Internet trolling and You

[It is Fake]

I am still trying to sift through all of the haze here. (This is another reason I wish people would try to just share information and less opinion or hassle.) If we are going to be able to learn from each other we need to be able to talk about our views without threats of being attacked or ridiculed for it. If someone is wrong you should want to help them learn. If it comes to a debate then the "opponent" is the "wrong answer". Not the other person.

Weird, what information do you want?

I see people mocking the idea that things being workable on the street is important. I can see why some people might use that as a dodge if they don't want to step in the ring. But the ridicule and "Appeal to mockery" fallacy of it is basically a psychological tactic and not a logical one.

No, they mock the logical fallacy created when someone says "MMA is for the ring my art is for the street." That type of thinking needs to be ridiculed.

I did my time growing up in a neighborhood with a lot of racially motivated violence. And a lot of drug/gang oriented violence. I have been sent to the hospital and I have sent people to the hospital. I am no more or less tough then anyone else who was brought up in that situation.

Awesome use of rhetoric, but you need to tie it to your reasoning in a better fashion.

I am currently taking BJJ and I enjoy it but even my instructor was very honest about the limitations of BJJ in a streetfighting situation. However even amidst those limitations I see serious benefits for what I am learning. Multiple opponent situations in particular are not a time I want to be on the ground. But having been in a lot of these myself I know that knowledge of what to do when one of the multiple opponents gets you there is valuable. It's just not a full picture.

See, this right here is what happens and why people get mocked. The old saying goes, if you can't beat one, you are not beating multiples.

I am also looking for a striking style to augment this. But I see a lot of controversy about this as far as what works and what doesn't. I was fond of Wing Chun and Jun Fan but people are suggesting that Chi Sao does not work.

It doesn't work the way many posting Chunners claim.

I have been contemplating this for some time and I will probably start another thread about it as it is not relevant to the internet trolling thing. But there are so many variables to consider in many of the things that I have seen different stylists take as absolutes that it is hard to trust "opinions".

If you constantly teach to the variables, your art begins to fail. If I teach you how to punch and kick correctly, you'll be able to adapt to many situations.

This is why I hesitate to talk about it here. When people start slinging insults and all that they disengage the brain and engage the ego. Some people get very emotionally attached to their view and they will viciously defend it even long after logic has flown out the window.

Then take a few writing courses and learn how to post effectively not in an incendiary fashion. The insults fly because people, who practice non-traditional arts, have a problem expressing their opinions without vehemence.

I prefer to exchange in an environment when everyone's collective goal is for everyone else to excel. Not just to earn mad troll points.

See, if this was in another forum you'd be getting insulted. You have passively insulted this board, implied that it was full of trolls and that all the information is buried in trash. There are other webforums that will allow your beliefs to go unchallenged.

If you feel uncomfortable that is fine. This website was created to test your preconceived notions and bust FRAUDS.

For example, how many years did you practice Wing Chun? If none, this is a preconceived notion:

But I see a lot of controversy about this as far as what works and what doesn't. I was fond of Wing Chun and Jun Fan but people are suggesting that Chi Sao does not work.

Some people do help, other do not and that is the way of the real world outside of the internet.

[bigato]

Since you grew up in a tough 'hood, you don't need to be afraid here. It's just vigorous debate with a love for truth.

[goodlun]

I will admit to one thing, I have to dial back my snarkiness when I go to post on a few other message boards I am on after posting here.
Truth is though I am a snarky person, I am rather snarky in person, but I try and manage my manners to be appropriate to what ever community I am in. Here pulling ones punches isn't as necessary on a great deal of the board.
So I don't think it has so much to do with it being the "internet" as being what the community finds acceptable and puts up with and encourages.

[Internet-fu]

First up you'll notice that I didn't disagree with you. In fact, I've not stated any position, I am merely pointing out some things that will help you to argue your points out in the wild [forums] better. The mods have moved your post here (newbietown, where you are somewhat protected) which highlights that you need some guidance in acclimatising to the atmosphere on this site.

K...

Case in point, you mentioned statistical proof, but when pushed you would provide studies. Whilst more of a semantic issue, if you have studies say 'studies indicate' rather than 'statistically proven'. Again, just trying to help.

Yeah, semantics. There are studies that show that. I think I can post links now when I have more time I will put together something.

The problem is that people hide behind 'politeness' (or honour or integrity or any number of other traits they "humbly" assign to themselves) relying on people's political correctness so that they can present false information as true without fear of being checked. Whilst it is a confronting mindset at first, sweeping aside the usual platitutdes and vigorously chasing facts/sources is essential in extracting the truth.

