Friday, June 3, 2011

Don't Feed the Trolls

Actual well-read, educated, coherent believers are welcome to post here.  Trolls are not.  Move along, subhumans.

29 comments:

shreddakj said...

I quite enjoy a good old banter with intelligent theists. Every few months a group of my friends get together with some theists and have a big long discussion at a pub, to kill the time in between the same group of people have massive discussions on a facebook group regarding philosophy, morality, science, history and theology.

It's great fun, and it keeps you on your toes with your best arguments.

B.R. said...

Sounds good to me. By the way, I'll try to submit Gideon's rubbish to FSTDT before sundown tomorrow. If it gets approved, I'll post the link here.

LadyAtheist said...

From now on, I will be moving nonsense posts to the Spam folder.

B.R. said...

"Pusscake".

Gideon's repressed homosexuality is starting to emerge from the closet...

LadyAtheist said...

I've moved two more posts of his to the spam folder, and I will continue to do so. After seeing his blog I realize he's worse than a troll -- he's a nutter.

Robert the Skeptic said...

I recently had a brief encounter with Gideon as well. We had a nut case like him get involved in our local Home Owner's Association. We quickly realized that these psycho's "feed" off of the controversy, they get a mental erection from the sparring and from escalating the argumentation.

We found the best strategy for our HOA was to not respond and ignore the nut; denying him his "payoff". In blogging, the weapon of choice is "Delete".

cl said...

Yay censorship! [BARF]

B.R. said...

"Yay censorship! [BARF]"

Because if an atheist blogger bans a sexist, mindless troll who spews dirty insults and shirks from anything even resembling an intelligent and civil conversation, it's fascist.

LadyAtheist said...

their understanding of the bible is so haphazard and incoherent, I didn't even bother to try explaining the First Amendment

Infidel753 said...

Censorship? Baloney.

Freedom of speech does not include the right to require others to provide a forum.

No one's censoring the troll. He can say anything he wants on his blog and no one can, or wants to, stop him. He just can't force another blogger to give him a platform.

The First Amendment means I can put a political bumper sticker on my car. It doesn't mean I can put that same bumper sticker on your car. Not if you decide you don't want me to.

LadyAtheist said...

Excellent analogy! I'm stealing it!

I have said in the past that if you come to my house and insult me I have the right to kick you out. This is my internet-house and I have a right to decide who gets to stay.

LadyAtheist said...

...not that I don't have the idea now of taking cafepress.com bumper stickers that have the flag on it and say "Not a religious symbol" and paste it on every car at work that has one of the "In God We Trust" with a flag license plates! Thanks for putting the thought in my mind!

B.R. said...

I wonder if it even bears pointing out that Christian bloggers, in general, have much stricter standards of moderation? If you use any profanity, it's deleted. If you don't speak respectfully about God and the bible, it can be deleted. And Christian internet forums resemble the Iron Curtain; restrictions out the ass, and banishment for anyone who doesn't kowtow to the Christian delusion and reciprocates their insults. Check out Rapture Ready and Christian Forums. Laods of stuff from both sites has been showing up as FSTDT for years now.

B.R. said...

At FSTDT, not "as". Sorry for the typo.

Mike said...

Eh, I hate it when so-called "freethinkers" resort to banning speech they don't agree with. It's ironic that some people complain about "dirty insults" but they're the same people calling theists names. The subtext? "Dirty insults" are okay when they go from atheist to theist but not the other way around.

Blogger owns this blog by the way. These "ownership" arguments need to take that fact into account.

B.R. said...

@Mike;

Eh, I hate it when ignorant theists start complaining about censorship because fellow Christians who call everyone else drug addicts and morons can do no wrong. Your entire comment is extremely and thoroughly stupid. Your willful ignorance is beneath contempt.

The troll in question, Gideon, made standard issue arguments that have been refuted countless times, slandered a poster for absolutely no reason with his second comment, and generally acted like a complete douche-nozzle during his brief span here.

"Eh, I hate it when so-called "freethinkers" resort to banning speech they don't agree with."

I'm really tired of pathetic hypocrites bitching over censorship. Look at the last 20 posts on this blog. LA does not, and never has, banned any Christian posters merely for disagreeing with her. When she bans someone, it's because they're overtly obscene, insulting, belligerent, and offensive and are set on just wasting everyone's time.

