High-mindedness is trolling.

xEmptiness said:

Woah.

shotz_ said:
this was a cheeky way to follow up that conversation we just had.

For the lay person, Epistemological Pluralism (as I use it here) is an approach to understanding objective truth via exploring subjective interpretations. Meaning that we understand our limitations as humans, and we approach learning and knowing Truth like a panoramic photo. You can only take one photo at a given time, but if you take many photos from different perspectives, you can create a panorama that shows a much bigger "Truth." So epistemological pluralism asserts that we can get the most complete "picture" of objective Truth by exploring as many ideas, beliefs, concepts, etc... as we can. Acknowledging that each may contain a piece of the picture (a piece of truth) and then overlaying to create the panorama (establishing common elements or patterns).

So in reference to this aspect of OP's original post:A epistemological pluralist would do this as a matter of course.

NeoVolt said:
I'm not sure what you mean here^?

Anyway, if we accept your concept (which I do) and apply a label of "troll." I think we are left with a semantic problem. Meaning that there would remain a very large amount of people who consider themselves trolls or are considered trolls, who wouldn't remotely meet your qualifications.

As I read your original post, it sounded like you were describing, to an extent, the way I interpret epistemological pluralism.

I feel that there is a lot of nuance here worth exploring.

But I do I feel like I'm missing some context. Given this:And I know that in another thread (I didn't post, just read) that you were inaccurately accused of moral relativism, when it was really just epistemological pluralism (as a general methodology). I bring this up, because I often see people raise objections to your threads/comments that are resolved/irrelevant if we assume you are speaking from a subjective interpretation. I wonder if you are trying to establish a value here that is a form of epistemological pluralism?


And because I promised in another thread that I would try and make my posts more accessible to the general public:

NeoVolt said:


OK. So we can establish a differentiation between trolls and shit-posters in that we require a troll to have actual substance.

What about posters that play at entering an argument when comedy is the primary goal? Like this guy -> BakkaGesuiSempai. Does comedic value qualify enough substance to establish "troll-ness"?

The other point I'd like to clarify is: What if an intelligent person, engaging in trolling, finds themselves on the wrong side of the argument? As in, they realize their position isn't the rational one. Generally, the reasonable thing to do would be to acknowledge and adjust one's position. Would this violate the purpose of trolling? If so, what would a troll do (WWTD)?

BakkaGesuiSempai said:


Fool! As one who has vast knowledge of the world and one that is not in the physical spectrum of which one engages in front of them, you cannot use my words of insight as comedy. I shall not allow it. My goal is to teach my fellow commoners how to engage in intelligent conversation involving others with valor and precision. As yes, this reminds me of a time I was wrong once. No, wait. I was mistaken and I had to educate as such for why they could not understand a being of my caliber. Rule 732 of my provisions; I shall always have the last word. You must always make sure those who try to combat you in wits that they shall effortless fail are shown no mercy. But you should always applause your opponent's that converse with one's self for their effort, so they shall learn how to behave with class and sophistication like myself.

NeoVolt said:


OK. So we can establish a differentiation between trolls and shit-posters in that we require a troll to have actual substance.

What about posters that play at entering an argument when comedy is the primary goal? Like this guy -> BakkaGesuiSempai. Does comedic value qualify enough substance to establish "troll-ness"?

The other point I'd like to clarify is: What if an intelligent person, engaging in trolling, finds themselves on the wrong side of the argument? As in, they realize their position isn't the rational one. Generally, the reasonable thing to do would be to acknowledge and adjust one's position. Would this violate the purpose of trolling? If so, what would a troll do (WWTD)?

Truth that shall be said:

He should never break character when he is RPing as Excalibur!. And yes, you could define it as "trolling", however, you never break any rules, always on topic, always response in context to each post, and to use wit as a primary tool. It may look like shitposting, but there is a correct answer masked in every post. This is like using science terminology to refer to simple household items. So, yes, he could be defined as a "higher-minded version of trolling". Let me get some of my best examples.

