There may be an age or generational explanation for this, but I especially notice this behavior on Reddit while not nearly as much here on Lemmy (though maybe that’s also a mater of implementation).
It seems many are so quick to assert overly-confident positions, but then hit-and-run with some smarmy remark at even the slightest challenge, then quickly block. Like, not even crazy stuff. Just basic, civil disagreements. I can pretty well predict when it will happen, and it always feels like such a petty ego-sparing fingers-in-ears denial thing to do, and to me if anything shows they were not very confident in their views being challenged.
I think I’ve only blocked a handful of people over a decade who were actively spamming, stalking, or spewing extremely hateful rhetoric and I just reported them simultaneously. You have to cross a pretty extreme and irrational line for me to do that.
The reason I ask is to see if I’m missing something; to better understand the mindset of those who do.
I think there’s far fewer genuine trolls than people claim. Someone being an asshole because they had a bad day? Not a troll. Someone deliberately pretending to be something they’re not in order to rile up people for fun? Troll.
Most of the time, you’re blocking your brethren on their worst days. Which is your right, but don’t pretend that just cuz your brother is warty that they’re a troll.
they aren’t my ‘brethren’
they are strangers spouting nonsense.
i also block/stop talking to my friends/colleagues who also spout nonsense.
Based on what data?
Is it on my list of blocked persons that I don’t think I have shared with anyone? Or on your overall knowledge of humanity in general, or maybe on the careful study of the average user of the Fediverse? Or have we discussed my decision process and how I decide to block a troll or a nuisance? Or is it, I think it is more likely that, based on the fact that I may have used words or expressions in a manner that does not please you, or that may even be incorrect?
For that last possibility, even not knowing where I may have been wrong, I’m pretty confident I can already apologize as I’m not a native English speaker and constantly do mistakes. I would also appreciate if you could tell me what sentences are concerned, so I can learn from my mistakes.
If that is the case, would you feel better if I used the word morons or assholes, instead? Or do you think I should always make a complete sentence? Because to me at least, it’s simpler to use a single word to describe a type of behavior, and even more efficient to use a word everyone should be able to instantly vaguely understand, instead of using a full sentence. I’d rather write ‘I block trolls’ than write‘After checking their behavior, post history, proportion of helpful/contributing content versus not so positive content, frequency of each, their choice of vocabulary and the way they deal with contradiction, I will block those persons that I qualify as trolls but are more exactly excessively obsessed with constantly arguing, proving other wrong (and proving themselves right), creating fuss and drama and triggering emotional reactions when it’s not needed’.
(which, btw, may give you an insight on what criteria I use to decide who is a troll and who is not)
Back to the point.
How can you tell who they are and are not? I certainly can’t.
So, that’s just your opinion. What’s interesting is to realize that this could also be my own opinion (we all have our bad days, hard to disagree with that) but in any case this would still just an opinion. Not knowledge.
Your opinion is absolutely fine, obviously, but it’s just that: your opinion, aka a gut feeling. So, I hope you won’t get mad at me if I tell you that your gut feeling that I’m being wrong is unlikely to convince me that indeed I am wrong, and should start revising my decision process.
What I don’t consider ‘just an opinion’ is how I feel when I’m confronted to people that constantly/regularly/too often feel it’s ok to share their bad days with the world, or think it’s ok that they want to have some fun (at least, what they think is funny, not sure they would be as ‘open’ to allow what they themselves would consider offensive) by triggering reactions from their reader… A reader which happens to also be me.
If I get this right, when I say I decide to block anyone I don’t wish to read anymore, calling them a troll I’m pretending something about them and I do it wrongfully because I don’t really know them?
(That may surprise you but I would agree if I was doing that, which I am not. Because how could I know them? I’m not even sure I know myself after 50+ years trying. But I also thought I made it clear the only thing I was saying is that I did not want to be pestered by them anymore, that it was my choice to block and ignore them not a call to blame them. Like… Don’t you have a door to your home, a door with a lock? I sure do. What is it for if not to prevent anyone from entering uninvited? It happens I select very carefully the few people I invite to our place IRL as well as online.)
But then, you telling me that I’m wrong, based on even less evidence than me calling them trolls since 1) you don’t know the persons I blocked and 2) you don’t know how (nor how often and how quickly) I get to this decision, this isn’t pretending anymore but it is you stating as a fact that I’m wrong and being a bit too ‘judgmental’ toward those persons, and too quick to block them?
So, like I said, no hard feelings, but I think I’ll stick with my method for the time being. As imperfect as it is, and it is imperfect, it works well enough to let me experiment an almost completely drama/anger/hate-free experience online, help me waste as little of my time as possible, without preventing anyone else to enjoy it. Which is exactly what I want.
And if you’re wondering, no, us disagreeing is not enough for me to even start considering adding you to that blocked list. Far from it, I appreciate being reminded I should chose my words more carefully ;)
Jesus, what is all this? skimming it looks like half of it is a treatise on epistemology. you’re really going to focus on the data?
I’ve been on the fucking internet too, that’s the data. I’m speaking from my own experience in the shared world we’ve been in, like everyone always does. we at least are clearly on shared spaces.
so like, unless the trolls are all in your DMs, can we skip the text walls about data and skepticism and uncertainty principles??
The rest of your reply seems fairly good spirited but I’m not eager to read it when we start off with paragraph after paragraph of “what data”
I’m not telling you not to block people, I would recommend you double check what I wrote next time before spouting off like that. I said something closer to “you shouldn’t call them trolls”. I dont see you engaging with that point anywhere…
I almost forgot:
Thx for the suggestion. Allow me then to offer you one suggestion too: before deploring someone does not answer your point, you should start by reading the answer they have given, instead of ‘skimming’ through it.
It’s too long a reply for you to be bothered to read? then don’t say a word, that would be fine too. Let me help you, here: you may wish to read the 3rd and 4th paragraphs (maybe also the 2nd one.).
Like I said, thx for the suggestion, and have a nice day.
That’s called an answer, and yes I will focus on data. It was indeed shared in a good spirit. You’re more than welcome to not give a fuck about my answer, quite obviously. Have a nice day.