ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags internet incidents , internet issues , John Synott , madeleine mccann , manfromatlan , trolling

Reply
Old 15th April 2017, 10:43 AM   #41
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Dr Synott gains from publishing his article. He was shilling by not disclosing his secret agenda
That is not the definition of shilling.

Troll criteria (#3 I think?): redefining words to manipulate information. In this case the purpose is to re-define "shilling" to make the motives of the psychological study more diabolical and nefarious.

No Vixen, they were just trying to gather information. This is how psychology studies work. They were not harming the subjects.

Quote:
, which was to unmask the pathology of the McCann followers.
Well, more like to study and understand the pathology. I think their pathology may have already been "unmasked", as you put it, as social media comments are usually saved for all to see.

Quote:
It begs the question of whether they can be assumed to be disturbed.
Of course they aren't "assumed" to be disturbed! That was the whole point of the study! The conclusion was that they were likely disturbed because of how they behaved. In other words it was a symptomatology based diagnosis. And contrary to belief, you don't have to meet people to gain enough information to give a reasonable diagnosis; particularly when their behaviors and thoughts are documented online and in social media. The symptoms are right there for anyone to witness.

Quote:
Many people have reservations about the McCann case. It doesn't mean they are disturbed sadists.
Of course not and that's not what anyone is saying! Least of all the researchers.

They are saying it is how certain commentators behave towards others. That is what makes them sadists, or indicates they have personality disorders! It's not just the fact that they disagree. That is not the point at all.

Last edited by NotEvenWrong; 15th April 2017 at 10:51 AM.
NotEvenWrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 10:44 AM   #42
surreptitious57
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 213
I think there are two distinctive types of trolls. Those who think their anonymity gives them licence to say whatever they want because
they think they will never be caught. And those who are quite open about their trolling because they see no reason to hide behind their
anonymity. I much prefer the second type because they are at least more honest in their opinions which are true even if also malicious
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 10:47 AM   #43
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Some creationists genuinely believe in creationist theory. For example, in human's supposed five million year history, only the last ten thousand years or so shows any sign of civilisation. Is someone relentlessly saying, 'no we evolved from primaeval soup', given the aforesaid evidence, less of a troll just because that is the view you agree with, and probably inculcated with from an early age?

I see where you are coming from. For you, a troll is someone who sees the world differently from you.
No, a troll will, for example, take something I have repeatedly said I disagree with, then claim I agree with it.

For example, say I have repeatedly stated "I don't think a troll is simply someone who disagrees with me."

Then someone else says "I see where you are coming from. For you, a troll is someone who sees the world differently from you."

That is an example of trolling. Note it's NOT because they disagree with me. It is because they have deliberately distorted something I have said, and in fact is now claiming I said the OPPOSITE of what I actually said, in order to antagonize, create chaos, and disrupt actual discussion. THAT is trolling.

Is any of this coming together for you or no?
NotEvenWrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 10:48 AM   #44
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
I think planigale is saying this is but one example of many. When you have a bunch of these examples it becomes a pattern of behavior among the group. So it seems a big disingenuous to then say "but we're just having an honest discussion and happen to disagree! Quit bullying us!"



I mean, sure I guess.... But what if the "perceived perpetrator" is proven innocent? At some point can they ever be broken free of the harassment or is it all honest disagreement?



No one said it was.



No one is saying it should be censored from discussion. It is the way it is "discussed" (and I use the term discussion loosely). Did you read the article you linked to? It's not about censoring discussion at all!
Neither Knox nor the McCanns* have been 'proven innocent'. Take Casey Anthony, who was found 'not guilty' by a jury. She courts publicity. If people make adverse comments about her then it is not necessarily trolling, but a genuine concern based on the fact found that she did not report her young daughter missing for over a month.

You have to accept that some people find that fact upsetting.

