of what little laws and regulations that keep this society working. If you wish to quibble over the formality of the laws and regulations or the conviction of criminals under the rule of law, feel free to post a lengthy harangue on the topic.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
* Rolf Wester | No surprise, I expected that answer.
I am Norwegian and I am very sensitive to people from the Wehrmacht telling Norwegians what to do or not to do. You tried that once and it left serious scars in the Norwegian soul. Will you pay attention to my sensitivity or consider it my problem? I think you should do the latter and that it is obscene to bring up personal sensitivities because of one's /nationality/.
So your nationally induced sensitivity is your problem. Keep it to yourself. If you do not, you very strongly communicate that your sensitivities are more important than every other sensitivity to which the author has already paid due respect. Such egoistic behavior is typical of people who want others to feel bad because they perceive themselves as victims. Cut it out.
The whole world is well aware of the guilt-ridden German psyche, but I have one piece of /really/ good advice for you: Get the hell over it.
"Untermensch" is defined by Oxford's excellent dictionaries of the English Language this way
a person considered racially or socially inferior.
Of course it is a strong term that should elicit emotions, but the arrogance and haughtiness of Germans who think their personal sensitivities should cause other people to curb their language and the things they can talk about is one of the most appalling cases of emotional blackmail and censorship around. (Another most appalling case of same is how the Jews /milk/ their tragedy more than 50 years later.) People who prey on the guilt that they want other people to feel should receive no sympathy whatsoever.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
* Brian Palmer <br...@invalid.dom> | That's the community spirit!
But "sharing" his sensitivities /is/ part of the community spirit? Where is your respect for /my/ sensitivities? Do they not count? What if I am hurt by your ridicule? Should I be able to silence you and turn the community against you? You have chosen a very dangerous path.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
* Pascal Costanza | So, perverse and cruel as it might sound, anything that increases their | level of suffering actually might be a step towards a real improvement of | their situation.
It is not perverse and cruel. Most people live cozy little lives much like that of a pebble that has fallen into an indentation in a larger stone and through wind and rain and snow and cold, digs itself deeper and deeper because it never receive enough energy to travel out into the world. You can find such holes that are hundreds of years old. Humans at the bottom of such holes call their holes their "religions" or their "culture" and fight tooth and nail to remain in their hole if they are washed out by the massive floods of information from the Internet.
However, people outside their hole have a duty in no small sense to drag them out, to let them see the human experience they have protected themselves from. This will be very painful to many of the "outed" hole-dwellers. If they are aware of this pain and do not want to be exposed to the real world, the solution is very, very simple: Return to their hole. If, however, you do venture outside your hole, the fact that we are human beings and therefore invariably benefit from sharing in our collective experience, means that even hole-dwellers be exposed to the real world and experiences that they may resist because they secretly want to go back to their holes.
It is courage that keeps them on the outside -- and that courage should be awarded with information they need but do not want. If they respond with "I feel hurt! Do not present information I cannot cope with!", they should go back to their hole and not return to the outside world. As long as they are out in the real world, they have an /obligation/ to cope with the world they have chosen to deal with and human /decency/ requires that they do not make their coping problems anybody else's problem. Posting a requirement to curtail the freedom of expression of others because they cannot cope with it is obscene and is the really perverse and cruel thing to do to others.
Imagine how many things people cannot cope with! Imagine a world where somebody's failure to cope were the one ruling principle of all your social interaction. You would get a society where people could not pronounce true statements about groups of people because they would feel offended. You would get a society where differences that really hurt a group would have to be kept a secret instead of being rectified and solved because they feel more hurt about the existence of a difference than about it causing their losses. You would get a society where people would have to determine whether they would offend anyone with statement before they could determine its truth. In the end, we would encourage people not to learn to read because they would only find millions of volumes that made them feel ignorant and unworthy.
If you want sympathy from some warm body that does not understand you, get a dog. If you want sympathy from some warm body that does understand you, get a cat. If you want sympaty from some warm body that wants to be understood before it gives you any sympathy whatsoever, get another human being.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
