It’s always ( that I’ve read it) used as an insult. The interned has made words and phrases but this one carried over from the really real world and to me calling some one s troll is a for of slang disrespect. It seems to be - accepted word on the internet but I’ve been guilty of slinging it a time or two but the more I think about it - the less I like it. Any thoughts? Am I alone in this one - it’s fine if I am! Smiley face
I need adjectives to communicate but stereotypes are many, sometimes a person is truly hostile, sometimes it is clearly disrespectful, sometimes it could only be the emotional filter of one person "seeing" another. Context creates meaning also. Maybe we can look for an intermediate and sensible point, to balance the issue.
In electronic written communication, unfortunately it is common to note that the shield of the impersonal: "allows" different degrees of violence. Some people sometimes substitute real contact, but it is not possible to live with the shield of a computer or telephone: or at least it is very boring.
But, you know that there are people -in any community-, who use their time to annoy others and who don’t care to respect, indeed, it would seem that their hobby would be to insult others directly. Sometimes I think that some people do not realize all their accumulated anger: that psychic energy seeks to go outside on any pretext. and I need to calibrate myself too.
Some people only highlight the negative, seeing only what is wrong, obviously it is their right, each person finds their friends and the right place for their style ... Nor is it about going to the other extreme and validating everyone and smiling hypocritically, but it seems to me that a hostile attitude is evidence that a person doesn’t observe himself or that he/she is not interested in living with quality of life: with authentic friends in real life.
Not all people know how to communicate or debate, but that has already been reviewed in other posts. In my case, when I get angry, I need a big break to oxygenate myself, to diminish my adrenaline, because I know myself, and I know that I no longer listen to others because my egocentricity will make me want to "fight" in some way, my vanity, my vanity…
"Maybe" an aggressive person only seeks to discharge its energy: the face of a person, mock sarcastically, get a forum of attention, even disguise their language ... One possible result: is about the strategy of the "offended", to leave, ignore and reject the aggressive person. With what, in my opinion could be created a vicious circle of stereotypes and attitudes.
So, how to sustain creative and harmonious scenarios with the presence of people who evidently like to annoy others?
Responding in anger to a troll is worse than accurately describing them as one, and then walking away.
My favorite example of how to deal with trolls at TotJO was when my favorite thread was moved to the humor forum
ZealotX wrote: When a person is trolling they don't really care about the discussion or the people involved. They're mainly trying to use and manipulate arguments in order to get under people's skin. Trolls often use their online anonymity to mess with people in ways they would never do in real life. Calling someone a troll is just like calling someone a thief. Stealing something doesn't necessarily make someone a thief and similar behavior doesn't automatically make someone a troll because a troll is something more deliberate and intentional. If someone does it in reaction to another poster getting under their skin then they can troll them without necessarily being a troll. Real trolls should be banned. Period. However trolling behavior should be accepted but discouraged according to the Jedi code.
How do you tell the intention? The hardest thing to do is ... know intention of a person.
Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: How do you tell the intention? The hardest thing to do is ... know intention of a person.
That's a good question. Intentions are kind of like a book. What people initially show you (and what they want you to see) is the cover of the book. Their words and actions form the pages of the book. But the intent is the "moral of the story". It has to be interpreted and therefore we can be wrong. However, the more of the pages you read without being blinded by biases, the more you can understand the book and why it's being written that way.
This leads me to play devil's advocate a lot. Because I want to understand a person before I presume to know why they're doing something that, on its face, I disagree with. It's not about what I would do, but about what they would do. So you have to understand them to some extent to know what they would (future tense) do. Understanding begets anticipating. And eventually, usually by examination (Socratic or otherwise), you can reveal the truth, or rather... "observe" as the person reveals their own truth.
Usually people will tell you eventually. It's just a matter of how clearly they want to be understood. Everyone wants to be understood; even if they're angry or hateful. These feeling seek validation and therefore everyone has a motive, even if only subconscious, to reveal their truth.
Given the vast knowledge and resources afforded by the platform to which it exists, its rather sad. At a deeper level it says a lot about the person doing it, if they had eyes enough to see beyond the safety blanket of self-justifications.