*NB: It is important to note, the McCanns have never stood trial, so have not been found one way or other.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light

Last edited by Vixen; 15th April 2017 at 10:50 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 10:49 AM   #45
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,094
Pretty fast moving thread. Did anyone explain who Maddie McCann was?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 10:56 AM   #46
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,333
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Pretty fast moving thread. Did anyone explain who Maddie McCann was?
Maddie was here and now she's gone.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 10:56 AM   #47
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Neither Knox nor the McCanns* have been 'proven innocent'. Take Casey Anthony, who was found 'not guilty' by a jury. She courts publicity. If people make adverse comments about her then it is not necessarily trolling, but a genuine concern based on the fact found that she did not report her young daughter missing for over a month.

You have to accept that some people find that fact upsetting.

*NB: It is important to note, the McCanns have never stood trial, so have not been found one way or other.

I don't have an opinion on the McCanns as I haven't studied it in depth. Casey Anthony I think is guilty. I am familiar with Knox, as you bring her up again, and she has been proven innocent by science and the Italian Supreme Court.

But again, that's not the point. Sure some people may find some of this upsetting. Some people may get really upset at proof they are wrong, and accuse world renowned experts of being "shills". Trolling isn't about that.

Again, it is about how these people communicate. Being upset that you have been proven wrong doesn't make you a troll. Lying, manipulating, disrupting discussion, accusing others (me, in this instance) of saying things like "disagreeing with me makes you a troll" when I have said the exact opposite.... THAT makes you a troll.

The reason this is trolling behavior is because it is deliberately antagonistic, it is an ad hominem attack, and it is designed to garner attention and elicit a response. You are REALLY hoping I insult you now because I am upset you lied about what I said previously aren't you? So I can get a yellow card or be reprimanded in some way? Sorry Vixen, I am on to you. Not going to work.
NotEvenWrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:00 AM   #48
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
No, a troll will, for example, take something I have repeatedly said I disagree with, then claim I agree with it.

For example, say I have repeatedly stated "I don't think a troll is simply someone who disagrees with me."

Then someone else says "I see where you are coming from. For you, a troll is someone who sees the world differently from you."

That is an example of trolling. Note it's NOT because they disagree with me. It is because they have deliberately distorted something I have said, and in fact is now claiming I said the OPPOSITE of what I actually said, in order to antagonize, create chaos, and disrupt actual discussion. THAT is trolling.

Is any of this coming together for you or no?

You have made it very clear that someone who disagrees with you should be denounced as a troll to neutralise the fact their arguments (i.e., logical fallacy free) are sound whilst yours are not.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:05 AM   #49
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You have made it very clear that someone who disagrees with you should be denounced as a troll to neutralise the fact their arguments (i.e., logical fallacy free) are sound whilst yours are not.
Vixen, could you please stop lying about what I have and have not said? I do not appreciate it. I am going to report your post because this is is my only option, as I have asked you repeatedly not to do it in this thread and others, yet you refuse to stop.

Again, my position is NOT that disagreement (with me) is trolling. The way one disagrees and communicates determines whether it is trolling. This is all outlined in the paper you reference in your original post, and I have explained this numerous times to you.

Last edited by NotEvenWrong; 15th April 2017 at 11:09 AM.
NotEvenWrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:07 AM   #50
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
I don't have an opinion on the McCanns as I haven't studied it in depth. Casey Anthony I think is guilty. I am familiar with Knox, as you bring her up again, and she has been proven innocent by science and the Italian Supreme Court.

But again, that's not the point. Sure some people may find some of this upsetting. Some people may get really upset at proof they are wrong, and accuse world renowned experts of being "shills". Trolling isn't about that.

Again, it is about how these people communicate. Being upset that you have been proven wrong doesn't make you a troll. Lying, manipulating, disrupting discussion, accusing others (me, in this instance) of saying things like "disagreeing with me makes you a troll" when I have said the exact opposite.... THAT makes you a troll.

The reason this is trolling behavior is because it is deliberately antagonistic, it is an ad hominem attack, and it is designed to garner attention and elicit a response. <snip>

1. I see there is no reply to my question of what Sweepyface did to merit her outing as a troll and subsequent suicide.

2. Planigale says NHS doctors don't make much money to allow them to hire PR. Millions in donations and book deals?

3. The researchers showed their bias by calling them Anti-McCann trolls, then Synott said he'd like to do a study on "the McCann group". Yet they outed and harassed people, doxxed them, sent reporters to SweepyFace door and drove her to commit suicide?

