Got to be a *troll

Abuse Guidelines ¶

1.
Video votes must be cast only for the content and nothing else; the video must be viewed before voting
2.
Comment votes must be cast only for the content and nothing else; the comment must be read in its entirety before voting
3.
Harassment or personal attacks in any form (comment, ST post, blog, submitted video, etc.) are forbidden
4.
No modification or adjustment may be made to another member's post unless aiding the submitter by improving the post for the community (e.g., discarding, tag editing, channel modification, etc.)
5.
Abuse of the site, other members, votes, posts, comments, or any privileges, especially star abilities, whether mentioned above or not, may result in account suspension or a permanent ban

I hope you're joking about this. Just because you don't agree with someone's opinion does not give you the right to insult them on this website.

maybe he's just an asshole

my favorite is 8, that one made me laugh.

Sure he's got a way different viewpoint than all of us, and maybe he does it just to get under our skin but I can't prove that. It'd be a hard task conjuring up that crap JUST to piss most of us off so I'm going to assume he truly believes it. There's no rule against being wrong all the time. I mean, as far as being wrong goes; they say that even a blind squirrel will find a nut every now and then...well QM is a blind squirrel in the middle of the desert...good luck finding something that isn't petrified.

Its pretty damn obvious he's a troll. The only viable question is do we have enough hard evidence against him to make great justice with the banhammer.

I take offense at all these accusations.

If QM is a troll, that makes me a troll too. And we all know that I am not a troll.

So stop these vicious and outlandish personal attacks against one of LiberalSift's beacons of light, as they are completely baseless, and rather useless, I might add.

That is all.

everyone knows BillO is a liberal in disguise
This isn't a personal attack. I'm giving QM the benefit of the doubt that he might not actually believe what he says when he spouts false propaganda about liberals that resembles the kinds of things Goebbels made up about Jews.

By the logic of #9, the South must have wanted Sherman's army to stay.

I say a troll is a troll, even if you genuinely believe you're right about what you say.

If the things he said were to try to make rational arguments in opposition, that's one thing, but rather than responding to the topic of comments or vids, it's just a drive by "you're all stupid, horrible people for believing things I disagree with."

Someone had a good comment that I can't find to quote precisely, but it was something like "If you're going to be an asshole, try to at least be an entertaining asshole."

He's not a troll for going against the popular opinion, he's a troll for constantly using ad hominem attacks to express that contrary opinion.

QM is OK with me. Having a single extreme far right voice on a libertarian/left leaning site is actually kind of funny. If he offends you, then let him have it. Otherwise, I wouldn't take it too seriously.

Who exactly gets helped by banning one of our members? How?

QuantumMushroom
http://politics.videosift.com/member/quantumushroom

old thread about qm
http://blog.videosift.com/smibbo/Quantummushroom

>> ^NetRunner:
Someone had a good comment that I can't find to quote precisely, but it was something like "If you're going to be an asshole, try to at least be an entertaining asshole."

http://politics.videosift.com/video/TPM-Speechless#comment-425004

That's me you're attempting to quote. I didn't call him an asshole, though. I was just sarcastically imploring him to make a logical statement.

It's like when your dog barks at the TV because there are dogs barking on TV. You know there's no reason to be barking, but you understand why the dog is confused. In the case of my linked comment, the dog was barking at an innocent potted plant and I can't help but wonder what's going on inside his head.

I vote nay. He can't be a troll if he truly believes every word of it and he's been pretty consistent about his views so far and for quite some time. Trolling is such a subjective term in itself. Don't know if his sole intent is to disrupt. As others have mentioned he has a brought a certain "flavor" to the Sift, no?

Ad hom, whether backed by a logical and rationale argument or not, is used in subtle and not-so-subtle ways here and not just by QM. I'm not one to care either way but let's not set a precedent.

I didn't think we were talking about banning, just more of a verbal tar and feathering.

Maybe we should get a little icon of a troll that goes next to people's names if they have enough downvoted comments. Some would wear it as a badge of honor, I'm sure.

I wouldn't vote to ban either, but I do think that spreading incessant vitriol should have a penalty.

he's getting downvoted a lot, his shit's all small font, you don't have to read it.

but i am really glad he is here, and fascinated to read how he spins things and twists around the thread. i also have to give him respect either for honest resilience, or for developing a great fictional character.

either way, i can't see how scrubbing the decks clean of every little thing that "offends" people or is "extreme" is a good way to go. anyway he wouldn't be first against the wall if i was king.

I think it's unfair to say that everything he says is unfounded or fallacious. I think that out of the list you've put together there, there's a few good debatable points 'IMHO'. If anybody is thinking of trying to siftquisition him again, then we'll have to face the fact that we might be exactly what he accuses us of being. All this talk of tolerance sometimes seems hypocritical to me.

