Definition of a Troll

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Science is not a troll.
A troll is not a chemical.
A chemical troll is not science.
Troll science is not chemistry.
Mantra 8647

You are a troll.
You routinely spam this board.
You fabricate things just to create fictional drama.
You whine and complain endlessly because you are a self-loather who knows no other way to express his bitterness for an entire lifetime wasted being manipulated by other undereducated leftists.

Why on earth would you drag your son into this?

Im a BM wrote: Is it FUN to be a genius?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Is it FUN to be a genius?

If genius it be, it sometimes be a curse.

IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:
En trold er en intellektuel kujon med en invaliderende frygt for forskellige meninger.

Trolde identificerer sig straks ved at kræve censur af enhver, der udtrykker forskellige meninger. Selvfølgelig kræver de "moderatorer" i stedet for ærligt at anmode om "censorer". Trolde vil ankomme til en ucensureret hjemmeside og vil straks føle sig syge af andres uafhængige, kritiske ræsonnement. Trolde vil ikke tilskrive problemet deres kognitive mangler. De vil i stedet give dem skylden, der tænker selv, og som har forskellige meninger.

Den naturlige progression er, at troldene begynder at brokke sig over, at hjemmesiden er "død". Enhver rationel voksen vil se, at siden er fin, men troldene vil insistere på, at "moderatorer" er nødvendige for at forhindre de forskellige meninger, der "driver folk væk." Dette sker på alle ucensurerede diskussionssider. Du kan se det samme ske jævnligt på den engelske side Climate-Debate. Alle dem, der klager over fritflydende ideer, har ingen af ​​deres egne og er misundelige på andre, der kan tænke selv.

Hvorfor gør trolde dette? Hvorfor poster de ikke bare i et åndssvagt kollektiv efter eget valg, et der har masser af censorer til at straffe, censurere og forbyde forskellige synspunkter? Årsagen er, at sådanne hjemmesider allerede er døde. Trolde ved, at blandt ikke-tænkende kollektiver skal deres dumme meninger accepteres og omfavnes. Det er der dog ingen tilfredshed med. Censorer forhindrer enhver tænkning eller læring i at forekomme.

Klimadebat.dk har det fint. Det er en af ​​internettets bedste debatsider. Ingen behøver nogen trolde for at erklære, at den på en eller anden måde er "død", eller at nogen rationelle voksne på en eller anden måde bliver "drevet væk".
.

Im a BM wrote:
"Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - IBdaMann

How does Google define an internet troll?

Not the same at all as what IBdaMann says a troll is.

Google inquiry: "What is the definition of an internet 'troll'?"


Google's reply: "An internet troll is a person who posts mean, fake, or angry messages online on purpose just to make others upset or start a fight.

What Trolls Do

Trolls hide behind screens or fake names to do things like:

* Post rude or insulting comments in chat rooms or social media.

* Lie or deny basic facts to annoy others.

* Derail serious talks with silly or hateful jokes

* Urge other people to join in and attack a target"

I guess I don't have the time or patience to copy the rest of what Google says, but it has two more sections, "Why People Troll" and "The Psychology of Trolls"

There seems to be very little overlap between IBdaMann's definition of a "troll", and the definition given by the infallibly omniscient God known as Google.

"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the intenet's best discussion sites."
- IBdaMann

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - IBdaMann

How does Google define an internet troll?

Not the same at all as what IBdaMann says a troll is.

Google inquiry: "What is the definition of an internet 'troll'?"


Google's reply: "An internet troll is a person who posts mean, fake, or angry messages online on purpose just to make others upset or start a fight.

What Trolls Do

Trolls hide behind screens or fake names to do things like:

* Post rude or insulting comments in chat rooms or social media.

* Lie or deny basic facts to annoy others.

* Derail serious talks with silly or hateful jokes

* Urge other people to join in and attack a target"

I guess I don't have the time or patience to copy the rest of what Google says, but it has two more sections, "Why People Troll" and "The Psychology of Trolls"

There seems to be very little overlap between IBdaMann's definition of a "troll", and the definition given by the infallibly omniscient God known as Google.

"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the intenet's best discussion sites."
- IBdaMann

You can't blame your trolling on anyone else, Robert.
You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.
Google is not sentient.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Google is God's gift to ME! Google is my attack dog.

Google inquiry: "Why is the internet persona known as 'Into the Night' considered to be a troll at climate discussion websites?"

Google knows the answer! Anyone can do this at home to fact check it.

Google say: "The internet persona 'Into the Night' (often abbreviated as ITN on various political, debate, and science forums) is widely considered a troll in climate discussion spaces because of a highly distinct, aggressive strategy designed to derail conversations rather than engage in scientific debate."