4. Note the special pleading for Knox, that people tried to 'harm' her. There are people passionately discussing WM3 and The Making Of A Murderer. Would taking a contrarian position be classified as 'trying to harm' Damien Echols or Steven Avery? Are they 'trolls' too?

5. NotEvenWrong "it becomes a pattern of behavior among the group" seems he's drawing from a rather small sample, lol.

ETA If the McCanns can expend a huge sum of money on PR, then it is fair comment for the so-called 'Anti-McCanns' to ask where it has all gone.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light

Last edited by Vixen; 15th April 2017 at 11:16 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:11 AM   #51
surreptitious57
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 213
I have said that trolling by definition involves malicious intention but I think it is also possible to be one without necessarily knowing
it. Someone may for example in everyday life display sociopathic tendencies and have low levels of empathy though not excessively
so. They may not consciously be aware of this for it may simply be their natural personality. This might become more obvious when
they are online causing them to be labelled a troll even though they would not be aware of being intentionally malicious themselves
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:11 AM   #52
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,333
Is the name Sweepyface a cutesy version of Sleepyface, or is it really about broom sweeping?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:12 AM   #53
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,094
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
I think there are two distinctive types of trolls. Those who think their anonymity gives them licence to say whatever they want because
they think they will never be caught. And those who are quite open about their trolling because they see no reason to hide behind their
anonymity. I much prefer the second type because they are at least more honest in their opinions which are true even if also malicious
I'm surprised either type has the "pack" instinct. My assumption was that it's a solitary game, too much related to anarchy to produce tribes.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:15 AM   #54
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
1. I see there is no reply to my question of what Sweepyface did to merit her outing as a troll and subsequent suicide.
I have no opinion on this "sweepyface" and have no idea what you're talking about. I am pretty sure you didn't direct this question to me anyway. What are you talking about?

Quote:
2. Planigale says NHS doctors don't make much money to allow them to hire PR. Millions in donations and book deals?
Edited by Agatha:  Edited breach of rule 12


Quote:
3. The researchers showed their bias by calling them Anti-McCann trolls, then Synott said he'd like to do a study on "the McCann group". Yet they outed and harassed people, doxxed them, sent reporters to SweepyFace door and drove her to commit suicide?
Wait, Synott himself sent reporters to sweepyface's door? Are you doing that thing again where you make up facts to discredit someone you don't like?

Do you have ANY evidence Synott himself doxxed anyone?

Quote:
4. Note the special pleading for Knox, that people tried to 'harm' her. There are people passionately discussing WM3 and The Making Of A Murderer. Would taking a contrarian position be classified as 'trying to harm' Damien Echols or Steven Avery? Are they 'trolls' too?
No, again, "passionately discussing" something does not make someone a troll. And taking a contrarian position does not make someone a troll.
Edited by Agatha:  Edited breach of rule 12
Again, it is how people communicate and disagree that makes someone a troll or not.

Quote:
5. NotEvenWrong "it becomes a pattern of behavior among the group" seems he's drawing from a rather small sample, lol.
The group is small because they are irrelevant. But when a relatively large percent of the group does reprehensible things and, well, "trolls" any and all discussion on the matter, you can infer things about the group as a whole. That's just the way it is.

Last edited by Agatha; 21st April 2017 at 05:18 AM.
NotEvenWrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:23 AM   #55
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,333
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I'm surprised either type has the "pack" instinct. My assumption was that it's a solitary game, too much related to anarchy to produce tribes.
I think it's packs of loners.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:45 AM   #56
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Pretty fast moving thread. Did anyone explain who Maddie McCann was?
Good point. If only there were some convenient way to look this kind of information up quickly. Oh well...
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:49 AM   #57
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10,974
Mod Warning This thread is not about the murder of Meredith Kercher; please discuss issues relating to that in the appropriate thread.

