- This topic has 187 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
The 2019 listing of known troll species:
The Classic Troll: says random inflammatory statements/views not actually held by the poster (eg. pretends to be a 9/11 truther just to make people angry).
The Character Troll: Has a running theme/character that he/she plays and never deviates from.
The Reverse Troll: says inflammatory remarks that he/she actually does believe, but puts it behind the guise of classic trolling to avoid responsibility.
The Chaos Troll: continuously participates on a certain platform, but rapidly shifts controversial viewpoints and character traits to confuse and annoy everyone.
Now, you may be wondering what I would call it when someone just has offensive/annoying views, but there’s no deception involved… That’s called NOT TROLLING. Accusing them of such is some hardcore, college-liberal-snowflake mentality. That being said, did I miss any categories?
NC
excellent list
“what I would call it when someone just has offensive/annoying views, but there’s no deception involved… That’s called NOT TROLLING.”Though you are forgetting Poe’s law , it isnt neccesarily driven by a “hardcore, college-liberal-snowflake mentality”
The most common practical definition of “troll” is “anyone who disagrees with me”.
google is your friend
The original was “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake for the genuine article.”
It has since been expanded to include any “extreme view”
ubiq: If you view Creationalism as extreme or whatever that idiot “Poe” was trying to say, then you’re pretty extreme yourself.
Joseph
I don’t
And Poe was a genius. Most of your posts’s only value is to further prove his law correct.@Joseph is the personification of Poe’s law. Most people here can’t tell that he’s trolling in 99% of his comments.
Yseribus: See Neville’s comment in the OP where he wrote “That’s called NOT TROLLING.”
NC
Are you saying an anti creationist can’t be a genius?
Fair enough
He probably isn’t a genius, though I think this law (at least the way it is commonly used) is geniousnes.I’m sorry for alarming you, there there it will be OK. Sleep well
(also I wouldn’t say I “respect” him, I know nothing about him other than this one adage which I think is brilliant)What is exactly genius about his law?
Basically it statesThe written word contains no inflection, so without outside markers, one about know if someone is being serious or sarcastic.
The only genius there, is his ability to state the obvious in a way that makes people think he has said something smart.
Aka, he is a fools genius.Unless of course you happen to agree with his insidious underlying point, namely, creationism is inherently and objectively foolish. Every thinking person knows that. And every normal poster means that. However one must be careful because though you think it’s blatantly obvious that your post supporting creationism is sarcasm and hyperbole, some fool gonna believe you. So take caution.
Then he is giving you good guidance.Hence Josef’s assertion that he is only a genius if you support atheism.
I happen to disagree even with that. I think it would only make him a nice person for giving his minions good advice.As it is though, there is nothing particularly bright in his ”law”
But only an utter fool is an atheist.
So I take full exception to your claim that he or his law are geniusBeing a fool is not a contradiction to being a genius.
“Most geniuses acquire that title in the same way a centipede comes by its name; not because it has a hundred legs, but because most people cant be bothered to count past 14.”
Shmuel Klemensedited
Besides that upon further reflection, what if wrote isn’t even true!!
There is a phrase I’ve seen only in writing ”said no one. Ever. ”
That phrase when attached to any statement, effectively negates it completely letting a reader know it’s not really meant.
How about (sarcasm)
That works too
So actually all he did was write a law which states
‘an emoticon allows one to encapsulate an entire thought into one symbol. ”
Indeed. Pure genius
What did he think those who made the emoticons thought they were for??
And earth to Columbus
Ever heard the expression
”a picture is worth a thousand words ”?
So after much introspection he realized that that applies to emoticons too!!!
Wow!
I’m impressed with his superior mental faculties!! (not) (sarcasm)Tomim
That’s great!
Now he was actually a genius
Just read some of his books.
Not like this fool“So I take full exception to your claim that he or his law are genius”
nu nu
“What is exactly genius about his law?”
“Basically it states …The written word contains no inflection, so without outside markers, one about know if someone is being serious or sarcastic.”So I’m guessing you don’t really care about what is genius about his law, and frankly I don’t really care if you like it or not. its quite all right if you think its the stupidest thing ever said It is ok too if you are as deeply troubled as poor NC by this silly conversation
that said, the rule clearly went a bit over your head, and if you really care i’d be happy to explain to you the nuance that you clearly missed
Care? I don’t care.
Curious? Yes I’d like to know.
So far I laid out a reasoned logical point by point refutation of any supposed genius that exists in that law.