Nah I think that is total bunk. No offense. I have seen people "win" arguments with well placed insults and other bullshit that was not even relevant to a given conversation even when they were 100% factually wrong. People hide behind insults when their argument is failing. That's the core of "Ad hominem" and "Appeal to ridicule" fallacies. Which are both attempts to hide the weakness of someone's argument by attacking the person rather then the issue.

See, I would contend that politeness etc. is the flashy stuff that needs to be stripped away.

Anyone who is right does not need to be rude about it. The facts are presented and they make the argument. I have seen taunts, ridicule and witty insults completely distract from the total logical failure of someone's argument. Most of that stuff plays on man's natural fear of rejection and ostracism because as primitive hunter-gatherers being cast out of the tribe was a good way to get killed. When people see someone being ganged up on they tend to hesitate before coming to their aid because to associate yourself with the person being cast out risks the same thing happening to you. We tend to learn this stuff in school where the "in crowd" gets to assume dominance by controlling this sort of dialog. And that's how you end up being measured by silly illogical things like the sort of shoes you wear rather then your intellect or character.

Not sure, haven't been on the original thread. Also, which crusade are you referring to?

Trolls or troll-addicts sometimes find a "cause" to latch onto so they can justify their "cyber-bullying" behavior. You will find people who are say, political activists deciding to spend their time going to the forums or facebook groups of people who represent the opposing view (liberals vs. conservatives, etc) and spending a lot of time verbally spitting on people to get their satisfaction and when they are done to avoid remorse they come up with some way to rationalize it. Clearly those nasty people "had it coming".

There is nothing wrong with criticism. But when you apply silly juvenile insults to it, it's like adding something flowery and unnecessary to your martial skills. I guess it depends on your goal.

Do you want to "win" debates in the eyes of people stupid enough to think that if I call you a poopy-head while I say 2+2=5 that I "win"?

Or do you want to share information and arrive at a new understanding?

[goodlun]

Show me a case where here on this site someone has actually "won" an argument with
"Ad hominem" and "Appeal to ridicule" fallacies.

[jnp]

I am still trying to sift through all of the haze here. (This is another reason I wish people would try to just share information and less opinion or hassle.) If we are going to be able to learn from each other we need to be able to talk about our views without threats of being attacked or ridiculed for it. If someone is wrong you should want to help them learn. If it comes to a debate then the "opponent" is the "wrong answer". Not the other person.

I see people mocking the idea that things being workable on the street is important. I can see why some people might use that as a dodge if they don't want to step in the ring. But the ridicule and "Appeal to mockery" fallacy of it is basically a psychological tactic and not a logical one.

This forum is slightly different than most because of throwdowns. Members get together and spar at predetermined levels of contact at TD's.

Putting an emphasis on getting together and sparring, along with requiring members to back up their claims with facts, has forged an unique environment. Additionally, some forums are moderated as little as possible to encourage unfettered debate. Consequently, we have our share of "mouth boxers". This is the "haze" you mentioned. Regular members understand that these types never show up for TD's, and disregard what they have to say.

Concerning your search for an effective martial art, the only truly reliable tactic to use against multiple opponents is a weapon, preferably a firearm. All unarmed encounters against more than one boils down to how well your self defense skills stack up against the skills of both the group and individuals that make up the "multiples".

I realize the same could be said for one on one, but the OP mentioned "multiples".

[It is Fake]

K...



Yeah, semantics. There are studies that show that. I think I can post links now when I have more time I will put together something.




Nah I think that is total bunk. No offense. I have seen people "win" arguments with well placed insults and other bullshit that was not even relevant to a given conversation even when they were 100% factually wrong. People hide behind insults when their argument is failing. That's the core of "Ad hominem" and "Appeal to ridicule" fallacies. Which are both attempts to hide the weakness of someone's argument by attacking the person rather then the issue.

Welcome to bullshido. Get these threads, on this website, and show us where they are 100% factually wrong. Please provide sources when you get the chance.

Make sure you understand the difference between an insult laden retort and an ad hominem attack. You can be 100% factual, "win an argument" and be completely an utterly insulting.

Anyone who is right does not need to be rude about it. The facts are presented and they make the argument. I have seen taunts, ridicule and witty insults completely distract from the total logical failure of someone's argument. Most of that stuff plays on man's natural fear of rejection and ostracism because as primitive hunter-gatherers being cast out of the tribe was a good way to get killed. When people see someone being ganged up on they tend to hesitate before coming to their aid because to associate yourself with the person being cast out risks the same thing happening to you. We tend to learn this stuff in school where the "in crowd" gets to assume dominance by controlling this sort of dialog. And that's how you end up being measured by silly illogical things like the sort of shoes you wear rather then your intellect or character.

Get your sources you are going further and further left field.

