• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

a paracast psa

Free episodes:

Wade

FeralNormal master
i got this from theweek.com. i provide a link to it but because it is a subscriber/pay site you probably wouldn't get the article, so i'll do it to cover my butt and to avoid copyright infringement. i did a copy and paste as i thought it would be a nice addition to the forum. it could almost be a sticky, but i don't know if you can stickify(?) copyrighted material, BUT i did acknowledge where it came from so maybe it's o.k. It's about trolls, and not the ones that live under bridges, but the ones who go about intentionally creating dissent just because they usually have nothing constructive to add (at best this is open to interpetation) and even if they do it's not within their capability to do so in a respectful way, and if anyone disagrees with this sentiment of this message, consider yourself to be one of the trolls. a caveat, i've been guilty of using some improper words myself but i try to hide it with those little wing-dings you see in the comic books or i'll use creative spelling to get my point across. lastly, i will admit i'm not above poking a little fun myself, but i also poke fun at myself, i have a very self-depricating sense of humor but i can be very depricating of many things.

The trolls of the internet: A guide
The sheer nastiness of some nameless commenters is poisoning discourse on the Web. Does it have to be this way?
posted on May 25, 2012, at 10:37 AM
What are trolls?
They’re the anonymous provocateurs who flood the internet with inflammatory insults, threats, and profanity. The term originates from the fishing technique of dragging a baited hook behind a moving boat; someone who uses offensive language to provoke a response is said to be "trolling." The practice has existed since the earliest days of the internet, and was long considered to be harmless, if annoying. But in recent years, trolls have become a scourge. Reasoned political discussion is often so overwhelmed by venomous, tit-for-tat name-calling that websites have to shut down their comment boards, as hundreds and even thousands of invective-filled responses pour in. On sites across the internet, liberals are regularly slammed as "libtards" and conservatives as "teabaggers"; comparisons to Auschwitz, Hitler, and the Nazis run rampant. Letting people comment about a racial controversy like the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, said Slate.com political reporter David Weigel, has become the equivalent of "putting out a freshly baked pie on the windowsill, smack dab in the middle of Racistville."

What motivates these people?
Trolling gives its anonymous practitioners the catharsis of venting forbidden feelings and ideas without suffering any consequences. On the internet, you can cuss out a stranger with even more vigor and impunity than you can a bad driver from the safety of your own car. "The enjoyment comes from finding a context in which you can let go, take a moral vacation," says psychologist Tom Postmes of Exeter University in the U.K. "Trolls aspire to violence, to the level of trouble they can cause in an environment." That prospect is particularly appealing to disaffected men in their late teens and 20s, but they are hardly alone: CNN tracked down a troll putting anti-Islamic screeds online and found that he was a 39-year-old father in Belgium. Rider University psychologist John Suler says an "online disinhibition effect" allows people who might never utter a hateful word in person to unleash withering vitriol on comment boards. Politics, race, gender, and religion all serve as lightning rods for troll rage, provoking such witty banter as "you n---er lover" and "you racist scumbag." But almost any topic can lead to outpourings of bile. When author Paul Carr recently wrote a column in The Wall Street Journal about quitting drinking without the help of Alcoholics Anonymous, he was greeted by an avalanche of furious commenters calling him a "narcissistic dry drunk" and predicting he would soon relapse and ruin his life.

Why have comments at all?
"Commenting is the secret sauce of social media," says Stanford social psychologist BJ Fogg. Creating a place for readers to debate issues makes them more likely to return, and that drives up website traffic and advertising revenue. Impassioned debate can be lucrative: The most engaged 1 percent of the audience on any given site can account for as much as 25 percent of its traffic. But editors who allow trolls to take over their comment sections risk undermining their sites in the long run. "Everyone is desperately chasing eyeballs as a way to increase advertising," said Rem Rieder, editor of American Journalism Review. "But rare is the advertiser who would want to be associated with the ugliness of many comment sections."

Could legislation deter the trolls?
Not in the U.S. While the U.K. has a law banning the posting of "grossly offensive" or "indecent, obscene, or menacing" messages online, our Constitution protects the right of trolls to be as rude or offensive as they like. In March, Arizona passed a bill banning the use of "any electronic or digital device" to "terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend a person." But legislators withdrew the bill after freedom-of-speech groups protested that it violated the First Amendment. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh said the broad statute would have outlawed the use of such relatively tame insults as "this author is f---ing out of line."