"It's ironic that some people complain about "dirty insults" but they're the same people calling theists names."

As your words here show, you're a disingenuous moron and I have no problem with telling you that. Look at the threads where Gideon posted. No one else used any insults at the outset except him. He didn't just politely express disagreement, he started a flame war. And when called out on his behavior, he started using personal insults on everyone else and casting false, slanderous accusations. It seems that if some idiot tells me for no reason that I'm an imbecile, I'm just as bad as he is if I don't take it laying down. Here we see Christians applying the same standards to internet debates that they do to politics. If Christians don't have the right to act like assholes, then they're being persecuted.

"The subtext? "Dirty insults" are okay when they go from atheist to theist but not the other way around."

Liar. Hypocrite. Again, we see the double standard of Christians. It's okay to ban pedantic trolls on their own blogs, but if atheists do it, we're being unfair.

The Stupid, it burnsss...

Mike said...

"Liar. Hypocrite. Again, we see the double standard of Christians. It's okay to ban pedantic trolls on their own blogs, but if atheists do it, we're being unfair."

What are you talking about? If that's a reference to me, no, it's not okay for anyone to ban. If that's not a reference to me, stay on topic, shithead.

If you can't put up with a minor idiot like Gideon then you're just another pussy who fell into his trap. Congratulations, freethinker!

Mike said...

Oh, and another thing, since I bet you pride yourself quite well on being a "critical thinker:"

"Eh, I hate it when ignorant theists start complaining about censorship because fellow Christians who call everyone else drug addicts and morons can do no wrong. Your entire comment is extremely and thoroughly stupid. Your willful ignorance is beneath contempt."

Except I'm not a xian. Quite an assumption for somebody who wears a "critical thinker" hat, don'tcha think? What a fool.

B.R. said...

@Mike;

Maybe you don't know how to read. The comment had "@Mike" at the top, so yes, I was referring to you. If it's okay to ban, why did you raise a stink over atheists banning trolls?

Who said anything about putting up with Gideon, dumbass? Why should anyone feel compelled to put up with a mindless troll like him? This is LA's blog, and she got tired of his drivel, so she moved his posts into the spam filter.

Considering your tone, which sounds quite similar to loads of other Christian idiots who complain about moderation, it was a fair guess. So basically, you had no reason to complain about moderation, and just wanted to stir up shit. Let me guess; sounds like a troll.

LadyAtheist said...

I don't have a problem with conversation that is actually conversation. Gideon was clearly just hurling insults one after the other hoping something would strike a nerve. That's not conversation it's verbal assault and not the purpose of this blog.

It would be one thing if he generally conversed intelligently and then burst a vein over something and lost control, or has a hot button issue or two that will set him off. I know a troll when I see one.

"Free thinking" implies actual thinking.

Mike said...

"Maybe you don't know how to read. The comment had "@Mike" at the top, so yes, I was referring to you."

No, I know how to read just fine, unlike you, as evidenced by this:

"If it's okay to ban, why did you raise a stink over atheists banning trolls?"

I didn't say it's "okay to ban," I said it's NOT okay to ban. Apparently a super-duper smarty pants critical thinker like yourself can't read worth a piss, and that after ironically insulting me for the same. You're an idiot.

"So basically, you had no reason to complain about moderation, and just wanted to stir up shit. Let me guess; sounds like a troll."

No, I had a reason. You missed it 'cuz you can't read worth a piss, smarty-pants.

Mike said...

"Gideon was clearly just hurling insults one after the other hoping something would strike a nerve."

Gee, that's pretty much what BR did in his first response to me, when all I did was speak my mind about censorship. Notice how BR immediately fired back with crap like,

"Your entire comment is extremely and thoroughly stupid. Your willful ignorance is beneath contempt. ... I'm really tired of pathetic hypocrites bitching over censorship. ... you're a disingenuous moron and I have no problem with telling you that."

All I did was say that I disagreed with banning offensive speech, so why did your friend come right out the gate hurling insults hoping to strike a nerve? Is it okay for BR, but not Gideon? Help me out here.

LadyAtheist said...

It's a matter of percentage. B.R. is generally a thoughtful poster. If you defend a troll, you can't expect kid gloves.

The blog is about atheism, not about whether whiny trolls have the right to post to it.

