The Anti-Social Network-victims of trolling

Millicent · 20-03-2012 04:36AM

amacachi wrote: »

If someone is going to have to get over something and is looking for someone to say something else I'd say it was just indulging them.

Jesus, you are short on sympathy. I can't really change your mind here. If you think sympathy or empathy is "indulging" someone, I don't really know what to say to you.

amacachi · 20-03-2012 04:37AM

Millicent wrote: »

Jesus, you are short on sympathy. I can't really change your mind here. If you think sympathy or empathy is "indulging" someone, I don't really know what to say to you.

I've plenty of sympathy, you'd know that if you knew me. Sympathy only goes so far.

AskMyChocolate · 20-03-2012 04:37AM

amacachi wrote: »

Yeah maybe spit on them as well. Sweet Jesus.

Inferred, not implied. Crucial difference.

The only way I'd spend time with people who needed their hand held and 15 sentences said when a couple would suffice would be if it were paid employment. Luckily such an industry exists. :pac:

So, I presume by your well-reasoned rebuttal you have no logical answer to my argument, but find it necessary to resort to glib derogatory insults. Or,perhaps I'm inferring something that wasn't implied whatsoever, and all you really meant to imply is that Jesus was sweet? Hmmm?

"Like shooting fish in a barrel", why don't you just "man up" and accept you're wrong?

amacachi · 20-03-2012 04:40AM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

So, I presume by your well-reasoned rebuttal you have no logical answer to my argument, but find it necessary to resort to glib derogatory insults. Or,perhaps I'm inferring something that wasn't implied whatsoever, and all you really meant to imply is that Jesus was sweet? Hmmm?

"Like shooting fish in a barrel", why don't you just "man up" and accept you're wrong?

Never had communion?

Millicent · 20-03-2012 04:44AM

amacachi wrote: »

I've plenty of sympathy, you'd know that if you knew me. Sympathy only goes so far.

But right after the event of someone being bullied on the net or having a memorial site trolled, your advice is "get over it"--how is that sympathetic?

amacachi · 20-03-2012 04:46AM

Millicent wrote: »

But right after the event of someone being bullied on the net or having a memorial site trolled, your advice is "get over it"--how is that sympathetic?

Not immediately. Sympathy to begin with.

Eric Cartman · 20-03-2012 04:47AM

Millicent wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ofcourse theres no skill or art to it , but if nobody got offended and ignored it , it would go away . Its not the laugh of putting it up that does it for these trolls , its the people who are just as bad for commenting back on it who get upset about the shíttest trolling around.

I think you slightly misunderstood , i was saying 'cyberbullying' ,( i use ' ' because its such a bad term for it ) is worse because its directed to cause offence to a single living target , and i agree nobody should have to ddeal with that on their facebook etc (hence delete and block buttons)

Gotcha. Sorry. And yeah, it'd be great if everyone could ignore it but people's emotions in those situations (understandably) are going to get the better of them more often than not.

I think those people just need to be told to 'thoughen up' really , if the comments of an anonymous facebook user on a page is upsetting , well the rest of their lives must be a picnic.

I accept there are sensetive people in the world but on such a minor issue, being told to ignore it and move on is the best way to deal with it , we dont need any kind of laws or arrests or anything else that went on , a bit of the report button or hitting block would suffice

AskMyChocolate · 20-03-2012 04:48AM

amacachi wrote: »

Never had communion?

I'll infer from that, that you're not capable of either arguing your point or admitting when you're wrong.:pac:

Millicent · 20-03-2012 04:50AM

amacachi wrote: »

Not immediately. Sympathy to begin with.

Why are we arguing on this if you agree with me then?

So we agree "get over it" is not a constructive thing to say to some who is being "cyberbullied"?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think those people just need to be told to 'thoughen up' really , if the comments of an anonymous facebook user on a page is upsetting , well the rest of their lives must be a picnic.

I accept there are sensetive people in the world but on such a minor issue, being told to ignore it and move on is the best way to deal with it , we dont need any kind of laws or arrests or anything else that went on , a bit of the report button or hitting block would suffice

I think harassment laws and stalking laws should include online harassment and stalking. Just because it's online, doesn't mean there is no victim. And while it may be a minor issue to you, someone who's mourning the loss of a child seeing disgusting comments like those described is unlikely to find it a minor issue.

amacachi · 20-03-2012 04:51AM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I'll infer from that, that you're not capable of either arguing your point or admitting when you're wrong.:pac:

Nah I just answer glibness with glibness. I could take offence from glibness, or I could take offence from someone implying that I'm not manly enough. Would you give me sympathy if your post offended me?

amacachi · 20-03-2012 04:55AM

Millicent wrote: »

Why are we arguing on this if you agree with me then? So we agree "get over it" is not a constructive thing to say to some who is being "cyberbullied"?