I couldn't have said it better myself. But I didn't say it myself. Google said it, and anyone who wants to try it at home can Google the same search terms to get the same answer, or something pretty dang close.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
How do I know there isn't more than one troll on the internet who uses the same stupid pseudonym in climate discussion websites?

Because Google is absolutely correct that the behavior is "highly distinct". If it's not the same troll, it is a very convincing copy cat adopting the same unique strategy of redefinition fallacy, redefining science, redefining chemicals, and mostly just trying to derail the discussion in order to kill it.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
I encourage others to look this up, because Google provides way more detail about Into the Night's bullshit approach to "debate" than I care to copy here.

Well, let's at least get a few more of the highlights.

Regarding the internet persona "Into the Night" in climate discussion websites, Google says:
"Rather than standard climate denial, this persona employs a specific set of disruptive tactics:

[b]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
1. Hardline Semantic Pedantry & 'Looping'
...hijack threads by obsessing over specific definitions ... Into the Night traps them into an endless loop of demanding definitions, rejecting standard scientific consensus.... repeating same baseline denial.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
2. Algorithmic Style Aggression and Volume
(summarizes how he loudly floods the zone with rapid automated comments)..effectively burying good faith discussions, under a mountain of repetitive arguments, exhaustion-inducing replies, and hostile clutter.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
3. Strict Denial of Evidence (The "No Proof" Shield)
Into the Night relies heavily on blanket dismissals.
..by completely ignoring the empirical data and shifting the goalposts, they ensure that a real, productive debate can never take place.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
4. Directing Personal Attacks
When users refuse to engage in circular semantic arguments, the persona quickly pivots to aggressive, condescending insults... (more about his insult habit)

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Ultimately, 'Into the Night' is viewed as a textbook example of an online troll because their goal isn't to persuade anyone or present a coherent alternative thesis - it is to exhaust the regular users of the forum until they stop talking about climate science altogether."[/b]

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - IBdaMann

How does Google define an internet troll?

Not the same at all as what IBdaMann says a troll is.

Google inquiry: "What is the definition of an internet 'troll'?"


Google's reply: "An internet troll is a person who posts mean, fake, or angry messages online on purpose just to make others upset or start a fight.

What Trolls Do

Trolls hide behind screens or fake names to do things like:

* Post rude or insulting comments in chat rooms or social media.

* Lie or deny basic facts to annoy others.

* Derail serious talks with silly or hateful jokes

* Urge other people to join in and attack a target"

I guess I don't have the time or patience to copy the rest of what Google says, but it has two more sections, "Why People Troll" and "The Psychology of Trolls"

There seems to be very little overlap between IBdaMann's definition of a "troll", and the definition given by the infallibly omniscient God known as Google.

"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the intenet's best discussion sites."
- IBdaMann

You can't blame your trolling on anyone else, Robert.
You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.
Google is not sentient.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
"Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - IBdaMann

How does Google define an internet troll?

Not the same at all as what IBdaMann says a troll is.

Google inquiry: "What is the definition of an internet 'troll'?"


Google's reply: "An internet troll is a person who posts mean, fake, or angry messages online on purpose just to make others upset or start a fight.

What Trolls Do

Trolls hide behind screens or fake names to do things like:

* Post rude or insulting comments in chat rooms or social media.

* Lie or deny basic facts to annoy others.

* Derail serious talks with silly or hateful jokes

* Urge other people to join in and attack a target"

I guess I don't have the time or patience to copy the rest of what Google says, but it has two more sections, "Why People Troll" and "The Psychology of Trolls"

There seems to be very little overlap between IBdaMann's definition of a "troll", and the definition given by the infallibly omniscient God known as Google.

"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the intenet's best discussion sites."
- IBdaMann

You can't blame your trolling on anyone else, Robert.
You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.
Google is not sentient.

IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:(foreign language shit).
.

Into the Night wrote:
Whining gets you nowhere, Robert.

You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.
Psychoquackry

IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

[quote]IBDaMann skrev:(foreign language shit).
.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Whining gets you nowhere, Robert.

You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.
Psychoquackry

Please stop spamming.

IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

[quote]IBDaMann skrev:(foreign language shit).
.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
"Have the internet personas 'IBdaMann' and 'Into the Night' made the climate-debate.com website more popular during their eleven years of posting there?"

That's what I asked Google, and here's what she told me in reply:

"No, they did not make the website more popular. Instead, their highly aggressive posting style ultimately turned the site into what other internet users described as an 'empty shell'.

[b]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
According to online discussions and user observations:
...deleted whining...

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Hey, these are GOOGLE's words, not mine![/b]

As much as I love to say "organic carbon" and "organic nitrogen", I would NEVER say "organic traffic".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
"Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - IBdaMann

How does Google define an internet troll?

Not the same at all as what IBdaMann says a troll is.

Google inquiry: "What is the definition of an internet 'troll'?"

