A serious question about trolling.

[Innegativeion]

Coming across as abrasive in any way pretty much dooms your argument as far as the other participant goes. They tend to just get defensive and not think about what you say. For onlookers though, I think it could be just as effective as a rational argument.

if people cant take a little abrasion, well i don't know what to say.

It's not that they can't take it,

it's that they will simply disregard points being made by someone who is insulting them in someway. They may not make any fuss about it, but subconsciously they'll say to themselves 'wow, this guy's such an asshole, anything he says must be taken with a grain of salt.'

 

[Realitycrash]

I'm with Aylaine, insulting someone is generally the fastest way to get someone to dismiss your arguments.

It's the whole reason ad hominem arguments are weak.

From a logical point of view? Sure.
They are great from a rhetorical point of view, though.

 

[scw55]

Apparently mimicking the person is trolling.
I just see it as holding a mirror at up them.

 

[Vigormortis]

If by means of what would normally be considered 'trolling' the reaction you intend to incite is to get someone to stop and actually think about what you said and what they are about to say?

For example I've been using a technique like this for years to teach people things they want to know and i know about, but I've noticed that trying to explain it in a direct and straightforward manner (like how i would have it presented to me) causes their eyes to glaze over. And its just something I've started thinking about consciously again and wondering what other's might think of this approach.

You may want to try restructuring that first sentence. It's very confusing and haphazard. (as a quick glance at many of the responses seem to indicate)

From what I'm gathering from your example, and the general assumptions of others in the thread, I'm guessing you're asking if trolling is both an effective and acceptable teaching method. I.E. insulting someone in a "troll-like fashion" to get your point across.

The answer is an unequivocal no. If you have to resort to insulting someone to teach them something, well....to use the popular internet vernacular: "You're doing it wrong".

 

[Metalchic]

If by means of what would normally be considered 'trolling' the reaction you intend to incite is to get someone to stop and actually think about what you said and what they are about to say?

For example I've been using a technique like this for years to teach people things they want to know and i know about, but I've noticed that trying to explain it in a direct and straightforward manner (like how i would have it presented to me) causes their eyes to glaze over. And its just something I've started thinking about consciously again and wondering what other's might think of this approach.

You may want to try restructuring that first sentence. It's very confusing and haphazard. (as a quick glance at many of the responses seem to indicate)

From what I'm gathering from your example, and the general assumptions of others in the thread, I'm guessing you're asking if trolling is both an effective and acceptable teaching method. I.E. insulting someone in a "troll-like fashion" to get your point across.

The answer is an unequivocal no. If you have to resort to insulting someone to teach them something, well....to use the popular internet vernacular: "You're doing it wrong".

that's kinda the thing isn't it? everyone focuses on what they think they see in staid of attempting to read into what they don't. namely they see "trolling" as solely a vehicle for people to harass other people.

i worded the first sentence very carefully, to distract the people who couldn't see past it because it didn't feel like they would contribute anything meaningful to the conversation other than 'absolutely not because that's how i feel.' and that's what i got, some meaningful dialogue with some other people on the nature of distracting people to get your point across or convey information in a manner that makes the recipient work for it in staid of being spoon fed.

my dialogue with Aylaine was very interesting indeed thanks for stopping in.

(The art of trolling is a one to use distraction to keep people away from the actual message you try to convey unfortunately almost always abused to convey hateful messages or down right mean spirited messages my inquiry was about using the technique to convey something else

 

[Metalchic]

*ludicrous amounts of quote text*

one of the chief problems i have with the approach is that i don't have another name for it.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I think a logical explanation is more efficient then an act that by definition is designed to make someone upset and thus impair their judgement.

 

[Metalchic]

I think a logical explanation is more efficient then an act that by definition is designed to make someone upset and thus impair their judgement.

the problem arises when they are trying to use circular logic to solve the problem, you've got to break the chain to fix it.

another problem is that people dont want to be 'told what to do' so attempting to explain the problem in the most forward way possible (the way i would have it explained to me) results in hostility anyway.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I think a logical explanation is more efficient then an act that by definition is designed to make someone upset and thus impair their judgement.

the problem arises when they are trying to use circular logic to solve the problem, you've got to break the chain to fix it.

another problem is that people dont want to be 'told what to do' so attempting to explain the problem in the most forward way possible (the way i would have it explained to me) results in hostility anyway.

If you point out there logic is circular and why and they don't listen, then they aren't going to accept a logic explanation and arguing from an emotional stand-point. At that point your argument is pointless, they can't be reasoned with. Trolling is just going to make them mad so instead of being unmovable now they'll be unmovable and mad. Making someone emotional isn't a good way to make them see that they aren't being logical.

If they become hostile from you being logical, an act designed to make someone agree with you, then how much more hostile are they going to be become if you are intentionality trolling, an act that designed to make others mad.

The essence of trolling is making someone upset and emotional and that is the antithesis of argument.

 

[Phantom Kat]

Examples would be nice.