It's not the go-to reply immediately. However when (most of the time) there's little that can be done to prevent bullying or whatever and someone has been getting sympathy but still letting it get to them and haven't realised they have to ignore it and get over it they need to be told.

AskMyChocolate · 20-03-2012 05:21AM

amacachi wrote: »

Nah I just answer glibness with glibness. I could take offence from glibness, or I could take offence from someone implying that I'm not manly enough. Would you give me sympathy if your post offended me?

Whoosh. You don't come across as a stupid person, so I can only infer that you are being deliberately disingenuous.When was I glib? I made a perfectly fair analogy to expose the weakness in your argument which you refused to address preferring instead to respond with a glib "Sweet Jesus". It was only at this point that I used certain well-chosen phrases to show that there is implied meaning behind these phrases, i.e. "Sweet Jesus" is a universally accepted phrase to imply that the other person is being ridiculous.

It was your final attempt to gloss over the fact that you had no answer.
Your insinuation that you responded to my glibness, or that you honestly believed that I accused you of a lack of manliness, despite the fact that I put the phrase in inverted commas, leads me to no other conclusion other than the fact that you come across as a deeply dishonest person.

Naomi00 · 20-03-2012 05:39AM

Can we go back to the original topic? I've lost track of what you're arguing over.

amacachi · 20-03-2012 05:41AM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Whoosh. You don't come across as a stupid person, so I can only infer that you are being deliberately disingenuous.When was I glib? I made a perfectly fair analogy to expose the weakness in your argument which you refused to address preferring instead to respond with a glib "Sweet Jesus". It was only at this point that I used certain well-chosen phrases to show that there is implied meaning behind these phrases, i.e. "Sweet Jesus" is a universally accepted phrase to imply that the other person is being ridiculous.

There's a huge difference between when someone is on the ground having been hit and when they're letting something get to them that they can't do anything about, all they can change is their response to it.
Also we're getting into the classical phase of internet discussion where one person says analogy while another says strawman, usually time to leave. :pac:

It was your final attempt to gloss over the fact that you had no answer.
Your insinuation that you responded to my glibness, or that you honestly believed that I accused you of a lack of manliness, despite the fact that I put the phrase in inverted commas, leads me to no other conclusion other than the fact that you come across as a deeply dishonest person.

If I didn't know that you weren't actually insulting me and took offence is it my fault?

Time for bed I think, I just still can't see the difference between being told to get over something or to ignore something or "let go" when it comes to "victim blaming". Apparently telling someone to get over it is implying it's their fault for not getting over it. How is telling them to ignore bullying not by the same logic implying that it's "their fault" for not ignoring it? How is telling someone to "let go" not by the same logic implying that it's "their fault" for not "letting go"?
What exactly doesn't constitute victim blaming? Just being nice to them and hoping for the best? "You'll be fine" or "it'll pass" is dismissive surely?

Pdfile · 20-03-2012 05:44AM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Just watched this show on BBC3.

It's basically about internet trolls and what drives them to do what they do and the consequences their actions have on people. It gets very serious as people have killed themselves over trolling and cyber bulling.

I have never heard of RIP trolls until after watching this and to be honest i was genuinely shocked. They basically leave nasty comments on deceased peoples facebook accounts, My Space profiles and Twitter etc..

I can't understand this to be honest i mean what could somebody get out of this kind of thing?

I have never been a fan of putting up tributes for dead friends, relatives etc on the internet as i just think it's asking for trouble.

My question is this, how do you feel about tribute profiles for deceased people and the people that troll them?

Have you ever been a victim of this type of trolling or no of anyone who has and how do you feel in general about internet trolls?

Or if you have seen the show just comment your thoughts on it.

trolls are funny people, not arehole who say stuff like "ill ride yer dead granny lol "

Jesus Wept · 20-03-2012 06:11AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its all funny really . And at the end of the day , theyre just words.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Humor is subjective , some people dont like sex jokes , others dont like sexist jokes or puns ... If you go to an RIP facebook page and theres comments that would be seen as 'horrible' by most people , its clearly a weak troll . To not know how to spot such basic trolling and ignore it these days is almost impossible in the modern internet.