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Google's reply: "An internet troll is a person who posts mean, fake, or angry messages online on purpose just to make others upset or start a fight.

What Trolls Do

Trolls hide behind screens or fake names to do things like:

* Post rude or insulting comments in chat rooms or social media.

* Lie or deny basic facts to annoy others.

* Derail serious talks with silly or hateful jokes

* Urge other people to join in and attack a target"

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
I guess I don't have the time or patience to copy the rest of what Google says, but it has two
more sections, "Why People Troll" and "The Psychology of Trolls"

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
There seems to be very little overlap between IBdaMann's definition of a "troll", and the definition given by the infallibly omniscient God known as Google.
...deleted spam...
Seriously! Just STOP spamming!

IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

[quote]IBDaMann skrev:(foreign language shit).
.

Im a BM wrote:
"Have the internet personas 'IBdaMann' and 'Into the Night' made the climate-debate.com website more popular during their eleven years of posting there?"

That's what I asked Google, and here's what she told me in reply:

"No, they did not make the website more popular. Instead, their highly aggressive posting style ultimately turned the site into what other internet users described as an 'empty shell'.
!

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Have the internet personas 'IBdaMann' and 'Into the Night' made the climate-debate.com website more popular during their eleven years of posting there?"

That's what I asked Google, and here's what she told me in reply:

"No, they did not make the website more popular. Instead, their highly aggressive posting style ultimately turned the site into what other internet users described as an 'empty shell'.
!

This site still appears to get traffic. Otherwise, why would you be posting here?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Have the internet personas 'IBdaMann' and 'Into the Night' made the climate-debate.com website more popular during their eleven years of posting there?"

That's what I asked Google, and here's what she told me in reply:

"No, they did not make the website more popular. Instead, their highly aggressive posting style ultimately turned the site into what other internet users described as an 'empty shell'.
!

This site still appears to get traffic. Otherwise, why would you be posting here?

Why would I be posting here?

Originally, I posted here for the same reason I was able to find this website.

Search engines would prominently display "climate-debate.com" as if it were a popular website where active rational discussion about climate was taking place.

I assumed that meant other people were also seeing this website displayed by the same search engines. Even though only a handful of members were actually posting anything, I assumed that new viewers were constantly taking a peek.

I know that no amount of evidence or logic will persuade the dominant trolls to change their position on anything.

Just over a year ago, even though Google no longer directed new members to the site, there were so many "views" racking up on the biogeochemistry threads, I felt vindicated. Yes, there really was an audience who would actually open up a biogeochemistry thread to view it, even if it was buried far below the home page.

Swan has been declaring this website "dead" for the entire four and a half years that I have posted.

I can't figure out how much traffic this site really gets, but it is obviously more than just the four members who ever post anything these days.

I will say that IBdaMann's "Definition of a Troll" seems to lack self awareness.

Im a BM wrote:
Search engines would prominently display "climate-debate.com" as if it were a popular website where active rational discussion about climate was taking place.

Im a BM wrote:
I assumed that meant other people were also seeing this website displayed by the same search engines. Even though only a handful of members were actually posting anything, I assumed that new viewers were constantly taking a peek.

I know that no amount of evidence or logic will persuade the dominant trolls to change their position on anything.

Im a BM wrote:
Just over a year ago, even though Google no longer directed new members to the site, there were so many "views" racking up on the biogeochemistry threads, I felt vindicated. Yes, there really was an audience who would actually open up a biogeochemistry thread to view it, even if it was buried far below the home page.

Im a BM wrote:
Swan has been declaring this website "dead" for the entire four and a half years that I have posted.

Im a BM wrote:
I can't figure out how much traffic this site really gets, but it is obviously more than just the four members who ever post anything these days.

Im a BM wrote:
I will say that IBdaMann's "Definition of a Troll" seems to lack self awareness.

Spongy Iris wrote:
These days it feels like AI would kill a site like this one.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And compared to sites like YouTube, X, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook, the view numbers here seem like they have no viral potential whatsoever.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This site comes across to me like a quiet subreddit that refuses to die! So maybe calling it a dead website is still a bit premature.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
These days it feels like AI would kill a site like this one.

Have no fear. 'AI' has no power to kill any site.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And compared to sites like YouTube, X, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook, the view numbers here seem like they have no viral potential whatsoever.

Probably because climate-debate.com is not a video playback site.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This site comes across to me like a quiet subreddit that refuses to die! So maybe calling it a dead website is still a bit premature.

Heh. One way to put it!

The Church of Global Warming is very diminished right now, since most believers are involved with the Church of Hate at the moment. They are still out there, they just have other 'fish to fry', so to speak.

So far Man has died several times over according to the Church of Global Warming predictions. Those predictions, of course, never materialized.