Your response has been ”I guess your too stupid to understand. ”
Now I’m sure there is genius in that response, but I plead too stupid to understand that too.
I’ll sit back and wait for the master to explain“Curious? Yes I’d like to know… I’ll sit back and wait for the master to explain”
Glad to oblige!
“So far I laid out a reasoned logical point by point …”
No you didnt. you misunderstood the law, as you sort of realized in your follow up post.
You originally said “The written word contains no inflection, so without outside markers, one about know if someone is being serious or sarcastic.”which is of course nonsense, as you correctly realized later. Sadly, though instead of taking that opportunity t rethink your mistaken understanding , you doubled down on your wrong interpretation.
The quote is not about words or language. That is not at all the subject of the law. The law is about people.
As Yeserbius correctly understood. “@joseph is the personification of Poe’s law. Most people here can’t tell that he’s trolling in 99% of his comments.” In other words Joseph ie a person, is an example of Poe’s law, its not his writing that is the example.For example take his recent post “Women’s suffrage must end” Does he really believe that? There is no real way to know, some take him very seriously, some assume he is joking.
Who is right? There is no way to know. NOT because their is a chisaron in language (which as you ve pointed out 1. isnt true, and 2. wouldnt be a chiddush at all. But because there are people with such crazy ideas out there that no matter how extreme he gets, we still couldnt be certain if he was being serious or not.Undo cheirem derabeinu gershom?
Be allowed to hit your wife?
Be allowed to keep your wife imprisoned in your home
Be allowed to feed her just enough to survive ?Who knows if he actually believes this stuff, furthermore, he may not even have SAID all these examples, but many would believe me if I said he did
He could get as extreme as possible combining all the above, into one post (as i I believe men should be allowed to marry multiple wives keeping them all locked up at home feeding them the bare minimum amount to eat) and many would STILL believe he believes thatAgain, not because of a chissaron in “the written word” in fact it can equally apply in real life if joseph said these things.
“Your response has been ”I guess your too stupid to understand. ””
I double checked my post, I’m not sure where I said (or even implied ) that .
But lets focus on one misunderstood line at a timeWhen I wrote this
The written word contains no inflection, so without outside markers, one about know if someone is being serious or sarcastic.
It should have said thisThe written word contains no inflection, so without outside markers, one CANNOT know if someone is being serious or sarcastic.
It was an auto-correct typo I didn’t catch.
Maybe that threw you off as to what I was saying?
I don’t see where I changed my own understanding of his statement
What I changed is that originally I viewed it as superfluous, then I realized it’s falseUbiq,
Thanks for your lengthy post.
Doesn’t really explain anything though.
The addition of a smiley emoticon
A) doesn’t prove anything as it can be just to confuse you further
B) it’s purpose can be accomplished through the written word as well (whether to confuse or clarify its all the same)As to your final question
Quote ”the rule clearly went a bit over your head,”
Aka your too stupid to understand.
Or did you not understand what you meant when you wrote that and when you went back and double checked your post?I’ll sit back and await further enlightenment
“Maybe that threw you off as to what I was saying?”
Nope, I got what you are saying. you elaborated quite well. I have no trouble understanding things in context, my posts too are often riddled with typos. It happens.
“I don’t see where I changed my own understanding of his statement”
you didn’t. Here is the sequence you misunderstood it (“Basically it states The written word contains no inflection, so without outside markers, one about know if someone is being serious or sarcastic”) Then realized, correctly, that your misunderstanding wasn’t true (“Besides that upon further reflection, what if wrote isn’t even true”)
Atthis point instead of reevaluating your understanding, you doubled down on your wrong, misinterpretation.“Thanks for your lengthy post.”
you are most welcome 🙂
” Doesn’t really explain anything though”
apologies.
Perhaps you do better with more of a give and take, approach:
question: what is the subject of Poe’s law?Is it language? or Extremists/extreme positions?
“Quote ”the rule clearly went a bit over your head,” Aka your too stupid to understand.”
Oh no, not at all! don’t be so hard on yourself, True it went over your head, but you can get it don’t give up! with a bit of perseverance you totally could understand it I have full faith in you, you are not stupid, you are a kluger yid I know it!
Are you not familiar with the adage “If at first you don’t succeed try try again ” (do you not understand that either?) Its not “if at first you don’t succeed give up you’re too stupid to understand” I in no way meant to imply thatquestion: what is the subject of Poe’s law?
