Troll's mum tells him to apologise after victim contacts her.
Showing posts with label trolling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trolling. Show all posts
Friday, December 5, 2014
Friday, June 6, 2014
Busta Troll Busted?
That is where someone infiltrates a "conservative" facebook page, becomes an admin, and then the page "owner" is locked out while goats take over the page.
There is something very satisfying in seeing the insane right looking sillier than they normally do.
But, there is one person who is a god amongst those who are in this movement--BUSTA TROLL!
For those of you who do not know this hero of the Internet--this is a message from the person herself.
Busta Troll a woman? Now, wouldn't that be a real surprise for the reality challenged right who sees the feminine species as being of two varieties: Madonnas or Whores. Women are too dumb to do something like a goating, let alone many goatings.
But, it seems that the goatings will keep on wherever the reality challenged right wing exists.
In simple terms,
I would love to claim to be Busta Troll, but I am not her.
Anyone who knows me well would know that is far too much work for me to want to be bothered with. Not to mention I find dealing with the reality challenged right can lead to one going crazy as well.
So, I will stay one of her biggest fans.
See also:
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Moderation is not censorship
Sometimes, you have to keep the discussion on track and not bring in distracting items. In this case, I am referring to PopularScience.com's decision to stop taking comments.
Anyway, the Popular Science post pointed out that:
Articles about the environment and gun control are hit harder by such tactics than any others. I love debate, and I often wade into the threads beneath my columns. But it’s a depressing experience, as instead of contesting the issues I raise, many of those who disagree bombard the opposition with infantile abuse, or just keep repeating a fiction, however often it has been discredited. This ensures that an intelligent discussion is almost impossible – which appears to be the point.
The second pattern is the strong association between this tactic and a certain set of views: pro-corporate, anti-tax, anti-regulation. Both traditional conservatives and traditional progressives tend be more willing to discuss an issue than these right-wing libertarians, many of whom seek instead to shut down debate.
The problem is that this is a matter of public safety, which now that the science has been unleashed will show that it has been guided by fiction and fantasy. That is not the proper way to run a public policy debate.
Now, I know that the usual suspects will complain, but it has to be said.
It wasn't a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.Some people want to cut short rational discussion. There is the 50 Cent Party and it's right wing US equivalent that sees the words "Second Amendment" and comes to argue gun rights--even if its a second amendment to a community dog park proposal in Effing Sodbury.
Anyway, the Popular Science post pointed out that:
But even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story, recent research suggests. In one study led by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Brossard, 1,183 Americans read a fake blog post on nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt about the subject (are they wary of the benefits or supportive?). Then, through a randomly assigned condition, they read either epithet- and insult-laden comments ("If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you're an idiot" ) or civil comments. The results, as Brossard and coauthor Dietram A. Scheufele wrote in a New York Times op-ed:Reading comment threads on the web, two patterns jump out at me. The first is that discussions of issues in which there’s little money at stake tend to be a lot more civilised than debates about issues where companies stand to lose or gain billions: such as climate change, public health and corporate tax avoidance. These are often characterised by amazing levels of abuse and disruption.
Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.
Another, similarly designed study found that even just firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters impacted readers' perception of science.
If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.
A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
Articles about the environment and gun control are hit harder by such tactics than any others. I love debate, and I often wade into the threads beneath my columns. But it’s a depressing experience, as instead of contesting the issues I raise, many of those who disagree bombard the opposition with infantile abuse, or just keep repeating a fiction, however often it has been discredited. This ensures that an intelligent discussion is almost impossible – which appears to be the point.
The second pattern is the strong association between this tactic and a certain set of views: pro-corporate, anti-tax, anti-regulation. Both traditional conservatives and traditional progressives tend be more willing to discuss an issue than these right-wing libertarians, many of whom seek instead to shut down debate.
The problem is that this is a matter of public safety, which now that the science has been unleashed will show that it has been guided by fiction and fantasy. That is not the proper way to run a public policy debate.
Now, I know that the usual suspects will complain, but it has to be said.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
This doesn't fit your narrative...
A motel clerk in Richland County, South Carolina shoots and kills an alleged rapist.
The problem is that this DOES fit my narrative. The person who posted this comment failed to note that this incident took place in South Carolina, which has one of the highest rates of gun violence. In fact, One finds that South Carolina sounds like the Anglo-Scottish Border regin during the time of the reivers if the person who made this comment had actually paid attention to more than just the comment in the clip that a hotel clerk killed an alleged rapist. If you look at aggravated assaults involving a firearm, Tennessee (129.87) and South Carolina (114.73) come above District of Columbia (99.25). That is our narrative--the more guns there are and the more people take the law into their own hands, the more lawless the society becomes.
Additionally, the whole story sounds as if Richland County, SC is plagued with crime even with people carrying weapons. Isn't the pro-gun narrative More Guns--Less Crime, but does that work in reality? Instead, this post points out that the solution to crime is a whole lot more complicated than a bumper sticker solution.
So, when taken as a whole, this clip DOES fit our narrative--the more guns present, the more likely society is to be violent. Take away the guns from the following statistics and the rate of violent crime goes way down
But the person who made this comment is not interested in dialogue, he is more interested in trying to silence our message. He figures that we will see the surface message of this clip, rather than pay attention to the entire message.
But, this person isn't willing to examine what he is saying and how he presents himself, let alone what we are saying. If someone isn't aware of the message they put out and that it is counterproductive to their cause, how can he properly communicate anything?
That is why the dialogue fails.
The problem is that this DOES fit my narrative. The person who posted this comment failed to note that this incident took place in South Carolina, which has one of the highest rates of gun violence. In fact, One finds that South Carolina sounds like the Anglo-Scottish Border regin during the time of the reivers if the person who made this comment had actually paid attention to more than just the comment in the clip that a hotel clerk killed an alleged rapist. If you look at aggravated assaults involving a firearm, Tennessee (129.87) and South Carolina (114.73) come above District of Columbia (99.25). That is our narrative--the more guns there are and the more people take the law into their own hands, the more lawless the society becomes.
Additionally, the whole story sounds as if Richland County, SC is plagued with crime even with people carrying weapons. Isn't the pro-gun narrative More Guns--Less Crime, but does that work in reality? Instead, this post points out that the solution to crime is a whole lot more complicated than a bumper sticker solution.
So, when taken as a whole, this clip DOES fit our narrative--the more guns present, the more likely society is to be violent. Take away the guns from the following statistics and the rate of violent crime goes way down
But the person who made this comment is not interested in dialogue, he is more interested in trying to silence our message. He figures that we will see the surface message of this clip, rather than pay attention to the entire message.
But, this person isn't willing to examine what he is saying and how he presents himself, let alone what we are saying. If someone isn't aware of the message they put out and that it is counterproductive to their cause, how can he properly communicate anything?
That is why the dialogue fails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)