Whatever about direct work , or 'cyberbullying' this is a much easier form to ignore as its normally not directed at a living person or in private . To be fair if you cant ignore a few harmless , albeit vulgar words on the internet , then you may aswell cancel your broadband and never leave the house.

I hope you're just trolling here.

take everything · 20-03-2012 06:46AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Humor is subjective , some people dont like sex jokes , others dont like sexist jokes or puns ... If you go to an RIP facebook page and theres comments that would be seen as 'horrible' by most people , its clearly a weak troll . To not know how to spot such basic trolling and ignore it these days is almost impossible in the modern internet.

Whatever about direct work , or 'cyberbullying' this is a much easier form to ignore as its normally not directed at a living person or in private . To be fair if you cant ignore a few harmless , albeit vulgar words on the internet , then you may aswell cancel your broadband and never leave the house.

Just on the nuisance/ignore argument, there are similarities between this **** and spam, aren't there.
Last time i checked spam is illegal.

take everything · 20-03-2012 06:53AM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

So, I presume by your well-reasoned rebuttal you have no logical answer to my argument, but find it necessary to resort to glib derogatory insults. Or,perhaps I'm inferring something that wasn't implied whatsoever, and all you really meant to imply is that Jesus was sweet? Hmmm?

"Like shooting fish in a barrel", why don't you just "man up" and accept you're wrong?

No, he's not insulting you. He's actually just pointing out the point of difference in the respective arguments.
Someone offends you (with a statement implying judgement) vs you being offended (by inferring judgement in that statement).
I can see his argument about having a thicker skin/ not letting stuff get to you being an option, but as Millicent says that only goes so far. And only works for some people.

He's not insulting you.

KeithAFC · 20-03-2012 06:57AM

Interesting post OP. Not many trolls on here though. So that is good.

Ellis Dee · 20-03-2012 07:12AM

The kind of people who post nasty messages on RIP threads are not trolls in the actual sense of the word, a point that Millicent and others have already made. Trolls, at least those who are successful, know how to analyse other people's styles of argument and writing and then use this knowledge to start or manipulate debates that are on the wrong track, often from the very beginning, and the result is usually very funny, verging on the absurd, but no one or nothing gets hurt except, perhaps, for the feelings of the pompous or hypocritical.:D:D

On the other hand, those who taunt the vulnerable or the survivors of the recently deceased are rather in the same category as those sickos who rip lifebuoys to pieces or throw them into the water, or smash up emergency phones. They seem to get some kind of enjoyment from knowing they will inconvenience or harm or perhaps even cause the death of somebody, although they may never know whether or not they have actually affected anyone. How pointless, and totally beyond my comprehension!:(

There is one vital difference between this kind of blackguarding and Internet bullying, because on the Internet the sickos can often see right away that they are succeeding, and sometimes they are aided and abetted by moderators with their own agendas; after all, the only payment many moderators receive is the power to be a big fish in a small pond and abuse that power, which some of them, unfortunately, do. The only way to prevent that would be to make it impossible to access the Internet anonymously, but who would want that kind of world?

AskMyChocolate · 20-03-2012 07:20AM

take everything wrote: »

No, he's not insulting you. He's actually just pointing out the point of difference in the respective arguments.
Someone offends you (with a statement implying judgement) vs you being offended (by inferring judgement in that statement).
I can see his argument about having a thicker skin/ not letting stuff get to you being an option, but as Millicent says that only goes so far. And only works for some people.

He's not insulting you.

No, I understand that there can be a difference between what is implied and what is inferred between two parties, I was just pointing out that a remark such as "Sweet Jesus" has nothing to do with either party's interpretation.

It is a universally accepted interpretation by everyone (all uninvolved third parties); that this is a phrase used by one party to imply that the other party's position is ridiculous.

It's interpretation is independent of the sensibilities of either party involved.

Scruffles · 20-03-2012 09:50AM

cyber bullying is a different thing to trolling,it is a pity this is lost on the media when they go to associate bullying with the more humor intended nature of trolling.

by one person had personaly been severely cyberbullied and cyber stalked across many forums and the blog for years,worn down to the point of serious mental health issues,it is nothing to do with being mentaly weak,prior to that was one of the strongest mentaly but thats what years of being worn down every day does to a person.

was deliberately targeted due to being severely disabled and unaware of the manipulation and grooming he was using; under many sockpuppets,he was using all information of mine-life and disability experiences as his identity on a lot of forums; in an attempt to gain sympathy and attention,he often plain copied and pasted it though never noticed this till he started making up accounts to abuse a video of mine;attempts at ripping into mental state and confidence.
it was just a video filmed of self and a support staff,showing a few basics of the alt. communication am user of [makaton],past and present speech therapists of mine wondered what happened to it as they thought it was a great concept to help.

