Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Josh
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (16)
Anoneumouse +1
Nah. that troll is way too friendly and sweet, the climate debate has some really ugly stinkers. I think the current surge in trolls is that ultimately they can't stand being locked up together in the same wardrobe. Who knows, perhaps if they come outr of the closet they'll discover they like it.
On a serious note, where does genuine disagreement stop and trolling start? Without some opposition we get bored and stale. My own posts on warmist websites are regularly accused of trolling but I'm rarely out to annoy. I think warmists and sceptics genuinely see the world differently (not just climate) and I for one am interested how the other side tick. I think one of their great weaknesses as communicators is that they are completely disinterested in how we see things. Know the enemy and all that.
You're obviously a man of few words Anoneumouse.
Pointman
I think Anoneumouse was trolling with that comment.
CO2, TheresPhysics' trolling is military-grade. It consists of repeatedly baiting commenters on skeptic websites - 'cause as you say discussions can get stale otherwise - followed up by deleting their comments or banning them.
Or worse, dishonesty.
Look at this thread: http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/admitting-mistakes-and-dishonesty/
I know I'm a bit naïve, but like Tiny CO2, I usually view the recent ones not as trolls, but more as people who see themselves as out doing missionary work amongst the heathen. Conceited, arrogant, ignorant, and patronising, often. Concerted, possibly. Self promotional, sometimes. Paid, I doubt it. But trolls?
Perhaps I would get called a troll on warmist sites, but I generally don't bother commenting at such places because dissenting views are so frequently deleted. Here they are given a pretty wide tolerance.
Maybe I don't really understand how the word troll is supposed to be used. I always thought they were simply people who enjoyed an ongoing 'argument' irrespective of topic. A bit like goading a dog in a parked car. I'd be interested in other's definitions.
I think warmists and sceptics genuinely see the world differently (not just climate) and I for one am interested how the other side tick. I think one of their great weaknesses as communicators is that they are completely disinterested in how we see things. Know the enemy and all that.
Aug 18, 2014 at 11:55 AM TinyCO2
It would be very interesting to see a psychological profile of the sort of people described here as 'trolls'.
The thing that invariably strikes me is how differently such people see things from how I see the same things.
I often feel I detect a streak of nerdism (a.k.a. borderline Asperger's) - a lack of insight into why others should see things differently - and a lack of curiosity about why others should hold views different from theirs. Plus a tendency to see things as black/white.
A lack of humour seems to be another characteristic feature.
The Nazi uniform fetish and homoeroticism of the Skeptical Science heroes is bizarre - is it unique to them, or is it a more widespread thing amongst strong AGW believers?
I agree with michael hart - mostly 'trolls' appear to me as obsessed missionaries rather than as pure arguers.
shub " trolling is military-grade."
Quite possibly, he's one of those I can't entirely see where he's coming from other than arguing for the sake of it, which would fit my definition of troll. Some posters you feel are doing so out of passion for the issue. ATTP, not so much. He admits he isn't really interested in CO2 emissions but at the same time I can't see why he submits posts proposing more civil dialog. Why bother? Civil dialog is only necessary if you want to achieve something. I think his kind of behaviour is prevalent in highly educated people who are book smart but not life smart. Not admitting when you're wrong is a feature.
And we all do it from time to time.
Nice self-portrait by Josh.
When your life is so total wrapped up in a 'belief system ' such that your feel any doubt expressed about that system is a personal attack , then you will blindly attack those 'doubters ' which includes the very unscientific approach of using insults such has 'deniers'
If you want to see the difference in attitude toward honest debate, you need look no further than the links on the web sites of sceptic blogs where you can links to even rapid pro-AGW sites , while on the other hand those same pro-AGW sites would never dream of displaying links to sceptic web sites.
Is it fear that some of the 'faithful ' may stray , or fear that if people view the issues in the round, taken both sides into account , they may start to ask questions those pro-AGW web sites do not want people to even think about ?
michael hart: how about this for a definition for the verb trolling?
I saw that on a blog way back and at once adopted it. It needs I think to be that general.
Here is his (rather puerile) response to Josh's cartoon:
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/woo-hoo-fame-at-last/
the new in man/woman word is "robust"
i will use it at the coffee machine/workmates/bus/etc... ASAP
ps - just used on the wife, mixed it up with roturd, slap coming :-)
TinyCO2: ‘On a serious note, where does genuine disagreement stop and trolling start?’
Accusations of trolling often boil down to name-calling because someone is expressing disagreement.
In a sense, any disagreement can be experienced as trollish behaviour, in that disagreement derails a pet theory or nicely turned argument.
Venomous trolling requires an intention to disrupt or otherwise spoil the party. But one can also sincerely express an argument while enjoying the disruptive effect.
‘I think warmists and sceptics genuinely see the world differently (not just climate)…’
Yes and no. Warmists and sceptics view each other across a divide, but the divide is the content of their beliefs, not the form. Since all human beings are, to our knowledge, the same species, our processes of thought must also be similar.
To take one example: catastrophic thinking. Most human beings are subject to this to some degree. On a personal level, some people catastrophise about their health.
In the climate arena, warmists offer dire warnings about the possible future state of the climate. Sceptics offer dire warnings about the future state of the economy and politics.
I think this double aspect of like and unalike accounts for the frustration we feel when another human being refuses to agree with our understanding of an issue. Since this other person is like us in many respects, why can’t they be like us on this very important issue?
I think fewer people have to work in teams. Also fewer people work in a physical environment where there is injury or death if a mistake occurs. Consequently more people can live in a creation of their own making un touched by reality.