Introduction

Just about everything in Forum Games including:







He is truly acting 100% in character while trying to get the same "cringe effect" as the character would get in the series Soul Eater from interacting with him. If he was out of character and not intending for that goal, he would in fact be a shit poster. Also, Excalibur's character is actually really hard to do. It requires a specific way of thinking and reacting to even begin to actually portray him.

Zeally said:
Honestly, a really good troll is just someone that debates an unpopular opinion and does it well. Also i doubt 99.9% of the trolls actually put in the work to understand multiple perspectives. Isn't that what a lawyer is too except the latter is more serious of course.

xEmptiness said:
If we separate trolling into 10 levels, then Bakka is at 1 (because he's a shitposter -- only a fool will take him seriously).

NeoVolt said:
Lawyers are trolls? Maybe, but we'd have to say that they would not be an "ideal troll." Since lawyers argue multiple perspectives but usually won't go as far as internalizing them.

Maybe in a similar class (comedic rather than incendiary)? but I wouldn't say he's a shit-poster. I enjoy his posts. They're whimsical.

Anyway, I think establishing your concept as the "ideal troll" clears pretty much everything up. If we establish an ideal, then we can say that individual cases, to varying degrees achieve or fail to achieve the ideal. So when we say "A troll is X" we aren't trying to establish universal or general absolutes. We are saying "An ideal troll is X." I think that fixes the lack of clarity I was feeling.

xEmptiness said:


Well, yes, his posts are whimsical but from the troll point of view, they really are shit..so shitpostings. (btw, best comedian on MAL right now is ModeratelyHuman)

I think @Zeally is on point with the lawyers actually. We haven't yet removed all distinctions between epistemological pluralism and the 'ideal troll' so one only needs to be be able to argue from some perspective as he would from his own in order to be an ideal troll. Because that would imply that the lawyer has a good understanding of that perspective and he can also take it seriously.

LogicalInjustice said:


So your mere opinion makes it a shitpost? If that's the case, your first post is a shitpost because he has no definitions of what defines a troll nor provides examples of one. What you feel =/= what actually counts as a troll. If everything you say is subject, but you try to define it as fact, is like an Anime Fan trying to discuss or justify reasons for what counts as "Ecchi" when such definitions already exist. I don't understand the logic you are trying to apply, but it is beyond faulty.

xEmptiness said:

I think @Zeally is on point with the lawyers actually. We haven't yet removed all distinctions between epistemological pluralism and the 'ideal troll' so one only needs to be be able to argue from some perspective as he would from his own in order to be an ideal troll. Because that would imply that the lawyer has a good understanding of that perspective and he can also take it seriously.

xEmptiness said:


Yes, it is beyond faulty because it is not faulty. A troll has to be able to deceive others into thinking that he's serious regardless of the absurdity of what he's saying. Can you think Bakka is being serious here?

If he were a troll, he'd have deceived us into thinking that he was serious.

LogicalInjustice said:


So your mere opinion makes it a shitpost?

LogicalInjustice said:


Is he serious in making you think he is actually Excalibur? Instead of shitposting in anime speak or simply making quotes/references , he is actually trying to make you react the same way a character on Soul Eater would when you actually read his posts or skip them altogether. I have like one of his posts where someone actually understands what he was saying and answered back successfully.

xEmptiness said:

Never watched Soul Eater. But for all that has been made clear hitherto, he is not fitting the 'troll' criteria.

And your first sentence supports this.

This user is well know on Reddit. He pops up on questions of all topics, giving hilarious answers to things in a scientific, often authoritative manner. Only everything he says it complete nonsense, and very funny. From explaining the psychology of a dog who keeps chewing on an owners lamp, to the connection between media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former British PM Tony Blair, he is always worth reading.

