Only when there are no witnesses.
When there are such witnesses, it is for them, lest they become enables / accomplices / you name it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The active trolls
- Thread starter TransmutingSoul
- Start date
When there are such witnesses, it is for them, lest they become enables / accomplices / you name it.
The safest way to avoid 'trolls' of this variety is to post in DIRs where 'trolls' can't go. But when someone makes a post in the debate forums, and then goes about spreading misinformation about another religion, what are you to expect but some actual debate and discussion? Yes, it's far more comfortable to have nobody oppose your views.
I trolled you so.
That is IMO counterproductive. It encourages the perception that there is some form of legitimacy in trolling, and that special privilege is necessary to restrict their ability to express their vice.
The later may be true under some circunstances. The former should never be accepted.
Comfort is a luxury to be savored when found. Not one to be expected.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
My observation about forums is that after a person joins, they are a newbie for awhile. People can be harsh on said newbies. They'll point out where they're wrong almost as often as the media points out where Trump is. If said newbie brushes it off and goes on to be an active member, sometimes they build friendships and a following, and things go completely the other way, to where no one is pointing out where they are wrong, and things become an echo chamber.
So I'd say the belief that "respect is earned" is a bit simple. Not necessarily that it's wrong.
As for what to do about such a situation, I think the member @Jim had some of the right ideas about how pre-conceived labels can cause prejudice - IF I understood his posts correctly. I think the key to understanding people is following the mind but through the filter of the heart.
So I'd say the belief that "respect is earned" is a bit simple. Not necessarily that it's wrong.
As for what to do about such a situation, I think the member @Jim had some of the right ideas about how pre-conceived labels can cause prejudice - IF I understood his posts correctly. I think the key to understanding people is following the mind but through the filter of the heart.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I have come to understand what naturalism means much, much better then I did before I came to RF.
I watched the movie Master & Commander and there was a close friendship between the religious captain, and the naturalist doctor. I thought that was great.
I have seen people that really desire to rip up people's differing convictions on both sides of the coin. Vehement opposers who want to banish the other side from humanity if they don't conform.
But as long as nature keeps making humans you will always have religion and naturalism. Might as well agree to disagree, and move on forward.
The attempt to eradicate either side is neverending futility.
People regardless will make up their own minds in a free society.
I personally don't want to eradicate evolution science. But I am also fine with ID people having their own separate scientific pursuit.
I really just want a free society where different convictions are not censored.
This post triggered me in a way that isn't good for me. I mean, let's say a few people are trolls. It happens. But at what point do we draw the line on what is and isn't a troll? What if a person is being themselves and does have some complex behavior, but is being honest?
Anyways, I'll try not to let the opening comments get to me. This could be a good discussion. This forum has been very nice and tolerant of me, I want to say staff included(no sarcasm intended), but I have said things that can be taken the wrong way on the forum. I once outlined how I had these experiences on ghosts and even a form of astral projection or something throughout my life, but these days, I take my post as evidence that I used to believe in superstition. If anyone ever comes across said post, it will show them the progress I've made.
That is a great way to look at it, that is as a journey in personal transformation. If we look at a definition of Troll, as suggested above, it may help.
"A troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community."
Thus we all need to consider are any aspects of that statement part of our motive in any way. Have we considered the way we post may actually fit within that definition.
The word proselytize is used a lot on this forum against people, but like Troll, people have different views as to what it means.
If this posts allows people to consider their motives, then it has served its purpose.
Regards Tony
I am here to learn about all different kind's of pov's in the spirit of illumination.
I expect to be chastised and corrected.
I have anti Christian, Islam, and Judaism views. However I have Christian friends. I don't hate on them, just the religion itself.
I am not a troll. And I don't gaslight.
I'm not against naturalism but I oppose that to. I find it fascinating. Yet I don't need any conversion demands and censorship of my non naturalist leanings.
That sounds like a good balance.