Please also try to discuss the tweets and online communities focusing on the disappearance of Madeleine (not Maddie, her parents never called her that) McCann without bringing in, however obliquely, any differences you may have with each other from other threads.

Thank you.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:52 AM   #58
surreptitious57
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by marplots
I am surprised either type has the pack instinct. My assumption was that it is a solitary game too much related to anarchy to produce tribes
Some times trolls come together when they collectively engage in cyber bullying or dog piling. This makes it harder for the one being targeted
simply because they are outnumbered. Now trolls may be solitary by nature but the irony is that trolling itself is far more effective the greater
the number that engage in it because it is essentially a form of psychological attrition. But what makes trolling truly effective though is not so
much how many do it but for how long they do it. Because like its meat space equivalent of stalking it tends to have greater impact over time
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:54 AM   #59
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,697
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong
Sure, I see what you're saying.

But what if said young earth creationist then posts that same document and lies about its contents 20+ more times, after being corrected 19 times on it already.

Troll or not? I don't think you have to be telepathic to evaluate the evidence and go with the balance of probabilities here.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Some creationists genuinely believe in creationist theory. For example, in human's supposed five million year history, only the last ten thousand years or so shows any sign of civilisation. Is someone relentlessly saying, 'no we evolved from primaeval soup', given the aforesaid evidence, less of a troll just because that is the view you agree with, and probably inculcated with from an early age?

I see where you are coming from. For you, a troll is someone who sees the world differently from you.
This response completely misses NotEvenWrong's point. No one (yet) is talking about genuinely held beliefs. People are entitled to their beliefs - full stop.

N.E.W. is talking about some item of claimed "evidence" which is presented to support that belief. "But what if said young earth creationist then posts that same document and lies about its contents 20+ more times, after being corrected 19 times on it already."

It's not the belief about young earth creationism, per se, it is the use of "evidence" which itself has been refuted, to which the holder of the belief simply returns as if nothing had been said. The holder of the belief is not wrong to hold the belief, per se, but that same person is not entitled to lie about items of evidence or what's contained in documents.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 11:59 AM   #60
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,094
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I think it's packs of loners.
Maybe it's their uniqueness they have in common.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 12:04 PM   #61
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,094
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
Some times trolls come together when they collectively engage in cyber bullying or dog piling. This makes it harder for the one being targeted
simply because they are outnumbered. Now trolls may be solitary by nature but the irony is that trolling itself is far more effective the greater
the number that engage in it because it is essentially a form of psychological attrition. But what makes trolling truly effective though is not so
much how many do it but for how long they do it. Because like its meat space equivalent of stalking it tends to have greater impact over time
What's the goal, other than to gain attention for the individual troll? Is this supposed to be trolling with a purpose, perhaps to punish someone?

I think there ought to be a distinction between someone who says something outrageous, knowing it is false/inflated with the purpose of getting a reaction, and someone who intends harm (even if virtual/psychic harm) or has another purpose for the harassment. In this light, I wouldn't put what Anonymous typically does down as trolling. Trolling is more innocent, even though it may cause just as much consternation for the recipient.

It's like the difference between littering and polluting. The first is causal, the second serves a purpose.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 12:09 PM   #62
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,094
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Good point. If only there were some convenient way to look this kind of information up quickly. Oh well...
Found it! For those who don't know, Madeleine McCann is a kid who went missing some ten years ago. White kid. Good looking. Still missing. Maybe dead, maybe not.

No particular reason why this is troll-worthy that I can see.

Wikipedia has an entry on the disappearance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disapp...deleine_McCann

Last edited by marplots; 15th April 2017 at 12:44 PM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 12:27 PM   #63
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This response completely misses NotEvenWrong's point. No one (yet) is talking about genuinely held beliefs. People are entitled to their beliefs - full stop.

N.E.W. is talking about some item of claimed "evidence" which is presented to support that belief. "But what if said young earth creationist then posts that same document and lies about its contents 20+ more times, after being corrected 19 times on it already."