A troll could also be someone that convinces you of something silly or outrageous. A ‘good' troll manages to enrage or deceive the victim. A good troll also stays in-character no matter what.

xEmptiness said:
A good troll also stays in-character no matter what.

katsucats said:
Someone who pretends to stay in character no matter what is a shit troll who makes it obvious just how revolting he is such that no person with half a wit should even attempt to engage with him. A master of disguise cannot possibly have his face painted the whole time. Real people are changing; caricatures remain still. People who pretend to have perfected caricatures, such as yourself, go backwards.

katsucats said:
A troll is someone who wastes plenty of his own time with the sole intent to waste other people's times, gaining no extrinsic intellectual or emotional understanding in the process.

NeoVolt said:
So are you saying that if one does gain understanding, then they cease to be a troll? I don't think it's reasonable to say that it's impossible for someone to gain understanding while trolling. Or is the premise that a "troll" wouldn't be receptive?

Also, if I am understanding you correctly, to generalize you are saying: "trolling lacks and detracts value"

This is directly at odds with OP's, to generalize and over-simplify "Ideal trolling is inherently virtuous." While not in complete agreement yet, I acknowledge that he's established a functional framework from which to argue the point. If we accept the qualifiers, we can't immediately dismiss the concept. You would have to address the whole "An Ideal troll is ideally open-minded," he presents, as well as show that being trolled can't be beneficial for the trollee. I suppose you could accept those and still argue that it's a net loss of value.

@katsucats, I'm curious as to how a Utilitarian approach to "the ideal troll" would resolve. Just remember, we can't include "failed" or "imperfect" trolls, only ideal ones.

katsucats said:
I would say the OP's definition of a troll is just an unsound redefinition; as such, I'm not interested in debating the value of any such framework by itself.

katsucats said:
Also, to be honest, I'm not interested in debating what makes a troll. I'd rather a more intellectually stimulating exercise, like learning about something that's actually useful. My opinion is here -- take it -- or better yet, don't take it for what it is -- that way, I won't receive any more annoying notifications on a topic started by a troll in order to engage you in his grand scheme of sophistry for his gratification in destroying meaning.

That's the whole reality behind his magic shtick.

xEmptiness said:


No. I don't expect idiots to read my posts. They contribute nothing of value regardless.

NeoVolt said:
This seems an unqualified, semantic, rejection of the concept. If we remove the use of the word troll, the concept does represent a specific virtue that is very close to epistemological pluralism. Further, if you are attempting to dismiss it by labeling the OP a "troll," that is a clear ad hominem.

I think that's unlikely given observation of xEmptiness. Also, if true, it's irrelevant, at least for me.

katsucats said:
Your use of big words does not intimidate me, trust me.

katsucats said:
My rejection of an unsound definition is very "qualified" (read my post). A rejection on semantic grounds (semantics is not a bad thing) is precisely what we need to do when we discuss things that revolve around actuality. There's a common understanding behind what words mean. Words are meaningless without semantics. If we remove the use of the word "troll", then our understanding of what this topic is about changes drastically, because the framework which you attempt to superimpose onto some real phenomenon loses importance immediately. Your argument is like the "what if we redefine God to a natural creator while keeping in mind the Bible?" argument. It is purely doublethink.

xEmptiness said:

Idiots come up with labels of racist, homophobe, bigot, and the likes, to shut away differing opinions. They're never willing to listen to the 'reason' behind anyone else's views and then deem themselves open-minded. To them, open-mindedness is simply subscribing to the popular opinion. Only an "ideally open-minded individual" rises above this hypocrisy and shows the heights of enlightenment a human can reach.

then our understanding of what this topic is about changes drastically,

NeoVolt said:
he's established a functional framework from which to argue the point

merryfistmas said:
@TheBrainintheJar

But if the end result is an intelligent discussion (highly unlikely) is it still fair to criticize them? Or to put it more clearly, shouldn't we differentiate between the trolls intention and the finished product in the same way we do with art and the death of the author? Now, this thread is a discussion on the mindset of these trolls, so the intention is very important, but a troll who causes butthurt with his intentionally inflammatory position may, as someone else has already pointed, call for a change in the intellectual fortitude of the butthurt individual. A man who experiences this butthurt and rejects it as trolling, and therefore does not change in any way is not worse off than before, but should he remain composed, or better yet, considers the opinion, even if it is for the sole purpose of depriving the troll of the satisfaction he thinks the troll is after, then OP is at least partially correct. Trolling, while not necessarily equating to high-mindedness can certainly lead to it. At worst it ends on butthurt, and at best, to enlightenment.