Regards Tony
It is great to have that type of discussion. It to me is what is required if we want to find the truth. The key then is to consider the explanation and see if one needs to modify ones own views and responses.
You have used an example that is good. Many posters that though that Krishna was the founder of a Faith called Hinduism, now because of what you posted, know better and apart from an unintentional slip, would never use that thought again. We have you to thank for that.
From a Baha'i perspective we have gone to great extents to show the same mistake has been made as to the vision of how the world will be ruled in the near to somewhat distant future. Any accusation that the Baha'i Faith is aimed at a material rule, is likewise incorrect. Thus we can then rightly ask why that has to be revisited time after time by the same posters.
This type of thing really shows if we are here to learn, or if we are here for another reason.
Regards Tony
exchemist
Veteran Member
All true enough but what I wrote was that the troll posts in order to stir up discord, rather than to express ideas in good faith.
In short, a troublemaker for the sake of it. There are people to are just looking for a fight, or find it fun to set one group against another and watch. That is troll behaviour.
Someone getting into an argument about ideas, because they have a real point of view they want to get across, in the face of opposition, is not trolling, in my view, just arguing.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Maybe the people posting those comments don't consider them negative and don't feel the answers offered so far are reasonable. Maybe they consider the same repeated answers being offered over and over, despite them being followed up and queried, the actual "trolling". Maybe the problem is one-sided flawed perceptions rather than anything real.
I take it that you see the dychotomy as justified and necessary, then?
Specifically, do you see religion as opposite to and incompatible with naturalism? Is that right?
Also, what positive do you see in the existence of Intelligent Design proponents?
exchemist
Veteran Member
This thing about repetitive posting touches on a point about trolling that I forgot to mention in my initial attempt at defining it. In addition to the ones looking for a fight, or trying to start a fight that they can enjoy watching, there are people with a one-track agenda who try to divert all discussions onto it, regardless of relevance. I would see this too as a form of trolling, showing as it does a basic lack of respect for other participants.
Last edited:
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I'm not convinced that the key to not being a troll is changing one's mind when presented with a stellar argument. To me it all has more to do with the concepts of lower self, higher self, etc. and whether there actually is a dishonest agenda.
Subjects I'm willing to change my mind on with hard evidence: Religion, global warming (it'd have to be really good evidence), whether it's better to date men or women
Subjects that'd be much harder still to change my mind on, IF at all: politics, how human morality comes to be, LGBTQ+
Subjects I'm willing to change my mind on with hard evidence: Religion, global warming (it'd have to be really good evidence), whether it's better to date men or women
Subjects that'd be much harder still to change my mind on, IF at all: politics, how human morality comes to be, LGBTQ+
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
And as far as causing a heightened amount of emotions on a discussion group goes... he who is without sin cast the first stone.
And herein lies the challenges. Firstly, as far as I know it wasn't many, but just Baha'i and perhaps some readers who only read the Baha'i stuff. Nearly everyone else knows Krishna isn't the founder of Hinduism.
Secondly, it's not an unintentional slip, but rather what Bahai's believe. If it were an unintentional slip, it wouldn't happen with such frequency. It was pointed out about 3 days back, apologised for, but then repeated the very next day. What can I say?
Not here to debate you on what you believe, but rather to offer the Hindu story line about Hinduism.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
It just doesn't make sense for Baha'is to call Krishna a manifestation of God when Hinduism has lots of gods, does it?
Yes, that was the original reason I entered the foray. For Vaishnavites, Krishna is God, period. The founder thing, they invented later. If you speak to the more liberal Baha'i here, they admit that Baha'ullah said very little at all about dharmic faiths, as he came out of the totally Abrahamic (Islam, specifically) paradigm. That's a far more logical approach, in my view ... to say nothing, or very little. The challenge for Baha'i is that they have the doctrine of progressive revelation within their founder's teachings. Most religions don't have comments about other religions right within their own teachings. There is nothing about Hinduism within the Christian bible for instance. So therefore, there is no such challenge.