Jump to content
norseman

Dont feed the trolls!

Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor

I think we all know what to do. But we need to positively support each other so no one forgets and gets baited in.

 

Its easy to do...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Dog
20 hours ago, norseman said:

I find myself engaging people Ive put on ignore! Im an idiot! 

 

If we proponents figured out how much time we spent defending the subject and ourselves from trolls I think we would be shocked. That time could have been better spent having polite rational discussions with fellow forumites. Skeptics can be polite and contribute positively too. But there is alot of trolling going on in the name of "skepticism". Edgey one liners on the cusp of forum rules is not a well thought out opinion by a poster..... Its a weapon used to stir up people, illicit responses and derail the thread. Nothing more. It can also bait legit posters into saying something that gets us in to trouble.

 

Lastly we have no need to feel like they hold the upper hand because "Bigfoot is a fairy tale". Its a free country and we can talk about Bigfoot on a Bigfoot forum.....thank you. 

 

 

 

 

 

I recently read an article about skepticism and saved this quote from it.  I wish I could remember who said it, I should have noted the author, but alas...

 

     "Skepticism has no weight, no credibility, when one's opinion is based upon bias, ignorance, disinformation and a lack of education."

 

Another quote I saved.

 

     "Skeptics are skeptical for a reason.  It threatens their sensibilities, their dogma, be it scientific, religious or otherwise."  Again, I neglected to jot down the author.

 

Both of these authors were referencing trolling skeptics.  Genuine skeptics are needed in this world, for no other reason than to keep the rest of us honest.  I believe that all a healthy skeptic wants is facts and the truth, which is what I think all of us want.  I will engage a genuine skeptic all day long, because it is a discussion of theory and facts.  A skoftic on the other hand is beyond contempt, all they want to do is burn it all down and claim victory.  I do not give that type the time of day.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Actually I'm a big fan of skepticism. It keeps a person honest. Otherwise I'd be seeing BF behind every tree!

 

My skepticism has led to me me current position of proponent, FWIW.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
BFF Donor
12 minutes ago, salubrious said:

Actually I'm a big fan of skepticism. It keeps a person honest. Otherwise I'd be seeing BF behind every tree!

 

My skepticism has led to me me current position of proponent, FWIW.

 

I don't believe you.

 

(Tongue firmly in cheek.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Steenburg has said that a good researcher/investigator must approach any report as a skeptic and let the evidence lead him or her to their conclusion. I totally agree and have been vocal in exposing a hoax as much as I defend those who the evidence (they often never knew existed) supported what they had seen. I also plus Old Dog for pointing out the difference between a skeptic and a skoftic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

It’s one thing to be skeptical of a claim of idea. A common irony here is that a lot of so-called “skeptics” have their own questionable beliefs, e.g, an active belief in the non-existence of X. There are actually very few people that are on the fence so to speak. 

 

I don’t believe that any of them are trolling. Their conflicting ideas seems to be what’s driving them nuts, and pressuring them to biasedly take one side. Not surprisingly, people like this can exist on the “proponents” side as well. When dealing with such individuals, expect to see extreme bias.

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
16 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

It’s one thing to be skeptical of a claim of idea. A common irony here is that a lot of so-called “skeptics” have their own questionable beliefs, e.g, an active belief in the non-existence of X. There are actually very few people that are on the fence so to speak. 

 

I don’t believe that any of them are trolling. Their conflicting ideas seems to be what’s driving them nuts, and pressuring them to biasedly take one side. Not surprisingly, people like this can exist on the “proponents” side as well. When dealing with such individuals, expect to see extreme bias.

 

 

If you don't believe some people are coming here to troll others then I believe you to be gravely mistaken.  I would chalk up the vast majority of them to trolling vs. the idea that BF drives them nuts and that is why they are here.  This board is easily riled up with simple one liners aimed towards certain members.  1 post generates 3-4 follow up posts about the troll.   Hence feeding the troll.   This topic is a feast, the hot topic of the whole section AND there is the alliance of IGNORE being formed against them.  

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
23 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

If you don't believe some people are coming here to troll others then I believe you to be gravely mistaken.  I would chalk up the vast majority of them to trolling vs. the idea that BF drives them nuts and that is why they are here.  This board is easily riled up with simple one liners aimed towards certain members.  1 post generates 3-4 follow up posts about the troll.   Hence feeding the troll.   This topic is a feast, the hot topic of the whole section AND there is the alliance of IGNORE being formed against them. 

 

I think Old Dog clarified quite nicely the difference between a skeptic and a skoftic.

 

" Both of these authors were referencing trolling skeptics.  Genuine skeptics are needed in this world, for no other reason than to keep the rest of us honest.  I believe that all a healthy skeptic wants is facts and the truth, which is what I think all of us want.  I will engage a genuine skeptic all day long, because it is a discussion of theory and facts. "  A skoftic on the other hand is beyond contempt, all they want to do is burn it all down and claim victory.  I do not give that type the time of day. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I don't disagree with that at all.  Trolling is trolling, both skeptics and proponents can have trolls. Scoftics by nature are trolling.  My whole point is that OS says he does not believe people are trolling, I respectfully disagree.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

The definition for Trolling is “making a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.”