Trolls or troll-addicts sometimes find a "cause" to latch onto so they can justify their "cyber-bullying" behavior. You will find people who are say, political activists deciding to spend their time going to the forums or facebook groups of people who represent the opposing view (liberals vs. conservatives, etc) and spending a lot of time verbally spitting on people to get their satisfaction and when they are done to avoid remorse they come up with some way to rationalize it. Clearly those nasty people "had it coming".

Interesting, you have part of the use of Rhetoric down, but you still insist on alienating your audience.

There is nothing wrong with criticism. But when you apply silly juvenile insults to it, it's like adding something flowery and unnecessary to your martial skills. I guess it depends on your goal.

Do you want to "win" debates in the eyes of people stupid enough to think that if I call you a poopy-head while I say 2+2=5 that I "win"?

Or do you want to share information and arrive at a new understanding?

See above, you are now making claims, but refuse to source any threads.

[Internet-fu]

Welcome to bullshido. Get these threads, on this website, and show us where they are 100% factually wrong. Please provide sources when you get the chance.

Make sure you understand the difference between an insult laden retort and an ad hominem attack. You can be 100% factual, "win an argument" and be completely an utterly insulting.


Get your sources you are going further and further left field.


Interesting, you have part of the use of Rhetoric down, but you still insist on alienating your audience.


See above, you are now making claims, but refuse to source any threads.

I think it is important to point out that I am referring to internet in general and not solely to things going on on this forum. Though I have seen some things here. I will find you some threads.

However, none of that is going to matter if we cannot agree on one basic principle.

When someone is adding personal attack and insult to a debate that's an attempt to defame or shame the person they are talking to. And that is never constructive. If you are correct, give the facts and demonstrate why. When people add the insults it actually hinders the entire process.

A martial artist I once talked to who trained a lot of JKD said he enjoyed training with the Machado Brothers because if you had an idea and they did not agree with it they would let you test it out so that you could get the facts of the situation and then base your future practice on that. No ego. No insults. No bullshit. The environment created in that situation means that people can freely exchange ideas and theories and share information, working through any disagreements with the scientific method.

I have seen too many arguments where the insults are thrown in that causes one of the parties to shut off their brain. Then the insults start getting tossed back and forth and the intellectual exchange becomes harder and harder to find to the point in many cases it becomes non-existent. And all that is left is two adults typing stuff they would not let their kids say. And wasting a great deal of time.

In an environment where learning is supposed to take place, it needs to be "safe" to be "wrong".

[It is Fake]

I think it is important to point out that I am referring to internet in general and not solely to things going on on this forum. Though I have seen some things here. I will find you some threads.

However, none of that is going to matter if we cannot agree on one basic principle.

When someone is adding personal attack and insult to a debate that's an attempt to defame or shame the person they are talking to. And that is never constructive. If you are correct, give the facts and demonstrate why. When people add the insults it actually hinders the entire process.

A martial artist I once talked to who trained a lot of JKD said he enjoyed training with the Machado Brothers because if you had an idea and they did not agree with it they would let you test it out so that you could get the facts of the situation and then base your future practice on that. No ego. No insults. No bullshit. The environment created in that situation means that people can freely exchange ideas and theories and share information, working through any disagreements with the scientific method.

I have seen too many arguments where the insults are thrown in that causes one of the parties to shut off their brain. Then the insults start getting tossed back and forth and the intellectual exchange becomes harder and harder to find to the point in many cases it becomes non-existent. And all that is left is two adults typing stuff they would not let their kids say. And wasting a great deal of time.

In an environment where learning is supposed to take place, it needs to be "safe" to be "wrong".

Ahhhh, you are one of those debaters. You set YOUR specific definitions, parameters and "logic" for a debate. Then you can argue "OMG SEE HE IS SHAMING ME." We will never agree on YOUR principles because you are trying to make the ENTIRE internet fit your definition of bullying, debating, and learning.


I'd pick your post apart, but you are OBVIOUSLY carrying baggage form some other SEVERE internet forum fight.

Strike that, your use of defame and shaming means it is more than one bad argument.

[Internet-fu]

This thread I think kind of personifies what I am talking about.

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show...=117937&page=2

Lets look at some of the great stuff that I wish I could get the moments of my life back that I spent reading:

The sad truth is none of those things will ever make your penis larger or your hair grow back.

Hence the continued feelings of inadequacy.

Please excuse us mere plebeians for not acheiving your remarkable level of self hatred.

Hold on honey, when the adults are done talking about important things, we'll come over and play with you too.

Whatever age you may have reached, your attitude reveals that you are still very far away from being a grown man.

Maybe if you lose a few more fights? I now you can do it if you try...

There is tons of that crap you have to sift through to get to the actual information being exchanged. And it's lame. Seriously lame.