Is it language? or Extremists/extreme positions?
as written,
language/self-expression/communication of intentubiq: You’re confused. You’re misunderstanding Poe’s Law. I’m not going to have a back and forth with you on this topic since you have a history of constantly spouting over and over again refuted points (using slightly different verbiage). But I’ll make this point once.
Poe’s Law does NOT apply to someone who sincerely believes in and expresses (online or wherever) an “extremist” point of view. Even in Poe’s case if the writer sincerely believed in Creationism and totally and completely believed that G-d literally created the universe in seven days, Poe admits that his law (Poe’s Law) does not apply in such a case. It only applies to posts parodying or sarcastically mocking an “extremist” view.
Note, again, that Poe believes that believing that the world was created in seven days literally is “extremist”. That demonstrates one person’s extremism is another person’s mainstream. Indeed, we Yidden here know that Poe is an extremist for considering Creationism to be extreme. But that’s all a side point.
Now back to me. Let me ask you, ubiq (or anyone else here), an honest to G-d question: suppose women’s suffrage came up for a vote as to whether to continue or discontinue, and it literally came down to my vote to decide its future. Either as a legislator making the deciding vote after everyone else voted or as a voter casting the tiebreaking vote or however else you imagine this hypothetical where I, Joseph, am casting the deciding vote on the future of woman’s suffrage. Do you ubiq (or anyone else here) seriously doubt how I’ll vote on the issue? I think you know in your heart, without much doubt, that I’ll vote against the continuance of such suffrage.
You might define such a position as “extreme” but I don’t think anyone really doubts that’s how I’d really vote. Now, of course, I’d very much dispute your characterization of that position as extreme in the first place. I’d bring as rayos the question of whether you’d consider the millions of people in the 40% of the voting population who opposed woman’s suffrage prior to its becoming the law of the land (in 1920) as all being millions of extremist people. [On January 12, 1915, a suffrage bill was brought before the House of Representatives and was defeated by a vote of 204 to 174.] I think you wouldn’t consider them all to be extremists. And I’d point out just as their position then wasn’t extreme, taking the same position now isn’t. But the question of whether its an extreme position is anyways all a side point. I think we agree that you know that I’d vote to discontinue that suffrage.
So my position is very much not in doubt. And, as stated, as long as my position expressed in the comments is sincere, there’s no applicability of Poe’s Law. And as Neville pointed out in the OP above, since the expressed position is sincere, it is also defined as not trolling.
REMEMBER
BREVITY MAY BE THE SOUL OF WIT
BUT
CLARITY IS THE SOUL OF UNDERSTANDING“I’m not going to have a back and forth with you on this topic since you have a history of constantly spouting over and over again refuted points”
nope.
You just have trouble conceding when wrong (not something that I struggle with. )
I DO grant that have trouble expressing myself well, and perhaps that is why you think I am repeating myself. I’d be more than happy to explain and why any “refuted point” was not actually refuted, or to concede that it was .KY
“as written, language/self-expression/communication of intent”In that case, yes the law is silly and uninspired
joseph
“Poe’s Law does NOT apply to someone who sincerely believes in ..”correct, I in no way am disputing that sentence.
though the point is there is no way to know what you believe“Now back to me. … Do you ubiq (or anyone else here) seriously doubt how I’ll vote on the issue?”
Yes! that is the point. I’m 90% sure you’d vote to continue Woman’s suffrage. but I’m not 100% sure. there is just no way to know from your post. I’m 90% sure you are parodying someone who believes that, but with no winky face, I’m just not sure and it is possible that you might actually mean it.
That is precisely my point, you are the embodiment of Poe’s law . You say your position is sincere but I (and many posters ) don’t believe you.
and this is PRECISLY why Poe’s law is so brilliant. There is no way to know. sure we can all guess and looking at the pattern of your posts, with “rayos” that make so little sense to anyone with a shred of thought (see below) I Find it astonishing that anyone thinks you are serious. Yet, many do and even I’m not 100% certain that you are kiddingI would be curious though to see other votes in your poll. perhaps a new thread?
your raya from 100 years ago is absurd. If if most people in Germany in th 40’s thought gassing Jews was ok, does that mean the position isn’t extreme?
Which brings us to another great internet law: Godwin’s law
Ubiq ,
I’m still waiting for the clear explanation
In case you don’t remember where you offered it I’ll quote you to yourself
”
i’d be happy to explain to you the nuance that you clearly missed”(attempt #2)
KY
“as written, language/self-expression/communication of intent”In that case, yes it is a silly and uninspired quote.
joseph
“Poe’s Law does NOT apply to someone who sincerely believes in and expresses ”
correct. N o argument there“Now back to me. …Do you ubiq (or anyone else here) seriously doubt how I’ll vote on the issue?”
