On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:10:17 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and
>>> > dicks:
>>
>> No, I wrote about trolls. "dicks" is a highly emotive and almost
>> totally subjective word
>
> As opposed to "troll", which is unemotional and objective? Not.
>
>
>> that I would not use in a rational discussion.
>
> I would. If someone is acting like a dick, why not call them by the word
> that most accurately describes their behaviour?
>
> I see nothing troll like in Dwight "call me David, but I can't be
> bothered changing my signature" Hutto's behaviour. He doesn't seem to be
> trolling, in either sense: he doesn't appear to be making provocative
> statements for the purpose of making people think, nor does he seem to be
> making inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people. He seems to
> genuinely want to help people, in a clumsy, aggressive, and I believe
> often intoxicated way.
>
> So it seems to me that you are wrongly applying the term "troll" as a
> meaningless pejorative to anyone who behaves badly.
>
>
>> Perhaps you were trying to be amusing?
>
> Certainly not.
>
>
>>>> >> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do
>>>> >> the same.
> [...]
>>> > How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for
>>> > acting like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because
>>> > nobody has anything to add"?
>>
>> Because you sent them private email telling them that?
>
> My, what a ... unique ... concept of "ignore such posts" you have.
>
> So far, this has been the best advice you have given so far. My opinion
> is that there is a graduated response to dickish behaviour:
>
> * send a message telling the person they are acting unacceptably,
> preferably privately on a first offence to avoid public shaming
> (when possible -- lots of people aren't privately contactable
> for many reasons other than that they are trolls);
>
> * if the behaviour continues, make a public comment condemning
> that behaviour generally without engaging directly in a debate
> or "tit-for-tat" argument with the person.
>
>
> And for those who value their own peace and quiet over the community
> benefit:
>
> * block or killfile posts from that person so they don't
> have to be seen, preferably publicly.
>
> When I killfile someone, I tend to make it expire after a month or three,
> just in case they mend their ways. Call me Mr Softy if you like.
>
>
> [...]
>>> > If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing
>>> > great harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will
>>> > you know to change your behaviour?
>>
>> If that was how you thought, then you would be someone I hope would
>> follow my advice. Because you would clearly seem to be unable to
>> distinguish between difference of opinion on a subject relevant to the
>> newsgroup, and inflammatory trolling. Further you see the situation in
>> extreme terms ("*great harm*") and one in which only a single point of
>> view (your's) is acceptable.
>
> As opposed to only your opinion being acceptable? Why on earth should I
> follow your advice if I think it is bad advice?
>
> We can't both be right[1]. We can't simultaneously confront bad
> behaviour, and ignore bad behaviour. I think your advice is bad, and has
> the potential to kill this community. You think my advice is bad, and has
> the potential to kill this community. Except that you've made a 180-
> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
> didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition
> "ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.
>
>
>> You would be bordering on delusional by
>> thinking your post would somehow change my "behavior".
>
> It's not necessarily about changing your behaviour. (Well, in this case,
> it's less about you than about Dwight Hutto specifically and badly-
> behaved posters in general.) It's about sending a message that the
> behaviour is unacceptable.
>
> The primary purpose of that message is to discourage *others* from
> following in the same behaviour. Nothing will kill a forum faster than
> trolls and dicks feeding off each other, until there is nothing left but
> trolls and dicks. A single troll doesn't do much harm -- few of them have
> the energy to spam a news group for long periods, drowning out useful
> posts.
>
>
>> But even if you had a more rational response
>
> *raises eyebrow*
>
>> and saved that reaction for
>> actual trolling and not someone who simply disagreed with you, I ask
>> again, what makes you think your response will change that troll's
>> behavior, when in actuality, your kind of response is exactly what most
>> trolls hope to elicit? Did it help in the case I mentioned?
>
> As I said, I do not believe that Dwight Hutto is a troll. I believe he is
> merely badly behaved. And yes, I do believe that confronting him has
> changed his behaviour, at least for now.
>
> Not immediately, of course. His immediate response was to retaliate and
> defend himself. Naturally -- very few people are self-honest enough to
> admit, even to themselves, when they are behaving badly.
>
> But in the intervening weeks, we, this community, has done anything but
> ignore him. We're still talking about him *right now*. We're just not
> necessarily talking *to* him. And the few times that people do respond
> directly to Dwight, they make it very clear that their response is
> guarded and on sufferance.
>
> And there have been no further outbursts from Dwight, at least not so
> far. So, yes, I think we've gotten the message across.
>
>
>>> > How will others know that I do not agree with your advice?
>>
>> Why is it so important to you that I and others know what you think?
>> Since you are (usually) a reasonable person I don't need to read your
>> explicit pronouncement to assume that you disagree with some repugnant
>> post.
>
> You are assuming we all agree on what is repugnant. That pretty much
> demonstrates that you have missed my point. Without drawing explicit
> boundaries, how do people know what we consider beyond the boundary of
> acceptable behaviour?
>
> The people in this forum come from all over the world. We're not all
> white, middle-class[2], Australian, educated, progressive/liberals like
> me. We're black, Chinese, German, conservative, Muslim, Christian,
> atheist, socialist, anarchist, fascist, etc. We come from all sorts of
> cultures, where families are run like democracies, or where they are run
> like dictatorships where the father is the head of the household even of
> his adult children; cultures that consider euthanasia beyond the pale and
> those that believe that there are fates worse than death; cultures where
> smacking children is an abomination and cultures where it is simply
> common sense; cultures that condone honour-killings and those that don't;
> cultures where blowing yourself up to kill the enemy is thought to be an
> act of bravery, and cultures where pushing a button to kill strangers a
> thousand miles away is thought to be an honourable act of military
> service.
>
> What on earth makes you think we would possibly agree on what posts are
> repugnant without talking about it?
>
> I'm sure that there are some people here -- and you might be one of them
> -- that consider my use of the word "dick" unacceptable. And others who
> consider dick a mild word and far less offensive than the euphemisms
> others might prefer.
>
> Your opinion that we should all, somehow, agree on acceptable behaviour
> is culturally self-centred and rather naive. I'm far more offended by
> Dwight's habit of posting incoherently while pissed[3] than I am by his
> possibly-or-possibly-not racist punning. But I don't expect everyone to
> agree with me.
>
>
>
>
> [1] However, we can both be wrong. There's no reason to think that there
> is *any* strategy to respond to bad behaviour that will work all the
> time, against all people.
>
> [2] Nearly everybody thinks they're middle-class, except the filthy rich
> and the filthy poor.
>
> [3] I don't give a damn what mind-altering chemicals Dwight wishes to
> indulge in, so long as he does it in private.
>
>
> --
> Steven
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Bravo!...Encore, Encore!!!
--
Best Regards,
David Hutto
CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