So are sites powerless to halt personal attacks?
Some are calling for an end to online anonymity as a way to restrain trolls. Users of Facebook and Google+ must now use their real names and email addresses when creating accounts, and some comment boards are using software from Facebook that requires commenters to identify themselves. But a total ban on anonymity would be almost impossible to enforce. Far better, say Web activists, to let all comments stand, if only as a mirror of human depravity. "People are saying nasty, stupid things. So deal with it," says Rob Manuel, founder of digital community B3TA. "Shutting down free speech and stamping on people’s civil liberties is not a price worth paying." But more and more websites are taking a middle course by rigorously policing their own comment boards. "We’re still trying to find our way," says Paul Bass, editor of the New Haven, Conn., Independent, "between a free-flowing democratic discussion and a harsh, anonymous hate-fest."

Cleaning up after the trolls
The rise of the internet troll has created a booming new profession: comment moderator. Patrolling the endless reams of internet comments for abusive and incendiary language has become a massive task. HuffingtonPost.com, for example, which attracts more than 5 million comments every month, says each member of its in-house moderating team "reads the equivalent of Moby-Dick 18 times a month." Outside companies have spotted a business opportunity. Market leader ICUC Moderation Services generates annual revenues of some $10 million cleaning up comment boards for companies such as Starbucks, Chevron, and NPR. The job isn’t for everybody, says founder Keith Bilous, who employs some 200 moderators around the world. Many new hires quit within the first two weeks, and even after 10 years in the business Bilous says he still isn’t completely inured to the vile stuff he has to read. "Some Fridays you feel like you need to spend two hours in the shower, it’s so disgusting," he says.

The trolls of the internet: A guide - The Week
 
Im one of two community moderators at an online gameing site.

They make this place look like a sunday school picnic with valium spiked cool aide
 
I understand that Mike. But, this place put's itself out there as an oasis of fair and honest and civil debate. I'm gonna tell ya that when I'm in a room of conservatives then I tend to be liberal. In a room of left leaning kool aid drinkers I tend to be conservative. In a room of a pack setting onto a single person I tend to fight the pack. This forum has been disapointing lately.
 
I understand that Mike. But, this place put's itself out there as an oasis of fair and honest and civil debate. I'm gonna tell ya that when I'm in a room of conservatives then I tend to be liberal. In a room of left leaning kool aid drinkers I tend to be conservative. In a room of a pack setting onto a single person I tend to fight the pack. This forum has been disapointing lately.

Thats a perfectly reasonable response, including the word "fight"

The thing is trolling can take many forms its often more subtle than the description given in the OP.

Heres an example

It's official; Ghost Hunters fakes it | Page 4 | The Paracast Community Forums

Jose Collado said:
The paranormal is not worth the time of day.​
Then I can't imagine why you're here, or what you could possibly contribute. Even Lance, a disbeliever to the core, frames his disbelief - at least from time to time - with reference to actual cases, and to my knowledge hasn't ever said something like "the paranormal is not worth the time of day."​
As I'm sure your time is extremely valuable, I think I'll do you a favour and save you the trouble of wasting anymore of it here.​


Consider yourself banned.

If someone who thinks the paranormal is all nonsense, signs up and proceeds not to debate and discuss, but rather browbeat and belittle the audience, lecturing them as if they are silly children, shouldnt those who do have an interest in the genre ,be likewise entitled to "fight" that behaviour ?

It would be like my signing up to a gay rights forum and just insisting over and over again they are wrong, or signing up to a religious forum and pissing on every post with "what am i going to do with you silly children" its all nonsense.

What do you think would happen ?

For the most part, both skeptics and believers alike come here to disect the data and try and discover the truth.
But sometimes we get someone who already has their truth, and rather than debate and discuss, simply pontificates their worldview.
Prefering to lecture rather than debate and discuss.

They may as well just post their world view as the absolute truth, Gene can sticky the thread and lock the forums and we can all go home.

Anyone who comes to a forum lecturing the audience with "the answers" rather than debating the questions, deserves what they get.

The "pack" clearly prefers to ask questions and disect and debate the evidence, not be lectured to as if they are ignorant schoolkids, by a self avowed "expert" ad nauseum.

Thats not the "spirit" in which the pack prefers to operate, its only natural they would turn on and "fight" as you reserve the right to do, that sort of behavior.

