Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The rules of the road – and a description of a Troll

By

If the description fits you, well, then you know who you are.  You might as well know I don’t read your posts and no longer find them a bother, and in most cases, know who you actually are.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. Sorry, but your statement that “in most cases, know who you actually are” strikes me as a thinly veiled threat to out one or more persons. Where does that fit into the rules of the road?  

    • Further, there is no quid pro quo, and no stated intent to act in any fashion, other than to notify those who choose to attack others in a cowardly, anonymous fashion that they are not, in fact, as anonymous as they think they are.

      <

      p>My own practice is that if I am not comfortable signing my name to something, I don’t write it and I don’t say it.

      <

      p>There is a difference between dialogue and civic engagement, and cowardly, anonymous attacks that add no information but have all the intelligence of throwing sand in a toddler sand area.

      <

      p>The reality is that those anonymous trolls create negative Karma for themselves, rather than advancing any agenda.

      <

      p>They give the appearance of juvenile jealousy, immaturity, and moral impairment.  

      • Sure, by that logic it would not be a threat if my neighbor said to me “Your dog is using my garden as a poop-hole. Oh, and I have a gun and know how to use it.” I would certainly take that as a threat though as you point out, he was only stating facts.

        <

        p>Making such a statement in a very public blog where people choose anonymity for a variety of reasons, even though you may not find them legitimate, strikes me as intimidation and/or “a thinly veiled threat.” Why else point out you know their identity?

        <

        p>As to your reasons choosing not to be anonymous, you have your reasons and that’s fine, I respect that. Others, for a variety of reasons, choose to remain anonymous. That is fine and you should respect that too. If you think someone, whether anonymous or not, is putting out bunk then either say so or ignore them. Who cares?

        <

        p>Sometimes those who are not anonymous do themselves no favors in “advancing their agenda” either.

        • Even when I have known the identify of an anonymous poster [and I know many though not all] I have never outed anyone.  Ever.  I do not respect anonymous posting, though and have made that clear.

          <

          p>Similarly, when in my opinion what someone posts is harmless, idiotic bunk, I ignore it.

          <

          p>When what someone posts is hate-filled, jealous-sounding, moronic bunk, I usually can manage to ignore it, though I personally despise spiteful attack posts.

          <

          p>On the other hand, when someone posts negative, false, mean- spirited bunk, I do often reply to try to contain what I view as a form of toxic waste.

          <

          p>As to whether or not a post “advances an agenda” I am not sure I know what you mean by an “agenda”.  Is an “agenda” trying to encourage a real discussion?

          <

          p>Is an “agenda” trying to reform an area of law, such as the child welfare issue of “failure to define reasonable efforts”?

          <

          p>Is an “agenda” seeking to cause a return to the idea of government as how the strong protect the weak, as well as the basis for civilization?

          <

          p>One problem with a word like “agenda” is that the word in some   quarters is intended as an insult, in others, as a label or category merely.  I am not sure how you, personally, are choosing to use the word “agenda”.  

    • We have found that commentators who disclose their real names are in general more likely to be constructive than those who are anonymous.

      One reason I read this site to see what Sabutai, tblade, Laurel, and CentralMassDad will say about something.

      • that CentralMassDad is his real name.  But whether it’s his first or last name, he’s being coy about.

    • As Bob is fond of pointing out, the rules of the road do not lean on any of the standard definitions of trolling. In fact, posts that I would have regarded as pure trolling, e.g., Demolisher’s “10 Things I Hate About Liberals” got frontpaged.  The editors sometimes decide such material provides an excellent stimulus for discussion.

      <

      p>Daily Kos defines its rules of the road politically: dKos is there to help more and better Democrats win so it doesn’t matter whether conservatives are represented on that site because conservatives would mostly tend to get in the way. Personally, I’d prefer a site that was extremely kind to moderate Democrats, aimed at being progressive, tried hard to be objective, and “used” conservatives to keep us honest but not to provide conservatism yet another platform. The goals would be to work out what would constitute good progressive policy and to unite moderate and progressive Democrats.

      <

      p>That’s the site I’d want. BMG is not that site.

      <

      p>On a site like the one I imagine or like Daily Kos, it’s easier to define what a troll is. A troll’s selfish interests interfere with the purpose of the site. BMG’s purpose is very broadly defined and so who is a troll is much murkier. It’s so murky that Bob will tell you that there cannot be trolls on BMG by definition.

Archives