However, I think it's incorrect to assume trolling is a result of indifference rather than a desire to antagonize people. People who are merely indifferent do not play devils advocate for the sake of it, one plays devils advocate either to get a rise out of someone or out of genuine concern that many sides of an argument presented. Shit posting results from indifference, but is an indifference towards bettering oneself rather than in emotional investment in ones beliefs.

katsucats said:
-snip-

katsucats said:
A troll is someone who wastes plenty of his own time with the sole intent to waste other people's times, gaining no extrinsic intellectual or emotional understanding in the process. He misconstrues things, misdefines things, takes things apart and puts them back together, for the derisive pleasure of baiting others to sink to his level, so that he could continue his hobby in pointless recursion.

Someone who pretends to stay in character no matter what is a shit troll who makes it obvious just how revolting he is such that no person with half a wit should even attempt to engage with him. A master of disguise cannot possibly have his face painted the whole time. Real people are changing; caricatures remain still. People who pretend to have perfected caricatures, such as yourself, go backwards.

katsucats said:

I mean like, why would you take someone else's name, and then act like him, while noting that if you were smarter (i.e. not a troll?) you would have left this site? Haha. "Ideal" troll, my ass. An ideal troll knows how to cover his tracks. Check this out:

xEmptiness-wannabe might have set his board to private, but he can't control his friends' boards. I mean, I don't understand Pakistani, but read Chai_'s board:



Okay, so you told someone to delete the real xEmptiness's troll threads. Then you bragged about how you troll. And your dream is to make a dream team of trolls and shitposters on MAL. Check.

Look. Here's another of you telling someone to shitpost in your thread:


Now, wasn't there a Pakistani guy that got dumped by a German girl a while back? Is that you? Genio-bastard!

In fact, I don't need to speculate. Let me let you in on a little secret. You can see people's boards even if they put it private by clicking on the Conversation link and filling in their ID's. Example:



You know... what's funny is someone once said:



And you sure were, except you let your religion and cultural differences get in the way of *cough* open-mindedness, and now look at you: A professional MAL troll. Congratulations man, way to go! I hope you're satisfied with your life.

NeoVolt said:
I'm not sure how this is relevant. We've established OP is a troll? Doesn't he basically admit it in the first post anyway?

I'm not sure what your objection is, other than a personal one.

Trolls_Bane said:


So why does it matter of the relevance when the entire "discussion" is based on his definition of trolling? This validated the fact that he is a troll indefinitely and well, more evidence of the self-flattery.

I am not sure how this doesn't make the objection with the clear self-flattery and just general irony on a thread justifying how trolling is being open minded when OP himself has been revealed to be one.

Trolls_Bane said:


So why does it matter of the relevance when the entire "discussion" is based on his definition of trolling? This validated the fact that he is a troll indefinitely and well, more evidence of the self-flattery.

I am not sure how this doesn't make the objection with the clear self-flattery and just general irony on a thread justifying how trolling is being open minded when OP himself has been revealed to be one.

NeoVolt said:
I guess I entered into the discussion under the assumption that there was implied self-identification as a troll. In that context there isn't a clear distinction between presenting an argument for one's own position and "self-flattery."

Regardless, there is no objection to the supporting reasoning itself. We can say that the "only a troll" wording is a little over the top, but it could be adjusted without affecting the substance of what he's saying. Him being a troll is not relevant to whether an ideal troll is open minded or not. Its also not relevant to the criticisms against self-proclaimed "open-minded" people he references.

Also, katsucats being driven by a personal objection (or maybe even grudge) is supported by the personal attack he made against OP referencing a past relationship. This shows a lack of integrity on katsucats part in regards to rational discourse. He also seem s to think he's arguing from a moral high ground but has done nothing to qualify it. Until he makes an actually relevant argument, I'm kinda inclined to label him a shitposter, in the context of this thread.