Yes! I am 90% sure you would vote to continue womans’ suffrage, but 10% thinks you may be serious. you are the literal personification of Poe’s law I’m almost certain you are parodying these positions (it is hard to believe your illogical “rayos” (see below) are meant to be real) yet some posters (not many) do take you seriously so I’m not 100% sure.
I’m curious how others would vote, So I started a thred for that“I’d bring as rayos the question of whether you’d consider the millions of people in the 40% of the voting population who opposed woman’s suffrage prior to its becoming the law of the land (in 1920) as all being millions of extremist people”
This is not a raya at all. Can I bring a raya from the fact that millions of Germans in 1940 that Gassing Jews is a great idea. that the policy of exterminating Jews isn’t “extreme” ?
Which brings us to another great internet law, namely Godwin’s law
In that case, yes it is a silly and uninspired quote.
um, im singularly unenlightened as to the genius of the line
i thought you offered to explain it
my mistakeubiq:
1. Your comparison to the gassing is absurd. Even in the ’40s anyone who supported gassing knew it was an extremist/murderous idea. No less than today. They knew, then, if they lost the war they’d be charged with war crimes.
The supporters of the status quo on women’s suffrage pre-1920 were a) in the majority until at least 1915 and b) did not consider their opposition to changing the law on suffrage as being extreme; indeed they considered the supporters of suffrage, who wanted to change the voting system to something never before done in history as being the extremist and c) even supporters of women’s suffrage (pre-1920) did not consider the opponents of the change as being extremists. They obviously disagreed with them but the opposition was seeking to maintain the status quo.
2. Let me assure you 100% b’emunah shelamo with complete and total honesty that I earnestly believe that women’s suffrage was a mistake to have been granted in 1920, that it has had many more negative than positive consequences as a result of it having been granted, that it would be beneficial to society to revoke it today and that if I today had to cast the deciding vote as to whether to continue or to discontinue it I would undoubtedly cast the deciding vote to revoke it.
As an aside and bonus, and this may be more difficult for you to accept but I also truly believe it, I would estimate that most Chareidi men agree with me and, if casting their vote behind a curtain (i.e. in private as voting traditionally is done) they’d vote to revoke it too. But I also think that most of them wouldn’t admit this in a survey.
Nc
Ubiq was supposed to explain to me the nuanced details showing how Poe “s law shows genius.
I looked at the law and saw a simpletons hardly true statement but he claims it is genius.
His first attempt to explain it fell flat as it lacked that important component called explanation.
Since I wouldn’t concede, he asked if perhaps I’d do better with a give and take conversation. You know step by step for the simpletons like me.
So he asked a straightforward question to which I gave a straight forward answer.
At which point instead of continuing the conversation by either asking a follow up question or showing me how I was wrong, he just threw in the towel.
Now had he fully conceded, that would be logical honest and OK. But instead he proceeds to converse with Josef, in the same post, mind you, about the same topic, as if he hasn’t conceded!!!
There is some analogy to Alice in wonderland there but I never saw the movie nor read the book so I’m not sure exactly what it isEasy there KY
“His first attempt to explain it fell flat as it lacked that important component called explanation.”
Nope, it fell flat because you are slower than I anticipated, which is fine, so I tried a simpler approach “step by step for the simpletons like me., as you put it .
“At which point instead of continuing the conversation by either asking a follow up question or showing me how I was wrong, he just threw in the towel.”
I don’t have a follow up question, you missed the whole subject of the line (in spite of my explaining it) I cant help you. (Moreover, we can disagree about the subject, that is ok I have no problem with that, I concede that according to your mistaken interpretation the law is a “simpletons hardly true statement”
“Josef, in the same post, mind you, about the same topic, as if he hasn’t conceded!!!”
I’m addressing a more interesting discussion, don’t take it personally you are still smart, keep trying and don’t give up . but I jus twant to avoid repeating myself over and over.
Our conversation isnt going to move. I’d rather move on to more interesting discussions like how Trump could win the popular vote if we discount millions of votes for whatever reason.Joseph
1) if only… Perhaps some felt that way but many did not. See Hitler’s willing executioners for more
2) I still don’t believe youinterestingly though I DO believe your last paragraph “As an aside and bonus, …” to be true
ubiq: All I can do is assure you that what I posted is 100% sincere and honestly heartfelt.