If someone doesnt think there is anything to the paranormal and UFO's and whose purpose here is to simply insist their worldview is correct and the rest of us are wasting our time, then i respectfully suggest this isnt the place for them

I can't imagine why you're here, or what you could possibly contribute

And i am deeply suspect of religious persons who say the paranormal and UFO's are nonsense.

Is the motive based on this

Today, many people dabble in the mystical, occultic arts. Is there anything wrong with being involved in these practices? Yes, the Bible takes a clear position on this subject, strongly denouncing these practices. God created us and therefore owns us. He has a right to set the rules for our lives. God’s Word indicates that these practices are part of Satan’s strategy of evil tricks and deception, designed to lead us astray. Satan and his demons are real beings set on our destruction. Christians are warned to…
“When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire [an ancient occult practice], or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination [detestable] to the LORD…”
Deuteronomy 18:9-12a


The Occult—What does the Bible say about it? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Does their attitude to the paranormal stem from a need to validate their personal world view ?
Do those who think "aliens" are demons have a religious obligation to come to sites like this and "save us" from our sinful interests ?
 
from a guide to sucessful trolling


  1. Attempt to impress/silence your opponent by discussing your professional credentials and experience related to the topic at hand, which clearly make your opinions better and more correct than anyone else's.... be vague about details if your credentials and experience aren't actually all that impressive. (Also known as "dueling resumes".)
  2. Accuse your opponent of being overly sensitive, or suggest in a patronizing tone that they "must be having a bad day".
  3. Claim that an insult or other rudeness was "just a joke", and suggest that your opponent has no sense of humor.
  4. Claim that *everything* is a matter of opinion, that there are no such things as facts or truth.
  5. a: Claim that facts are absolute.... that there's never any such thing as dispute or disagreement about a fact.
    b: Assume that everything you learned in college, no matter how many years ago nor how much a field has advanced in the meantime, is completely unchanged.
  6. Redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean. (Also known as the "Humpty Dumpty" defense.)
  7. Refuse to look something up, if challenged to do so.... no need, surely your memory is perfect.

Uncanny isnt it ?

What are the odds this list could have so many "hits" ?

That the behaviour we have seen would match so many of these points ?

Co-incidence ? or text book troll........................
 
Again, I do understand that. But, that's not what I think happened. However, we have moderators who think it's all bunk. We have members who think it's all bunk. You have posted things that I have thought were bunk. I'm sure you can say the same about me. To be honest I don't know the answers. But, I'm simply giving you an honest opinion on what I see here. Am I right or wrong? Very subjective and I am not all knowing. But, the paranormal is a mystery. Science is not a single entity. Truth is that we are at the very infant stage of our knowledge of the world. Some here think brain chemistry causes a person to exist. Yet, they can't give a specific function that causes such a thing from organic material. So, they couch it in scientism. Some here (raises hand) think we are acutally pure consciuness. Yet, I can't give you a specific proof of that. Some here believe we will be able to download our selfs (looks at you) ;) I don't think so but I certainly don't mean to give the impression that I have some secret knowledge or scientific fact that renders it all bunk. I don't know if there are people from space. You don't know either. You have a stronger belief in that than I do. Who's right? I don't know. I come here for fun. I have never had my worldview changed by an internet forum or link after link. I do enjoy civil discussion and to be honest. If you met me you would find I am a very non-confrontational person. My mind and my humor and my own faith have been the only sanity I've ever known. I plan to post (or not post) until I find it time to stop.
Peace.
Steve
 
But again the audience here is usually civil enough to agree to disagree

"i dont know" is an accepted answer, an honest answer.


And I think one of the biggest fallacies in debate is the we agree to disagree. Some things are too absurd to be even contemplated in a way this phrase implies. It implies and assumes some level playing field, some equivalency. And this stuff on this and the other two threads is not a matter of opinion, not a vote, but of evidence. Some things can be stated as: I'm right, and you're wrong.

And yes, Gordon, I'm right and you're wrong. ;) Kim


Given what youve just posted about no one knowing, you need to ask yourself if your defence of this behavior

In a room of a pack setting onto a single person I tend to fight the pack.

Is based more on a shared religious bias, than logic and that is as you say disappointing

To be honest thats how i see you, i honestly think if the attitude quoted above were not coming from someone of the same faith, you'd be with the pack decrying it as BS , in as you put it

a place that put's itself out there as an oasis of fair and honest and civil debate.
 
Lets try it on for size though shall we ?