I stopped by his profile page to congratulate him on going silver one day, since I knew no one was going to give him a party and I thought for him it was a major achievement. He didn't even know he was silver, he didn't know that applauded comments counted towards his star level. That's when I realized that his experience is completely different from mine. Sure, you could say that it's largely his own fault he doesn't feel the warm embrace of the Sift community, but I don't think it's entirely his.

His profile page was full of foaming rhetoric. He's just one guy sitting in the middle of it. Perhaps he brings it on himself, but I can certainly allow myself to admire his fortitude. I'd miss him if he ever "F'd off" like so many have told him to. I'm guessing I'm not the only one. And if you're really honest with yourself, you might too. Many have had their convictions forged in the flamewars this Sifter starts.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you find those 10 statements so offensive to call "troll". Just because he's not ultra left wing, doesn't mean he's a troll.

The last thing this site needs is MORE liberal bias over-sampling by banning anyone with an opposing political view. If you want that the Daily Kos and MoveOn are where you should be. Actually, even the mere thought of such a ban is disgusting in my free opinion.

"you're all stupid, horrible people for believing things I disagree with."
I've gotten this from the liberals on this site more times than I can count. Ban them all?

I feel less and less welcome on this site every day.

I'd like to remind everybody that this thread did not begin as a proposal to ban QM. Of course we shouldn't ban QM. And it's not likely that QM ever will be banned. Randomize was the only one who suggested it here. Trolling is not about saying unpopular things or offending people. Trolling is saying things you don't believe, with a straight face, for the purpose of provoking people (what Colbert does in a broad sense). It's not necessarily a bad thing if it contributes to the debate. Only certain kinds of trolls, like the GNAA, deserve bannination. (If you ever read slashdot at -1, you know what I mean)

Doc_M: I haven't seen any comments insulting you personally. Link?

Oh it's not all that dramatic or anything (long day, late night post ftl), just a general dislike and disbelief of all that is conservative and/or religious. Uncomfortable. Other than a couple individuals who shall remain nameless, I haven't had that much direct mindless insults. It's not worth going through every thread any of us ever posted in looking for it. In general, there are hundreds of anti-conservative, anti-religious videos here a month with even more comments of the same attitude. Meanwhile I've never seen a single positive one about either topic. 100/0 is not a ratio I like. heh. I get the "we don't like yer type here" 'tude. Personal attacks are not necessary when every group you belong to is attacked on a daily basis.

There is no "we don't like yer type here" 'tude, it's simply a reflection of people's complete loss of confidence with the conservative and religious movements.

Conservatism died over the last 8 years of Bush, one bit at a time.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

If Hannity can have Colmes, VideoSift can have QM.

>> ^schmawy:
I think it's unfair to say that everything he says is unfounded or fallacious

Lol, schmawy almost said fellatio

I never understood the word 'trolling'.

I mean, they're either flaming or you just disagree with their opinion.

>> ^NetRunner:

Maybe we should get a little icon of a troll that goes next to people's names if they have enough downvoted comments. Some would wear it as a badge of honor, I'm sure.

I'd donate money for that troll icon next to my name. Where do I sign up?

>> ^RedSky:
I never understood the word 'trolling'.
I mean, they're either flaming or you just disagree with their opinion.


it comes from the fishing method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28angling%29

A troll online would correctly be defined as one who says things only to bait others into an argument. I don't think belief is relevant to the term.

While I feel QM does believe what he says, he generally makes his statements as inflammatory as possible. I'd appreciate him a lot more if his dissenting opinions were delivered as part of a discussion/debate rather than formulating them to offend as many people as possible.

Of course threads like this one probably only encourage trolling.

"I never understood the word 'trolling'.
I mean, they're either flaming or you just disagree with their opinion."

Trolling is neither of those. Trolling is making provocative statements that the sayer himself does not believe, to bait/enrage/inspire/provoke people or make them think. Sometimes it serves a good purpose, and sometimes it's just trying to provoke flames without being a flamer. Stephen Colbert (the actor) is the rare good kind of troll. People who post stories about killing cats on 4chan accompanied by images of cats on fire are the bad kind of troll.

If someone really believes what he's saying then he's not trolling, no matter how offensive his comments are.

Don't agree with him usually, but not a troll

Definitely not a troll. Varied opinions make this place much more interesting.

What is described above is a flamer and "flamebaiting", which is posting comments, for the sole purpose of attracting the ire of someone else.

Trolling is personal attacks, aggressive demeanor and an unhealthy attraction to bridges.

QM's a staple of videosift, as much as the rest of us. Varied opinions make for a better sift in the end. We don't want to be Siftslum, Liberalsift or Godsift - we're videosift, and proud of it (or I am, anyway).

Oh I know what it means, I just think if you're not being directly and baselessly insulted personally, which would be flaming, you should be able to exercise restraint in how or whether you respond, no matter what opinion someone expresses - regardless really of whether they believe it personally or are just trying to stir things up.