No but it’s to do with intent - you’re implying that by actually replying to your post on topic and point by point you’re being trolled.
Most troll’s posts are intentionally incorrect as a way of easily antagonising those who would be annoyed by it.
You need to concentrate on this part:
“Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key.”
Nothing remotely like this is occuring here.
For example, someone going to alt.christianity and posting “Christianity sucks!” may well be professing his honest belief, and is not “incorrect”. However, its clearly a troll (a weak one).
Bollox - trolls do what they do to see what sort of frenzied response they can get. They rarely actually post much more - people just seem to like throwing the word around as an insult as if it improves their argument.
There’s a term for that Brian - ad hominem.
Clearly a troll,
Clearly not - it’s just two people insulting each other. If you or anyone else here was trolling you’d stop responding once you got the desired response and just laugh at your target getting het up. Trolls don’t debate - they’re not interested in achieving anything but disruption.
Yet trolls they are.
[size=7]No.[/size]
Responding to a troll with a non-troll is insane.
Responding to a troll at all is pointless because they DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE JUST ANTAGONISE. You’re just throwing the term around because for some reason it has become the very best way to tar someone else.
I think it’s because in my mind they both boil down to a question of legitimacy. Is a minority getting that job because they’re the most qualified person, or because they’re the most qualified minority? Is an African American afforded the more (presumably) respectful title because they deserve that respect, or simply because it looks bad if you use the phrase “Black” these days?
One is inherent value, the other is legislated.[/quote]
If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that both affirmative action and political correctness are about value based on social engineering rather than “inherent” value, and that they are both legislation-oriented rather than individualistic or natural.
Political correctness is largely non-legislative in nature, but its made its mark legislatively. I guess I see your point, although its vague and only semi-applicable.
I don’t think anyone is stating that a minority getting a position based on affirmative action is equal to a white who got the position in traditional fashion. The idea is social engineering, that enforced integration has benefits that OUTWEIGH the harm done to fairness. The idea is that a 3.8 black is BETTER to have in a job than a 4.0 white, due to additional benefits that being a minority brings to the table.
The reason we don’t agree is that you don’t value those benefits. You seem not to value the benefits of integration. I agree completely with your side of things, I just value another side of things that allows me to support the position.
It isn’t about individual value at all. It works on a macro level. The idea is that a 4.0 white is better off having a 3.8 black next to him than another 4.0 white. This is certainly a debatable subject, but if a 4.0 white is better off having a 4.0 white next to him then Affirmative Action is dead. And WHEN, based on culture, its no longer true that minorities bring special benefits to the table, Affirmative Action loses its nobility and should be killed.
Note that I’m not saying that blacks on an individual level are better than whites. I’m saying that integration is a culturally beneficial thing, and that enforced integration can be necessary to overcome racism, which hinders culture. This also implies that a business with all minorities (for whatever reason) should be required to include whites.
One of my arguments against Political Correctness is just what you say, that a different term for the same thing doesn’t change the thing at all.
I agree completely.
It is prejudicial and skewed, but that’s a very difficult issue to deal with and probably not worthwhile.
If Doug Erickson or anyone else wants to discuss one of my posts, you know where to find me.
This is precious. It reads as if Brian is challenging someone to fisticuffs.
Brian, many, many people have attempted to engage your ideas, but you rarely bother to return the engagement. Fine. Whatever. If you want to post mangled and misunderstood versions of current philosophical and communication theories, that’s your business. You get to think that you’re impressing the peasants, and we get to laugh at a pompous fool. It’s a win/win situation.
But to post something like “you know where to find me” is ridiculous. You’re right here, Brian… but you won’t bother to enter any discussions where people fundamentally disagree with you… even if they can fully justify their position. Not even if they can clearly show why your position is ridiculous. Hell, especially if they can clearly show why your position is ridiculous.
Trolls are definitely looking for a response… but not always from the person being trolled. For example, “Christianity sucks” can get a response from anyone in the group.
DrCrypt’s trolling is done for the entertainment of Qt3 and to get a positive response FOR HIM from Qt3. Is has nothing to do with me personally… I’m just DrCrypt’s tool.
But you’re right of course… trolls aren’t looking for an argument. Thus it makes no sense to give them one.
What exactly is ridiculous about arguing that whites are discriminated against with affirmative action?
He answered this a few posts later. With:
I knew that was a mistake to put in as is - I should have either clarified or omitted it entirely. Yes, obviously policies that differentiate treatment based on race are de facto discrimination.
So what I’m calling ridiculous was the assertation that the sum total of benefits given to minorities adds up to an overall disadvantage for whites.
So much for being thorough.
Koontz Said:
It is prejudicial and skewed, but that’s a very difficult issue to deal with and probably not worthwhile.
Very true.
Testing standards are biased. Admissions are biased. Everything is biased. It’s a huge problem that can only really be addressed by a radical shift in our culture all together.
Alright, I’ll play the game. For some reason the Search function isn’t working for me right now (I get a "this page cannot be displayed message when I try to go to it), but I can give you the keywords so you can find it.
In the Harvest Moon discussion (keywords: Harvest Moon, Koontz, games forum) I actually addressed your amazingly stupid philosophical missteps.
More recently, there was the discussion of art (again, I can’t remember the thread title… just do a search for Koontz and art) where several different objections were raised… and none of which were answered satisfactorily. (I don’t we were unsatisfied… I mean you would have been flunked by any self-respecting philosophy professor for unclear communication and poor logic.)
But whatever. How can you comment on something which you didn’t understand the first time around?