TheEntropy said:
The best trolls are able to draw emotion out of other posters (rage, annoyance, frustration, you get the point). It matters not how they do it, the results should tell the whole story. Take it from someone who was a pretty damn good troll before I got a life. It's not about hiding your intentions, its about letting your intentions be known, but those intentions not being too obvious.

Tl;dr Trolling takes effort, but too much effort makes it unfunny.

xEmptiness said:


How can you make your intentions be known without letting them be obvious? lol

Trolling really is just about hiding your intentions to get a certain thing done.

xEmptiness said:

Every argument ever given in defense of an opinion was self-flattery for the one with that opinion lol

People defend their positions. I'm merely doing that too. What makes this form of self-flattery any more immoral or any less rational than the one we all indulge in?

TheEntropy said:
You don't need to hide anything to troll. You just need to piss people off just to get a good laugh. Do you think that for example, Youtube or twitch trolls are hiding their intentions at all?

Trolls_Bane said:


You didn't tell us that you were a troll. Being a troll is considered a shitty behavior on the internet. If someone just defends their position of doing something, it's fine. But if someone labeled what they are doing as being noble and somehow having higher moral principle despite its reputation to be just shitty behavior. That does make it self-flattery and you are praising yourself for that shitty behavior with these justifications of what you think you are doing despite what is being done.

But it is fine, what you said still stands and the trolling can be a sign of open-mindedness if they are able to sympathize completely with what someone else is saying so much that they can emulate it and argue like it's their own but it doesn't denote the fact that it is also an asshole move that doesn't do anything to help anyone in their pursuit of convincing another person and can be a sign of a person's intellectual dishonesty.

xEmptiness said:


You didn't give justification of why trolling is considered shitty behavior. If you didn't notice, the entire purpose of this thread is to take away that unjustified connotation from trolling and put it where it rightfully belongs.

Trolls_Bane said:

Whether he is a troll is relevant to this because it proves to be ironic and self-flattering and shows one's bias towards the argument. If I said I like food from restaurant A and is a chef there, my words are going to sound ironic, self-flattering and probably not taken seriously.

Trolls_Bane said:
I also find it uberly amusing you are calling him a shitposter considering what OP said about shitposters.

NeoVolt said:
But it still, logically, has no relevance to whether the food is good or not. Just as OP's self-flattery, logically, has no relevance to the rationality of his position. The difference between this thread and your restaurant example is that we don't have to drive any where to taste the food. We can evaluate for ourselves whether or not the concept presented here is reasonable or not. We can, and should, ignore OP's intent if we want to do so without bias.

What I find really ironic here are katsucats posts.
By "shitposter" I really meant my classic definition of what constitutes a "troll."

Let's consider katsucats posts:
-He hasn't contributed anything of value to the topic at hand
-He targeted a specific user with personal objections
-He's not engaging in rational discourse.
And
-He even went so far as to jab at a previous relationship (in an attempt to manipulate @xEmptiness's emotions).

These are just objective observations. It doesn't matter what may have occurred between these two previously. Going by my former definition, and in line with the generally accepted definition, in the context of this thread, katsucats is the "troll." That's ironic. Also, while OP couldn't have specifically predicted katsucats posts. It's my experience that his threads usually have multiple objectives. So he may have anticipated and even wanted something like this to happen. Meaning that it's possible that xEmptiness may have effectively trolled katsucats into being a troll. Double irony. Now that's amusing.

Vivisect said:
The fact that your name is Trolls_Bane and you are actively "feeding" the troll is the most amusing part of this entire *ahem* discussion to me.

Trolls_Bane said:
So many semantics going on. So he is shitposter but only by the classic definition of the word?

Trolls_Bane said:

I am seriously not getting all this credit you are giving him while just disparaging and disregarding the other guy. OP literally is complimenting himself for being a troll and he didn't even say he was one to begin with, you actually honestly not find the revelations that he is amusing? Wow.

Trolls_Bane said:
show him to be a troll and give a few jabs towards OP for being one.