Ok, let me see if I understand you correctly. You do not consider abusive statements to be trolling? Abusive statements to me by their definition are meant to provoke an angry response.
Correct: I don’t consider them to be trolling. If you make that intention part of your definition of “abusive” then I think they aren’t abusive either, for precisely that reason. (Personally I wouldn’t say that “abusive” implies intention to provoke an angry response, and I would categorize some of what OrphanWilde’s written about you as abusive.)
Ok, then I think we have differences in our interpretation of words like “abusive” and “meant to provoke an angry response.” Let’s get more specific and concrete to ground things out with an example. For example, OrphanWilde using terms like “you are creepy” to me are ad hominem attacks intentionally meant to provoke an angry response. Would an external observer reading this comment think that this is an ad hominem attack intentionally meant to provoke an angry response—what do you think?
He clearly indicated that his use of such language was intentional. He also admitted to lying in an attempt to harm my reputation. So while I cannot be sure—no one can be except himself—a Bayesian approach would point to probabilistic likelihood of deliberate use of provocative ad hominem language as a trolling technique.
a Bayesian approach would point to probabilistic likelihood of deliberate use of provocative ad hominem language as a trolling technique.
LOL. You’re on LW, y’know, not Lifehack. People like me will look at you taking a random collection of keywords, throwing them all into a blender set on high, and then regurgitating them onto a page—and be not impressed.
To quote My Cousin Vinny, ”...everything that guy just said is bullshit” X-)
Well, I suppose I’m an external observer (I promise that I am neither OrphanWilde nor Gleb_Tsipursky), and I would say yes it’s an ad hominem attack but no it’s probably not intended to provoke an angry response. I would guess that other external observers with the same context available to them as to me would mostly say the same.
It seems to me that there are plenty of other obvious reasons why people might make ad hominem attacks. For instance:
They might expect them to influence other people in a direction they like. (I would guess that this motivation is substantially more common than desire to provoke an angry response.)
They might be angry (or otherwise upset) themselves, for whatever reason, and respond as angry people often do by attacking in any way that presents itself.
They might be failing to distinguish between an idea and the person presenting it, and be only dimly aware that what they’re doing is an ad hominem attack at all.
They might be hoping to provoke (not an angry response but) reflection on the part of the person being attacked (“wow, I had no idea anyone would react so strongly to what I said; could there be something wrong with it?”). I doubt this works very often, but there might be cases where it’s a reasonable last resort.
In this particular case I think the first and last of those are the most likely motives.
I’m not talking about the motivation, I am talking about the outcome. We can’t read people’s minds, we can only observe actions and their consequences. The outcome of an ad hominem attack is to provoke an angry and otherwise emotional response in the person attacked.
Abusive statements to me by their definition are meant to provoke an angry response.
and
OrphanWilde using terms like “you are creepy” to me are ad hominem attacks intentionally meant to provoke an angry response.
and I don’t know how to interpret those other than in terms of motivation and not only outcome. But if you’ve now changed your position from “ad hominem abuse is intended to provoke an angry response” to “ad hominem abuse is likely to provoke an angry response” then we have no disagreement on that any more.
The original question was actually not about the intentions of ad hominem attacks in general but about whether OrphanWilde was admitting to trolling. Trolling is defined in terms of its intention and not merely its effects, so your change of position here doesn’t alter my opinion that OrphanWilde was probably not trolling.
To me, taking an action highly likely to provoke an angry response indicates an intentional desire to provoke a negative response. This should also be read in light of OrphanWilde’s other actions on this thread. I don’t want to say that one ad hominem attack necessarily constitutes trolling. I perceive trolling as about several acts that together constitute a sum of evidence of trolling, i. .e, taking actions highly likely to provoke an angry response, and knowing in advance that one’s actions are of the type likely to provoke a negative response.
Ok, let me see if I understand you correctly. You do not consider abusive statements to be trolling? Abusive statements to me by their definition are meant to provoke an angry response.
Correct: I don’t consider them to be trolling. If you make that intention part of your definition of “abusive” then I think they aren’t abusive either, for precisely that reason. (Personally I wouldn’t say that “abusive” implies intention to provoke an angry response, and I would categorize some of what OrphanWilde’s written about you as abusive.)
Ok, then I think we have differences in our interpretation of words like “abusive” and “meant to provoke an angry response.” Let’s get more specific and concrete to ground things out with an example. For example, OrphanWilde using terms like “you are creepy” to me are ad hominem attacks intentionally meant to provoke an angry response. Would an external observer reading this comment think that this is an ad hominem attack intentionally meant to provoke an angry response—what do you think?
You don’t think he actually finds you creepy? Are you sure?
He clearly indicated that his use of such language was intentional. He also admitted to lying in an attempt to harm my reputation. So while I cannot be sure—no one can be except himself—a Bayesian approach would point to probabilistic likelihood of deliberate use of provocative ad hominem language as a trolling technique.
LOL. You’re on LW, y’know, not Lifehack. People like me will look at you taking a random collection of keywords, throwing them all into a blender set on high, and then regurgitating them onto a page—and be not impressed.
To quote My Cousin Vinny, ”...everything that guy just said is bullshit” X-)
Don’t be dismissive. If you disagree, make an actual argument and lay out your disagreements. Thanks!
Why not? A lot of things ought be dismissed.
Well, I suppose I’m an external observer (I promise that I am neither OrphanWilde nor Gleb_Tsipursky), and I would say yes it’s an ad hominem attack but no it’s probably not intended to provoke an angry response. I would guess that other external observers with the same context available to them as to me would mostly say the same.
I perceive an ad hominem attack as by its nature designed to provoke an angry response.
Why?
It seems to me that there are plenty of other obvious reasons why people might make ad hominem attacks. For instance:
They might expect them to influence other people in a direction they like. (I would guess that this motivation is substantially more common than desire to provoke an angry response.)
They might be angry (or otherwise upset) themselves, for whatever reason, and respond as angry people often do by attacking in any way that presents itself.
They might be failing to distinguish between an idea and the person presenting it, and be only dimly aware that what they’re doing is an ad hominem attack at all.
They might be hoping to provoke (not an angry response but) reflection on the part of the person being attacked (“wow, I had no idea anyone would react so strongly to what I said; could there be something wrong with it?”). I doubt this works very often, but there might be cases where it’s a reasonable last resort.
In this particular case I think the first and last of those are the most likely motives.
I’m not talking about the motivation, I am talking about the outcome. We can’t read people’s minds, we can only observe actions and their consequences. The outcome of an ad hominem attack is to provoke an angry and otherwise emotional response in the person attacked.
What you wrote before was (emphasis mine):
and
and I don’t know how to interpret those other than in terms of motivation and not only outcome. But if you’ve now changed your position from “ad hominem abuse is intended to provoke an angry response” to “ad hominem abuse is likely to provoke an angry response” then we have no disagreement on that any more.
The original question was actually not about the intentions of ad hominem attacks in general but about whether OrphanWilde was admitting to trolling. Trolling is defined in terms of its intention and not merely its effects, so your change of position here doesn’t alter my opinion that OrphanWilde was probably not trolling.
To me, taking an action highly likely to provoke an angry response indicates an intentional desire to provoke a negative response. This should also be read in light of OrphanWilde’s other actions on this thread. I don’t want to say that one ad hominem attack necessarily constitutes trolling. I perceive trolling as about several acts that together constitute a sum of evidence of trolling, i. .e, taking actions highly likely to provoke an angry response, and knowing in advance that one’s actions are of the type likely to provoke a negative response.