Step 1 of trolling:
needle everyone until you get a reaction

Step 2: keep needling until you get banned

Step 3: create a sock puppet or call in a cadre of buddies to protest your being banned

Step 4: all of you get banned

Step 5: the troll army looks for another target.

If you want to post responses to the content of this blog, you are very welcome to do so. If you want to debate the applicability of the Fifth Amendment to non-governmental agencies, go to a blog where that is the purpose of the blog.

B.R. said...

Huh, I overlooked the "not". By the way, you were begging the question, so I guess you're an idiot if you thought I wasn't going to be annoyed by it.

Riight. Troll. Guess what? Bloggers can ban trolls if they want to. If you don't like it, boo hoo. We don't have to put up with morons and asswipes who are intent on cluttering up our blogs with pathetic drivel. It's like a judge throwing a troublemaker out of court for disrupting the proceedings; free speech does not extend to making an ass out of yourself and offending others.

B.R. said...

What did you expect Mike, when your first post was intended to be offensive?

"Eh, I hate it when so-called "freethinkers" resort to banning speech they don't agree with."

Gideon was banned for being a worthless troll who contributed nothing to this site. Defending him shows a streak of dishonesty, at least.

Did I call you a drug addict? Did I accuse of being sexually attracted to cartoon characters? Did I call you stupid, moronic, immature, a punk, and a Nazi on top of that?

I didn't act like Gideon, but thanks for the smear, troll. Now please go whine about moderation someplace where they care about hearing it.

Mike said...

"If you defend a troll, you can't expect kid gloves."

I'm not defending anyone. I'm questioning those who feel fit to ban speech they deem offensive. But, no need to go on, as there is clearly a double standard in effect here.

Mike said...

"What did you expect Mike, when your first post was intended to be offensive?"

WTF are you talking about? How is expressing disappointment over censorship offensive? Seems to me that you're just one of those easily offended types.

"Defending him shows a streak of dishonesty, at least."

Right, 'cuz expressing disappointment over censorship = defending the person censored. Gawd, your critical thinking skills really suck ass.

"Did I call you stupid, moronic, immature, a punk, and a Nazi on top of that?"

Yeah, more or less, asshole. You called me a "moron" and all sorts of other shit. You sound just like Gideon, and you act like him, too. I wasn't even talking to you, and you jumped all over my shit, didn't ya?

"Huh, I overlooked the "not"."

Yeah, no shit dipshit. That's what happens when a hypersensitive atheist gets his panties in a wad, and ends up typing the most ironic knee-jerk reply ever. So, who's the one who can't read, smartypants?

B.R. said...

"I'm not defending anyone. I'm questioning those who feel fit to ban speech they deem offensive."

You say this now, but before it was--

"Eh, I hate it when so-called "freethinkers" resort to banning speech they don't agree with."

You were defending Gideon, Mike; unless you want to go deeper into explaining how you weren't. He wasn't banned for disagreeing with us, he was banned for being an annoying douche-nozzle.

"WTF are you talking about? How is expressing disappointment over censorship offensive? Seems to me that you're just one of those easily offended types."

I've already dissected your first post. I'm not repeating myself.

"Right, 'cuz expressing disappointment over censorship = defending the person censored."

Your wording and tone don't bear this out.

"Gawd, your critical thinking skills really suck ass."

Pretty ironic coming from the guy who asked if the comment addressed to him was indeed addressed to him.

"Yeah, more or less, asshole."

You enjoy lying, don't you? And thus far, you've not only used more insults than me, you've also used more profanity. So, who
s acting like Gideon again? And BTW, show where I called you a immature punk/Nazi/pervert. If you can't, then we know who the real asshole is.

"Yeah, no shit dipshit. That's what happens when a hypersensitive atheist gets his panties in a wad, and ends up typing the most ironic knee-jerk reply ever. So, who's the one who can't read, smartypants?"

You know, you can stop acting like Gideon and projecting your behavior on me whenever you want. "Panties in a wad"? That sounds like Gideon. Obviously, your won panties are pretty knotted up for you to call me an asshole, pussy, dipshit, and a bunch of other crap. Let's see, I called you disingenuous, and a moron, and thus far there is nothing in your words or behavior to assert otherwise. It's pretty clear who the real dipshit is, troll. Now get lost.

LadyAtheist said...

This discussion is closed.