his favourite haunts were where the most vulnerable users of the internet were likely to be found-various disability & mental health related forums,he swamped those forums to the point they all had constant focus on his non existant major disabilities or mental crisis,and when someone was genuinely looking for support they were drowned out by his sudden 'issues',he woud attempt to discredit those who were genuinely affected by the latest condition he had latched onto,he is sickeningly jealous of disabled people due to getting support,blue badges and disability benefits.

he uses a form of responsibility evading called pyschological projection- he adds all negative personality traits and behaviors of his-as well as all individual bullying or otherwise immoral incidents that he causes;onto innocent individuals,or he might call them his brother or sister when posting about being harassed/bullied/attacked etc by them on forums like boards,he thinks he can intimidate targets off forums.
he likes to portray himself as a victim of many things, but the only thing he is a victim of is failed justice,why is he given free reign to harm others?
its about time having an internet connection required a licence.

fryup · 20-03-2012 10:34AM

that guy he confronted on the bike seemed like a right creep/saddo same with the guy in the studio, just two keyboard warriors who more than likely live empty lives

Eric Cartman · 20-03-2012 10:53AM

take everything wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Humor is subjective , some people dont like sex jokes , others dont like sexist jokes or puns ... If you go to an RIP facebook page and theres comments that would be seen as 'horrible' by most people , its clearly a weak troll . To not know how to spot such basic trolling and ignore it these days is almost impossible in the modern internet.

Whatever about direct work , or 'cyberbullying' this is a much easier form to ignore as its normally not directed at a living person or in private . To be fair if you cant ignore a few harmless , albeit vulgar words on the internet , then you may aswell cancel your broadband and never leave the house.

Just on the nuisance/ignore argument, there are similarities between this **** and spam, aren't there.
Last time i checked spam is illegal.

There are similarities , is spam illegal in the internet realm ? I thought it was just real life junk mail. There should not be any laws to govern the internet . What these 'trolls' say is in poor taste and i dont really find it funny , but they should be allowed say it without having to fear being legally punished, the only rule of law on the internet should be the sites rules and their enforcers.

Millicent · 20-03-2012 11:04AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There are similarities , is spam illegal in the internet realm ? I thought it was just real life junk mail. There should not be any laws to govern the internet . What these 'trolls' say is in poor taste and i dont really find it funny , but they should be allowed say it without having to fear being legally punished, the only rule of law on the internet should be the sites rules and their enforcers.

Why should bullying not be illegal though? It's a form of harassment and assault.

Stiffler2 · 20-03-2012 12:26PM

Look up Fabrice Muamba troll
off to jail he goes.

On twitter he trolled on Fabrice's account saying he hope he dies and calling all his friends n*****s

Google It

Stiffler2 · 20-03-2012 01:15PM

Meh - I love to read a good troll. always find it hilarious.

People have beceome to camp these days, trying to please everybody in society. RIP trolls is a step too far.

Online bullying though, why can't the victim just block the bullies facebook page ? maybe they really enjoy it secrety

imo these people need to be brought down a peg or 2.

What's wrong with being offended ?

Whatever happened to - Stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me - something we teach children FFS.

Here - Steve will explain it better than I

Eric Cartman · 20-03-2012 02:14PM

Millicent wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There are similarities , is spam illegal in the internet realm ? I thought it was just real life junk mail. There should not be any laws to govern the internet . What these 'trolls' say is in poor taste and i dont really find it funny , but they should be allowed say it without having to fear being legally punished, the only rule of law on the internet should be the sites rules and their enforcers.

Why should bullying not be illegal though? It's a form of harassment and assault.

In the real world yes, but online there are so many ways to avoid it ( blocking , delete posts, set you page to private) that it doesnt need policing.

Also , making any law to govern the internet impedes on its absolute right to free speech , which is unacceptable

AnonoBoy · 20-03-2012 02:35PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Also , making any law to govern the internet impedes on its absolute right to free speech , which is unacceptable

Ah yes the 'absolute right to internet free speech' law which Al Gore passed when he invented the internet.

chin_grin · 20-03-2012 02:41PM

amacachi wrote: »

That kind of stuff isn't trolling, trolling is an art.

Don't you mean "a art"?

The Anti-Social Network-victims of trolling

Comments