I don’t really argue with people who are combative or unlikely to see reason, but I have a hard time applying the label ‘‘troll’’ in a lot of cases. I kind of extend the benefit of a doubt. I’m stupid naive, and I’m okay with that. I once almost sold my laptop to a scammer on ebay. He had me ship to Indonesia and paid with an Austrailian checking account he said with his cousin’s account. ebay called me tell me it was a scam right after I dropped off the package, but I got it back. This is a true story. This is the level of naivety you are dealing with. My husband never lets me hear the end of it. The answer ''why do I engage trolls?" is because I’m not convinced they are trolls.
And I think a lot of time people are deemed to be trolls just because of an unpopular opinion. I don’t buy into that school of thought. People hold some wacky sincerely held beliefs. As long as people are respectful I’m interested in exploring those beliefs. For science.
The only time I did the back and forth with a now banned poster was this guy who seriously felt like he came out of the 1850s with regard to his racism. I kept that thread going a long time just to scream insults at him (I think it’s an Omnibus thread now.) I eventually apologized for screaming insults at him, cuz that’s how I roll. But he was banned not long after. I’d like to think I contributed. My only real regret is apologizing. But even like 45 pages deep into that thread I was still like, ‘‘oh, but this is a person.’’
Debating with people I disagree with can force me to test my beliefs, which strengthens and/or corrects them.
Exchanges with trolls offer less of this benefit. But some debates start out as substantive discussions, and deteriorate into trollfests, often when invaded by trolls.
In such settings, it can be hard to know when (and with whom) to end the dialog.
@Spice I certainly don’t intend to be demeaning here, but when I read your posts, the word that comes to mind most often is “adorable”, meant in the best possible way. I think you’re awesome!
Maybe sometimes they’re the same person? In the 1980s, in the “personals” section of The Reader, there was a long-standing exchange between two people who signed as “The Bootmaster” and “The Footman” and shared a foot fetish, as I recall. It used to make me laugh to think they were the same person.
There’s also quasi-trolling. People who argue in circular, self-indulgent ways, where it takes a while to realize what they’ve been really saying is “I don’t like X, so prove otherwise while I judge.”
You need to distinguish between cases where it’s the same arguments being repeated again and again and cases where it’s new arguments in support of the same broader position.
There have been trolls that pretend to come to an epiphany and showily apologize, only to keep on with their former opinions/behavior in later threads.
I don’t do the hundreds of posts back and forth like the OP is referring to, but I do sharpen my debating skills (and my teaching/writing/speaking skills) by practicing online. Often with people who turn out to be trolls, or else such morons that they might as well be trolls. I still think there’s some value to other readers, even if the troll won’t ever change their mind.
So it’s mainly something I do for myself (“if you can’t teach it to a freshman, you don’t really understand it yourself” – Feynman, paraphrased), but also because I do think it helps clarify or convince bystanders, even if the person you’re debating will never change their mind.
Oh, that’s hilarious coming from you! I’m not qualified to do that, but you are the expert, so by all means, have at it. <still laughing> The phrase “dog with a bone” leaps to mind.
Yeah! So there! “Ma, He’s touching me-- make him stop!-- he started it!”
You guys are cracking me up.
That makes a certain amount of sense. Thank you. <thumbs up>
This. I have done it a time or two, mostly on other boards, basically to flesh out for myself just what I think and why - an exercise in organizing my thoughts. Even with an obvious troll I can get some benefit from it as long as I remember to hit the escape key at the appropriate time.
Yes. It’s often misdefined as “people with opinions I despise and who annoy me when they fail to be convinced by my brilliance”.
My tolerance for multi-page knockdown-drag-outs on the Dope has fallen to near zero, and I don’t hang out anywhere else where they still exist.
Getting into occasional brief exchanges with dingbats keeps one’s rapier-like wit finely honed, plus rarely the loons can surprise you with nuttery you haven’t heard before. Once you’ve impaled them on the dazzlingly sharp points of your rhetoric, it isn’t really sporting to hang around to watch them wriggle.