It's not the belief about young earth creationism, per se, it is the use of "evidence" which itself has been refuted, to which the holder of the belief simply returns as if nothing had been said. The holder of the belief is not wrong to hold the belief, per se, but that same person is not entitled to lie about items of evidence or what's contained in documents.

If my gran wore trousers she'd be my grandpa.

How is it possible to respond to an entirely hypothetical question.

If a poster kept doing that it is trolling.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 12:36 PM   #64
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If my gran wore trousers she'd be my grandpa.

How is it possible to respond to an entirely hypothetical question.
By answering the hypothetical question?

Quote:
If a poster kept doing that it is trolling.
As usual, I have no idea what is going on inside your head. Asking a hypothetical question is decidedly not trolling.
NotEvenWrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 12:40 PM   #65
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,123
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Dr Synott gains from publishing his article. He was shilling by not disclosing his secret agenda, which was to unmask the pathology of the McCann followers. It begs the question of whether they can be assumed to be disturbed. Many people have reservations about the McCann case. It doesn't mean they are disturbed sadists.
Talk of a secret agenda begins to make you sound a bit like you believe in some overarching conspiracy. Yes he unmasked the pathology of those who 'obsessively' post hundreds of comments denigrating the McCanns. I agree simply holding an opinion, particularly if amenable to change if there is contrary evidence, does not mean they are disturbed sadists. Running web sites whose sole function is to attack one individual and posting there does seem to fit the definition in the paper of people with psychopathology.

Edited by Agatha:  Removed material pertaining to another thread, posted in defiance of modbox instruction

Last edited by Agatha; 15th April 2017 at 02:06 PM.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 12:46 PM   #66
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
By answering the hypothetical question?



As usual, I have no idea what is going on inside your head. Asking a hypothetical question is decidedly not trolling.
I was referring to your comment: "But what if said young earth creationist then posts that same document and lies about its contents 20+ more times, after being corrected 19 times on it already."


BTW I never answer a hypothetical question, but did in your case.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 12:48 PM   #67
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,123
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
1. I see there is no reply to my question of what Sweepyface did to merit her outing as a troll and subsequent suicide.

2. Planigale says NHS doctors don't make much money to allow them to hire PR. Millions in donations and book deals?

3. The researchers showed their bias by calling them Anti-McCann trolls, then Synott said he'd like to do a study on "the McCann group". Yet they outed and harassed people, doxxed them, sent reporters to SweepyFace door and drove her to commit suicide?

4. Note the special pleading for Knox, that people tried to 'harm' her. There are people passionately discussing WM3 and The Making Of A Murderer. Would taking a contrarian position be classified as 'trying to harm' Damien Echols or Steven Avery? Are they 'trolls' too?

5. NotEvenWrong "it becomes a pattern of behavior among the group" seems he's drawing from a rather small sample, lol.

ETA If the McCanns can expend a huge sum of money on PR, then it is fair comment for the so-called 'Anti-McCanns' to ask where it has all gone.

From your reference
"the fund spent £123,573 on campaign management, which is believed to include the salary of the McCanns’ temporary spokesman Justine McGuinness and the fees of a PR agency."

So certainly not millions.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 12:53 PM   #68
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I was referring to your comment: "But what if said young earth creationist then posts that same document and lies about its contents 20+ more times, after being corrected 19 times on it already."


BTW I never answer a hypothetical question, but did in your case.
Oh! Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying asking hypothetical questions is trolling.

Since we are on the topic of repeatedly posting comments or lies after they have been refuted dozens of times over -- behavior which you acknowledge is trolling -- does anyone here know of any examples of this occurring? It is clearly on topic now, as it is an example Vixen (who wrote the op) has acknowledged is trolling.

I would dig it up myself but don't have time at the moment, and I know some posters keep better records of this stuff than I do!
NotEvenWrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 12:55 PM   #69
surreptitious57
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by Vixen
How is it possible to respond to an entirely hypothetical question
Being entirely hypothetical does not in and of itself mean such a question cannot be answered
It only means that there can be no definitive answer to it since no facts have been referenced
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 12:56 PM   #70
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,123
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If you are referring to one private individual who made an unacceptable communication on a social media, it is surely a logical fallacy to say this refers to all 'guilters' by association.


