I see it as spoiling the well rather than trolling.
Since this is an entirely different thread with a different question, no it’s not. It’s another chance for you to pull out your Guiness world record sized broad brush.
There are several possible motivations for the OP discussed in this thread: true ignorance and trolling are two. Given that the OP in the other thread waited 12 hours to post again, and then did not address a single reply to his own thread, I’m leaning toward trolling of a really lazy variety. The 2nd post by the OP in that thread:
[QUOTE=Bijou Drains]
Of course the other group I know who are really full of themselves are Mac users.
I remember how they used to tell me how crappy Intel chips were. And then all of a sudden they stopped saying that. Wonder why? Need to find out about that.
[/QUOTE]
Does that seem sincere or germane?
His nationality has nuthin’ to do with it 
You summarized it exactly - a jerky jerk being jerkish, but not trying too hard, and it seems that most Dopers kinda expect that from him/her, so move right past it…
Well, this Mac using atheist just sorta snickered.
Did you upload the thread to your iGod?
Poisoning. Poisoning the well.
That is all. 
I read that as Truman Capote in “Murder by Death”.
Not necessarily trolling, but definitely not GD material. Banish that thread to IMHO or MPSIMS!
ETA: Was it always in IMHO? I could have sworn I saw it in GD, but I could be wrong…
I’ve considered posting an observation about intelligence being generally negatively correlated with religiosity. However, I was afraid it would be viewed as offensive/trolling. Plus the religious readers likely wouldn’t understand the ideas presented.
It was always in IMHO, so I’ll see if any of the IMHO mods wants to weigh in on this one. But as a poster I thought poisoning the well or just being negative is a better description than trolling. The OP hasn’t come back to the thread to explain what he was thinking or why he said what he said, but he posted a negative opinion and a bunch of posters argued with his opinion and description. I don’t think it’s comparable to racial stereotyping or more provocative than a lot of other threads about religion or politics or other things.
Thanks Marley - I am not surprised by your thoughts, nor of the other Dopers who have posted in this thread saying “meh - we get it; jerky, but not a big deal” - but I guess I still needed to register my POV.
Thanks for the discussion, everyone.
Who cares what Windows users think?
That’s o.k.-it’s not like he stereotyped/dumped on anyone important then never followed up. I can see moving a thread that dumped on Jews or African-Americans in this manner to the BBQ Pit(or maybe even closing it), but it’s not like there’s an actual history of systematic discrimination against athests. Right?
It has nothing to do with importance. The problem with the comparison you’re making is that he’s not dumping on people based on their race or ethnicity - he’s “dumping” on the attitude of atheists based on their ideas. While that may be objectionable (and I objected to it), I think it’s less objectionable than stereotyping people based on their racial or ethnic backgrounds.
As an IMHO mod, I don’t see it as trolling…seems like it could be a legitimate question.
There really isn’t any reason to close it down or take any action (right now), in my opinion…usually threads like that–if they have no more significant discussion–will just drop off the front page on their own, over time.
Mind you, this is only one mods opinion (of three) of that forum. Another mod may disagree.
Because most of us find any derogatory comment (based on membership in that race) about members of any race unacceptable. Theist and Atheist are typically have chosen their side and really could care less what the other side thinks.
Edit for clarification.
I had to look up what poisoning the well means, in the sense of discussions. Wiki had a definition:
.
I fear that you’re right on that one. Such a blind spot for one’s own smugness is not a trait of believers, though; it is just the trait of the majority of people who have never questioned the beleifs they’ve been brought up with. Majority atheist Netherlanders have the same automatic response to believers.
At least in the US, atheists usually have made an conscious effort to get to where they are, so they can imagine the previous mindset, while the non-questioning believer can not.
I think accusations of trolling get thrown around too readily. In my opinion, it’s not trolling unless the poster’s primary intent was to cause offense. But if a person really believes what they’re saying - even if it’s offensive - then it’s more like witnessing than trolling.
This impresses me as pretty - well - unimpressive. “Are there any [insert group] that aren’t [insert unflattering adjective]?” What are the limits of groups and adjectives that would make it not a legitimate question? If I suspect one member of an identifiable group to have fucked a goat, I can imply all members of that group share his proclivities?
And do you really wish to allow the response an OP gets to dictate policy as to the OP itself?