But I am curious how you accept the “aside and bonus” which asserts that most Chareidi men agree with my position on women’s suffrage when you doubt my own very same position.
Ubiq
I missed it.
Mind repeating it.
You offered to explain it.
The closest I could find is
“The quote is not about words or language. That is not at all the subject of the law. The law is about people.”Frankly while that sounds like a good opening for an explanation, by itself it falls short.
Break it down and explain
What does it say about people, how does the addition of the emoticon change the equation.
What exactly is the nuance.
In other words, give substance.Not lengthy expositions on Josef. Stick to the text a bit.
Then you started a different track.
Also good.
You say my answer clearly shows I missed the boat. Well that’s entirely possible and even probable, especially in this case where my position actually is starting as “I basically don’t get it ”
So the sensible and rational thing to do in a discussion is to say, no you totally got it wrong. X is what he means, and this is how you understand it into his words.
Don’t you see the genius, how he encapsulated this whole thought into these few pithy words!?!That would be called explaining.
Saying “buddy you missed the point sorry have a nice day ” doesn’t sound like someone who is in the explaining mode.
Frankly to me it sounds like someone who has no clue what he is talking about, thought it sounded educated to call something genius because someone else called it genius, and is now stuck holding the bag.I’m sorry if I’m being too hard on you. I don’t mean it personally.
Just I thought I was going to have a logical rational conversation /argument and it turned into another
“you know why you are wrong just admit it like a good boy ” type “conversation ”It’s like sitting down to a great looking meal and finding out it’s all tofu
KY
“Frankly while that sounds like a good opening for an explanation, by itself it falls short.”
Yep, thats why I gave an example using Joseph. It wasn’t lengthy, its quite short. when you have some time read it,
Here is the money quote “Who is right? There is no way to know. NOT because their is a chisaron in language (which as you ve pointed out 1. isnt true, and 2. wouldnt be a chiddush at all. But because there are people with such crazy ideas out there that no matter how extreme he gets, we still couldnt be certain if he was being serious or not.”“Saying “buddy you missed the point sorry have a nice day ” doesn’t sound like someone who is in the explaining mode”
True . you arent in the understanding mode, I wrote an explanation, which I suspect you didnt read, since you thought it a “lengthy expositions on Josef.” I’m just using Joseph as an excellent example of Poe’s law“I’m sorry if I’m being too hard on you. I don’t mean it personally.”
Lol dont worry I am not taking it personally. you are just getting boring and repeating yourself, which In spite of what might be caimed, I don’t find enjoyableso having a discussion of:
The quote is about language
no it is about people
No it is about language
No it is about peopleJust doesnt sound fun to me
Sorry to let me downso in sum
The quote is about people, as I explained above, using Joseph as an example
If it is about langauge, then yes it is silly.ubiq: I’d like to understand the stira I mentioned in my last comment. Care to explain?
And being about people?
It’s saying when someone parodies an extreme position, being as the position in and of itself is so extreme as to sound like a parody itself, one cannot know if it is being parodied by another or being seriously defended, unless there is an outside indication?Did I get it right now?
😴
Uncle Ben
You forgot the parodyJoseph
It isn’t a stirah
I’m not sure why you don’t see the obvious answer, , would you object to my statement: “Most charedi men don’t spend this much time commenting on online forums” ?
Yet here you are…(I do grant that perhaps we are defining “charedi men” a bit differently. )
KY
Yes. You are most welcome.
Of course If you don’t like it that is fine tooNC
Lol, believe it or not, I feel the same
I thought your post was excellentsorry I ruined it, I wish I could remove that word genius .
ubiq: Correct me if I’m not following your line of thought/reasoning correctly. You’ve taken the following positions:
1. Most Chareidi men would vote against women’s suffrage today.
2. Joseph claims he would vote against women’s suffrage today.
3. You think there’s a 90% likelihood that Joseph is pulling everyone’s leg on this. (Or Poe’s law or trolling or whatever you want to call it.)
4. You think there’s a 10% likelihood that Joseph is expressing an earnest opinion. In which case Poe/trolling doesn’t apply.
If I’m following you correctly, my question is do you think that having the sincere opinion that women’s suffrage was and is a bad idea is an “extremist” opinion. Then please define why you think it’s extremist. And if so, you by definition think most Chareidi men are extremists.
See, what I did is called explaining
What you did is called giving an example
They are not the same
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.