Against this it has to be understood that when there is an atrocious act, then the perceived perpetrator does get subjected to angry comments on social media.

This is not the same as discussing the case on a forum.

I would argue that a heinous crime is a case of public interest and people should not be censored from discussing the facts of the case.
Synnott did discuss this, as they say,

Quote:
The notion of a relationship between trolling and antisocial personality disorder is further supported by the McCann trolls’ unwavering endorsement of the right to unfettered free speech and their profound resistance to authority, particularly where online censorship is concerned. This adversity to the regulation of online spaces has been shown to be one of the only consistent characteristics of internet trolls (Phillips, 2011), as well as a defining feature of antisocial personality disorder (Black & Larson, 2000).
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 12:57 PM   #71
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Talk of a secret agenda begins to make you sound a bit like you believe in some overarching conspiracy. Yes he unmasked the pathology of those who 'obsessively' post hundreds of comments denigrating the McCanns. I agree simply holding an opinion, particularly if amenable to change if there is contrary evidence, does not mean they are disturbed sadists. Running web sites whose sole function is to attack one individual and posting there does seem to fit the definition in the paper of people with psychopathology. <snip> yet when professional forensic psychologists identify behaviours as illustrating sadistic tendencies then it all denial.
Unless you specify which webpages you are talking about, we have no idea if you are being truthful. I am not aware of any such website, and I believe you have made this up.

Dr Synott cannot possibly know that someone has a personality syndrome without ever having met them. There is no evidence that 'Sweepyface' was a troll. She wrote prolifically, but so what?

On the basis of Dr Synott's claims, I had a look at the McCann hashtag and didn't notice that the tweets were anything different from other advocacy tweets. If someone is called 'Justice for Maddie' that is what what they will tweet about.

Some of the tweets were garish, but again not an indication of personality disorder.

When I designed psychology experiments as part of the required 15 lab reports, including social psychology, it was drummed into us that when using subjects for an experiment you MUST follow various ethical codes, including revealing the purpose of your experiment when it is over.

You are also expected to guard against the 'halo effect' i.e., designing an experiment to confirm a personal opinion you hold and unconsciously confirming your own beliefs in the design of it (confirmation bias).

You are also not supposed to use subterfuge nor encourage others to act in an unethical way, nor provoke people into reactions that might embarrass them.

Please advise which 'webpage attacks one individual'.
Edited by Agatha:  Edited breach of rule 12
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light

Last edited by Agatha; 21st April 2017 at 05:21 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 01:01 PM   #72
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
Being entirely hypothetical does not in and of itself mean such a question cannot be answered
It only means that there can be no definitive answer to it since no facts have been referenced
Of course it can be answered. However, it is to go into 'what-if' land - fine for people who like conjecture and 'what-if' -ing'.

It has its place.

As a tool for debate it is near enough useless.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 01:05 PM   #73
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Synnott did discuss this, as they say,
Synnott did discuss this, as they say,

Quote:
:
The notion of a relationship between trolling and antisocial personality disorder is further supported by the McCann trolls’ unwavering endorsement of the right to unfettered free speech and their profound resistance to authority, particularly where online censorship is concerned. This adversity to the regulation of online spaces has been shown to be one of the only consistent characteristics of internet trolls (Phillips, 2011), as well as a defining feature of antisocial personality disorder (Black & Larson, 2000).
This is specious as this was written before Madeleine McCann ever vanished, so it obviously is NOT a diagnosis of the people Dr Synott claims he dealt with.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 01:07 PM   #74
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I think it's packs of loners.
How can you tell?
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 01:09 PM   #75
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,123
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As I see it, there are two issues here. How are females perceived in the crime/legal world? Social psychologists have found time and time again that where a crime is a serious one, such as the murder of a child, then the public are particularly condemnatory (cf Myra Hindley, Rose West) as women are seen as mothers, carers and nurturers. Plus it is relatively rare.