 

What I personally see is individuals that lack sufficient understanding and are frustrated with the opinions of the oppsing side, not individuals that have the goal of provoking negative reactions. The confusion arises between the two because the resulting behaviour for both are very similar, but the correct one is more complex which leads to people subscribing to the more simpler explanation.

 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starling

Glad to see a level-headed comment in this thread OS.

 

Sometimes people who are dishing out the treatment just can't take it themselves, hence this whiny moan of a thread.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
BFF Donor

The OP referred to me as a troll when I voiced doubt about the collection of sticks in Chicago being created by a bigfoot.

 

"Troll" is a fairly relative term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
6 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

The definition for Trolling is “making a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.”

 

What I personally see is individuals that lack sufficient understanding and are frustrated with the opinions of the oppsing side, not individuals that have the goal of provoking negative reactions. The confusion arises between the two because the resulting behaviour for both are very similar, but the correct one is more complex which leads to people subscribing to the more simpler explanation.

 

 

 

OS, I see the reasoning behind your belief and can see where you are coming from a little better.  I however take into account, in this situation especially, the fact that these are the same people having circular "discussions" or arguments for years in some cases even spanning multiple message boards..  Its gone behind lack of sufficient understanding, its come down to either outright trolling or subtle trolling by both sides directed at both sides.  That of course is just my opinion.

 

 

Starling, If it wasn't such a long post I'd quote for truth.  A pretty good summation of things.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
43 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

The OP referred to me as a troll when I voiced doubt about the collection of sticks in Chicago being created by a bigfoot.

 

"Troll" is a fairly relative term.

 

What? Please clarify as I am the OP?

56 minutes ago, Starling said:

All of which leads one to question whether all one has to do to qualify as a troll on this board Is disagree with someone firmly enough?

 

I've been put on ignore by a several people and always (as far as I'm concerned) for tenaciously asking too many awkward questions.

 

My presence here is through a deeply held interest in the nature of belief. I think, frankly, the chances of an unclassified giant hominid stomping around North America are so small as to be virtually nil. Clearly there are many who believe otherwise and that is of great sociological interest and personal interest too. I don't care if you don't understand or if you disapprove. The legend of Bigfoot is a legitimate social phenomenon. I could be asking and questioning people about the nuts and bolts of their beliefs on a ufo site, or a Loch Ness board (I found it interesting that one footer here scoffed at the idea of Nessie so scoftics as they're called are everywhere). My point is, it doesn't matter. My interest is perfectly valid and legitimate. 

 

And I have learned much. I think the talk above about how the PGF has essentially been proven shows the extremes of cultish investment some here have made in the myth of Bigfoot being real. Does it make the statement true? I challenge anyone here to tell me it is uncomfortable. That's a perfectly valid reason to be engaged in debate and argument from everything on the subject up to and, yes, including...existence.

 

This is how you affirm a dogmatic belief:

 

1) First, quell troublesome dissent that is particularly forthright and takes no b/s. Classify those who see through falsehoods and call out logical fallacies as trolls, thus effectively censoring being questioned in ways that are inconvenient or harmful to the belief.

 

2) Hypocritically dish out the same treatment to the 'troll' that they themselves are being accused of dishing ie. Attack them personally, ignore valid points they make and generally fail to engage with their arguments in any meaningful or honest way. Deflect, duck and cover.

 

3) Start a thread in which it's suggested only the right kind of sceptic should be allowed to participate, implying that people who don't buy into the accepted belief dogma are here for no other reason than to create disruption despite the fact that the very nature of the subject as a totem of belief is socially controversial .

 

4) Conspire to ignore all those branded as unclean trolls and affirm belief that way in an attempt to dominate the conversation and turn a board that is not an anti-bigfoot forum into bigfooters only forum. 

 

5) Deny at all times that you engage in any of the above.

 

 

I have read-read the forum rules. I suggest you lot look in the mirror and do the same.

 

 

 

Here it is straight up.

 

You come here with a predetermined bias (that bigfoot cannot exist) to a Bigfoot forum and your not really interested in the subject material. Your interest is mainly in proponents and what makes us tick.

 

Your questions are awkward simply because your uninformed in the subject. And your tenacious in your questioning because you simply will not accept any positive logical explanation given to you because of your predetermined bias. 

 

Your interest isnt in Bigfoot, its in social phenomena and you feel that is valid and legitimate.

 

Its also valid and legitimate that if I do not feel like playing along with your "white mouse maze" exam? I am not required to do so and that does not require any dogmatic belief. If your interest is simply picking our brains? You may get more flies with honey than vinegar? FWIW.

 

Make no mistake....if the creature is real it will never be proven here. So why turn every thread into a existence debate?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×