Some here believe we will be able to download our selfs (looks at you) ;) I don't think so but I can't give you a specific proof of that.

Oh Tyder, what am i going to do with you ?..................
But i have given specific proof it can be done, has been done

so........

I think one of the biggest fallacies in debate is the we agree to disagree. Some things are too absurd to be even contemplated in a way this phrase implies. It implies and assumes some level playing field, some equivalency. And this stuff on this and the other two threads is not a matter of opinion, not a vote, but of evidence. Some things can be stated as: I'm right, and you're wrong.

And yes, Tyder I'm right and you're wrong. mike...........


5 a: Claim that facts are absolute.... that there's never any such thing as dispute or disagreement about a fact.

Text book trolling
 
Sorry Mike but you are very much wrong. As for my religious bias I am not a member of a religious sect. I have been very honest in what I believe. I do understand the points you are trying to make but the are not relative to my stance on things. As for your proof? No, sorry but there is no proof that what you state will ever become a reality. I am not afraid to say I don't know, but I honestly think you are wrong. As for defending Kim I honestly don't think he needs my defence. He does come off a bit preachy. But, at the same time he and you and I and all of us have the right to post and all of us have the right to ignore or disagree with each other. I think the personal name calling is out of line. I am very interested in ufo's and the abduction experience and the reasearch of people like Sheldrake and Carter and Van Lomel. I am on Kurtzwell's mailing list and find him to be a brilliant man. But, that doesn't mean I agree with him. I have found that we can always sit up strawmen and draw a crowd to cheer us on. I have argued just as strongly with religious folks, especially Christians as I have with anybody here. It's just that I think there is room for a meeting of spiritualitly and science and I am afraid the debate is being raged by religious fanatics on both sides.
 
I have been disapointed in that somebody at one time posted something critical of Mohammed and muslims. ahem, pedophi...anyway, they were quickly silenced and give a little lesson in tolerance. That's my point. There are Christian fanatics. But, try and talk about beheadings and Jihad and crimes against women and all of a sudden you are intolerant. We even had a cartoonist shouted down in a free country because he wanted to post a picture of mohammed. We had the South Park creators as the only ones with the balls to speak up loudly in the industry. I respect them because they will clobber any religion anywhere. They will also clobber a political icon or a pop scientist. I'm afraid for some here the only "true facts" are the ones they agree with. The only true "free expression" is the one they deem politically correct.
 
Oh Tyder what am i going to do with you.........

This is not a matter of opinion, not a vote, but of evidence.
and as you yourself say

I can't give you a specific proof

So is there a line between right to post and right to troll ?
I call BS on your answer too, i think you are lying to cover your arse

Which again leaves me right and you wrong
 
Who's right? I don't know.

Steve

But I Do Steve, thats the difference. Ive read waaaay many books than you Steve, worked in a clinical environment in a number of hospital campus over the span of 15 years.
Had lunch with clinicians and neurologists, have you ever gowned up for surgery steve ? I have many times.

You are being coy and tepid steve, own the fact that you dont know, and accept that i do.

Im an expert you are not.

Now thats the end of this discussion unless you want a weeks detention, i wont be drawn on it any further
 
I have read some things by Kim and thought the same thing that Goggs and some others have thought. But, if you don't want to read it you don't have to. I will promise you this. The Paracast has rehabilitated itself from the snarky intolerant, hateful (true or not true) perception that a former co host caused it to have. But, if everytime somebody tries to post here and say "No, there is no reason that I have to accept materislism as scientific truth" Or, no I don't think we are being visited or no, I don't think it's all bunk. But, yet they are cursed and villified and set upon by the arbriters of "truth" then the forum will become just another jref circle jerk of all knowing snarkiness. Mike, I honestly think you could use some of that critical thinking and turn it on the things you believe as well as turning it on the folks you disagree with. You might find that life isn't really all that black and white after all. But, I honestly don't care. I'm not trying to tell you what to do. But, I am puzzled. You seem to have pigeonhole me into some kind of religious fanatic box. Your perception of me (which is very limited since we have never met) is a very blurry and out of focus caracature of what I actually think and what I actually believe. I actually express myself much better in person. To be honest writing about religion and trying to defend my views on life after death and why I do believe there is something to the paranormal is a pleasure in a open and civil talk. It's a headache in a "gotcha" or let me link to something and bash you over the head with it diatribe. Again, I honestly have one religion. It is to treat others the way I would want to be treated. Other than that I have no dogma.
 
Back
Top