Interesting article on Comment Trolls I wanted to share (in Mother Jones mag)
Really it's about the corrosive effect comment trolling has on discourse; not that I have any reason to bring this up here.
The article uses environmental as an example, but it could be, literaly, anything.
Comments (24)
Add commentAlternate title
"The Death of LOL"
It certainly lends support to the notion....
...that threads are much more interesting (and memorable) when civil discourse is the order of the day.
Maybe in light of Igor's success with his New Year's resolution to write more, I'll try to be little less acerbic. (I hope Quill doesn't see this....doh!)
Yep! Ow, my arm! Ow, my
Yep! Ow, my arm! Ow, my head!
"...it appeared that pushing people's emotional buttons, through derogatory comments, made them double down on their preexisting beliefs.
In the context of the psychological theory of motivated reasoning, this makes a great deal of sense. Based on pretty indisputable observations about how the brain works, the theory notes that people feel first, and think second. The emotions come faster than the "rational" thoughts—and also shape the retrieval of those thoughts from memory. Therefore, if reading insults activates one's emotions, the "thinking" process may be more likely to be defensive in nature, and focused on preserving one's identity and preexisting beliefs." -- From your article.
I think he nailed it.
"Don't play mind checkers with me, man. I'm not in the mood."
-- Hank Hill
And another thing
If you notice, comment "arguments" (I hesitate to use the term "discussion," where even "argument" implies a back-and-forth) it tends to pretty quickly come down to two extremes, one is either all this or all that, with no middle ground.
There's a name for that effect, it has to do with there being no stake holding in the outcome.
And come to think of it, if you just watched/listened to what passes for commentary these days, aren't you then pre-primed for response to a given point as a troll?
Are we being pre-primed to get our troll on?
Sounds correct to me.
So, in my recent post "Pravda nails it again", lets identify the trolls, defined as those who "start in immediately arguing over the content and attacking the science—sometimes by slinging insults and even occasional obscenities." Lets skip the insult posts and focus on those who refer only to the content of the original post per their definition:
1. Reader: "Whack-a-Whackjob. Please take your paranoia pill.." (First response)
2. Reader: "You are still the idiot following Pravda for your news..."
3. Quill: Mor guns panicogenic, Nah Acute panicogenic" (No real comments, just a title)
4. Arkansan: "your just one of many paranoid gun nuts..."
5. Quill: "At least dream up some new pure gun lust/fetish material... please"
6. Reader: "You and arkansasobservers bills for aluminum foil must be staggering. I'm sure Alcoa is loving this controversy, all the way to the bank, just like the gun and ammo manufacturers."
7. Quill: "The devil wears leather (Prada) Gun-Holsters"
8. Macattack: "Respectful conversation is almost impossible with people tht can't see past their selfish wants..."
9. Macattack: "gun lovers should really be labeled child killers..."
10. Mikeng1994: "I assure you that by me owning an AR and an SKS, I am not a child killer. In fact you may personally pick a place to meet so I can bend over and let you kiss my backside" (The Troll got his desired response)
11. Macattack: "if you go along with the NRA's proposals and support them than you are promoting the killing of our children".
Igor, you may score them a bit differently, but if you honestly list those on this one thread who fit the definition of a troll, you find the trolls are clearly on one side. Would you not agree?
Remember, this list ONLY includes those who made insults or called names in comments related to the original post.
Frankly
Life's too short to even visit the Pravda thread, and I've yet to click on it. The title was enough to tell me it was going to be a mess.
You could argue, however, that by pointing out the trolls, you've made them trollier ("I'm proud to be called out for thinking ____ is _____"). Much the same logic here as publishing a criminal's name.
Trollier? Agreed
Pretty much one point of the article you cited. I don't spend much time with Pravda, but do go there on occasion... about the same amount of time I spend on MSNBC. A mess? Yeah.. but 93 comments so far, at least one comment removed and at least two citations by LCD for offensive posts. As any LCD reader knows, it's the headline that grabs attention.
Trollier? You may be right. But maybe the trolls who took time to read your cited article will lower the level of personal insult and focus on the topic at hand. Probably not.
Do you disagree with my scoring? I tried to be accurate.
You normally manage to get your point across without animus.
Um...
I'm not comfortable declaring the accuracy of your scoring -- which you've obviously given a lot of thought. I have not given it a lot of thought, see, and for that matter haven't given it any thought, so any yay/nay would be unfair -- to your work not in the least.
To be honest, I ego check my own score once in awhile (I like it when what I type is well received), but after that I'm pretty much *meh* on the who's who game. (That may be indicative of narcissism, but much like crazy that's not the sort of class you can give yourself practically.)
I would hope a review of the article would lead to more enlightened responses, but then I hope for all sorts of things.
And thank you for the compliment.
Oh, and you imply with all the responses and heat it must be a good thread? You're familiar with the old saw about how flies are attracted in great number to certain things?
I try not to waste my time. That's not saying I don't waste my time, but I try not to. Others might score themselves differently in such matters, such as engaging in epic discussions about global issues. Me, I'm more worried about the threat Ninjas present to our fair city.
But then I may be a narcissist. ;-)
narcissist
Pretty much we all fall into the 'narcissist' category by posting on here, with the believe that what we type will somehow, someway convince others to think like we do.
With one difference
The difference being: I'm always right