In minor crime, such as 'kiting' a cheque, where there is a partnership with a man and a woman, it has been commonly observed that the male partner is assumed to be the leader, leading the female astray and will get a harsher sentence.

Your parallel between the two cases is moot as someone who believes in the guilt of, say, OJ Simpson, does not ipso facto believe in the guilt of all acquitted defendants. That is a sweeping generalisation.

Apart from one or two people, I have not seen any crossover between the McCann Community and the Kercher one.

I have noticed that quite a few pro-Knox/Sollecito supporters are supporters of innocence projects in general and support the innocence of Steven Avery, the West Memphis Three, Syed, etc., etc., almost as a matter of course.

The other issue is the nature of the crime. The Kercher crime involved the horrifying murder, rape and desecration by the perps. it should be no surprise the world was shocked that a female of a similar age to the victim was arrested, together with her boyfriend, given it is relatively rare for a woman to sexually assault another.

ETA As for people attacking Katie McCann more than Gerry McCann. I haven't noticed this. If anything, from what I have seen, many of the so-called 'anti-McCann' believe Gerry to be involved. They are both equally focused on.
Often in science it is legitimate to proceed from the specific to the general. We are not expected to prove gravity applies in every situation. The principles in this paper I think are more generally applicable. I think that some of the observations are of general interest to skeptics. But as I have said I think there is a material difference to opposing the 'mysterious other', the government or the illuminati and a specific other in the form of a bereaved mother or a 'falsely imprisoned' now exonerated individual. Especially where part of the objective is to 'deliver justice'.

Quote:
...anti-McCann users framed their comments as a plea for justice for Madeleine, though this appeared to be little more than a means to justify the ongoing perpetuation of abuse toward the McCanns.
Synnott 2017
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 01:16 PM   #76
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,333
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
How can you tell?
The argument is fundamentally antisocial because it's divisive.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 01:17 PM   #77
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Often in science it is legitimate to proceed from the specific to the general. We are not expected to prove gravity applies in every situation. The principles in this paper I think are more generally applicable. I think that some of the observations are of general interest to skeptics. But as I have said I think there is a material difference to opposing the 'mysterious other', the government or the illuminati and a specific other in the form of a bereaved mother or a 'falsely imprisoned' now exonerated individual. Especially where part of the objective is to 'deliver justice'.


Synnott 2017

Quote:
...anti-McCann users framed their comments as a plea for justice for Madeleine, though this appeared to be little more than a means to justify the ongoing perpetuation of abuse toward the McCanns.
Synnott 2017

I have nothing but sympathy for the McCanns and perhaps I didn't spot the abusive comments Synott did. However, if the McCanns have raised £2m in fundraising to find Madeleine and it has, say, been all spent in litigating for damages, then IMV I cannot see that it is not 'fair comment' for someone to ask about.

Money raised for charity should be transparent.

I worked for a charity where the directors of the commercial arm decided to line their pockets with other people's donations, and calling it a year end 'bonus'.

I asked questions.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 01:22 PM   #78
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
From your reference
"the fund spent £123,573 on campaign management, which is believed to include the salary of the McCanns’ temporary spokesman Justine McGuinness and the fees of a PR agency."

So certainly not millions.
I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but commenting that it is surely 'fair comment' for people to discuss it openly.

That does not equate to 'abuse'.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 01:24 PM   #79
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The argument is fundamentally antisocial because it's divisive.
Ah, it's an oxymoron.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 01:27 PM   #80
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,697
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
That is not the definition of shilling.

Troll criteria (#3 I think?): redefining words to manipulate information. In this case the purpose is to re-define "shilling" to make the motives of the psychological study more diabolical and nefarious.

No Vixen, they were just trying to gather information. This is how psychology studies work. They were not harming the subjects.

Edited by Agatha:  Removed material pertaining to another thread in defiance of modbox instruction

The constant redefining of ordinary terms, or plaintext translations is perhaps the clearest definition of trolling that there is.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Agatha; 15th April 2017 at 02:10 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.