The problem with the word "trolling" is that it is a label slapped on so many different things that it has no real meaning anymore. You could ask 50 different people and they'd all have different interpretations of what constitutes trolling.

 

[CMDDarkblade]

Trolling is the art of bringing up a controversial or inciting topic like "I think Hitler had the right idea to round up all of the Jews and gas them because they were part of a big plot to poison Europe's water supply" for personal amusement. After that, the troll waits and sees how people respond. Most of the time people over-react to an obviously ludicrous statement and thus the troll gains amusement and entertainment from a single post.

It's much like stirring up an ant hill just to see all the ants swarm out in a frenzy.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Sshhhhh! Topsy Kretts material!

No, really.

"Language is a virus from outer space."
-William S. Burroughs

All we can do in those measly short lives of ours is to infect each other, again and again and again, hoping to bring forth something good that rises out of the sea of crap.

 

[90sgamer]

If by means of what would normally be considered 'trolling' the reaction you intend to incite is to get someone to stop and actually think about what you said and what they are about to say?

For example I've been using a technique like this for years to teach people things they want to know and i know about, but I've noticed that trying to explain it in a direct and straightforward manner (like how i would have it presented to me) causes their eyes to glaze over. And its just something I've started thinking about consciously again and wondering what other's might think of this approach.

Trolling is making statements or questions designed to elicit a negative emotional response from the target. I am not exactly sure what you are attempting to describe but if your not doing the above then you are not trolling.

You would be trolling right now if you intentionally failed to make your first sentence a question and intended for this post to irritate grammar nazis. You would not be trolling if failing to state a question was unintentional. Therefor, trolling is defined by the intent of the person making the statements/questions.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Coming across as abrasive in any way pretty much dooms your argument as far as the other participant goes. They tend to just get defensive and not think about what you say. For onlookers though, I think it could be just as effective as a rational argument.

if people cant take a little abrasion, well i don't know what to say.

Well that's alright, they're probably not worth your time anyway.

 

[DoPo]

i worded the first sentence very carefully, to distract the people who couldn't see past it because it didn't feel like they would contribute anything meaningful to the conversation other than 'absolutely not because that's how i feel.'

Well, I tried to look past it, but I got "Is it OK to troll people to change their opinion." Which made absolutely no sense at all. That's why I asked for clarification. So if this is what you're asking, then the answer is "No, because that makes no sense at all".

Words of the wise. You're welcome.

 

[Metalchic]

i worded the first sentence very carefully, to distract the people who couldn't see past it because it didn't feel like they would contribute anything meaningful to the conversation other than 'absolutely not because that's how i feel.'

Well, I tried to look past it, but I got "Is it OK to troll people to change their opinion." Which made absolutely no sense at all. That's why I asked for clarification. So if this is what you're asking, then the answer is "No, because that makes no sense at all".

Words of the wise. You're welcome.

i don't know what to say that i haven't said already, i only anticipated 4-5 replies then for the thread to die, take a look at some of my replies.

 

[Starbird]

To me trolling = posting with the deliberate purpose of getting a negative reaction only to get attention.

 

[DoPo]

i worded the first sentence very carefully, to distract the people who couldn't see past it because it didn't feel like they would contribute anything meaningful to the conversation other than 'absolutely not because that's how i feel.'

Well, I tried to look past it, but I got "Is it OK to troll people to change their opinion." Which made absolutely no sense at all. That's why I asked for clarification. So if this is what you're asking, then the answer is "No, because that makes no sense at all".

Words of the wise. You're welcome.

i don't know what to say that i haven't said already, i only anticipated 4-5 replies then for the thread to die, take a look at some of my replies.

And I am telling you that the question, worded like that, makes absolutely no sense at all. You seem to be operating under a different definition for "trolling", though. One by which that sentence does indeed make sense but we've not been supplied with. What you said, namely

i think that you guys miss the point, there's an overt form of trolling in the form of directly insulting another person.

is not trolling one bit, it's called flaming and the two are not synonymous in any way. Trolling is provoking people to reply with flames. There is no way "Is trying to anger people over the internet and make them break the rules a good way to consider another point of view" to be in any way effective. IRL that's sort of like one person being wrong and you try and make them attack you with their fists (or whatever) and somehow that would make them say "Aha, now I see things clearly". The world does not work that way.

 

[Metalchic]

And I am telling you that the question, worded like that, makes absolutely no sense at all. You seem to be operating under a different definition for "trolling", though. One by which that sentence does indeed make sense but we've not been supplied with. What you said, namely

which is why i brought up that im not 100% sure what to call it at that point. the definition i've been able to put together from observation is that trolling is a form of using subversive language to redirect the feelings and opinions of another person.

its just used to redirect into anger for amusement. the type I'm referring to is redirection for the conference of information or solutions.

what I'm noticing is that you are trying to swing the conversation back around towards the abstract concept of trolling where I'd presume that regular people have better understanding of how things work and I'm trying to swing it back around to the concrete definition side of things because that's where I've got a stronger grounding.