30 ms·

That won't make a lick of difference. Any statement of the form 'X is great, because ...' or 'I like X, because ...' will be interpreted by a bunch of people as

That won't make a lick of difference. Any statement of the form 'X is great, because ...' or 'I like X, because ...' will be interpreted by a bunch of people as 'He means Y, which I love, is not great and is lesser than X. Otherwise, he would be using Y. He must obviously think it sucks, which shows what an idiot he is'. And the stage is set. Nobody forces you to pander to these people's neuroses. You are not the troll whisperer. This over here is my favourite interview question. That over there is my favourite line of Ruby code. This is my favourite book. I wrote blog posts about all of these subjects and attracted exactly the responses you describe. But I was happiest when I ignored the people who had an agenda of arguing about their favourite interview question or their favoruite line of code or their favourite book. Nobody compels you to play their game. So don't.

Troll_Whisperer 15y ago
By choosing a favorite, you cannot help but choose an infinitude of not-favorites. With a high-traffic blog such as yours, it's near certain that some people will believe you've shown yourself to be an idiot by missing a superior choice. Neuroses may be at work in some cases, but it's arrogant to assume that all who disagree with you are neurotic.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Choosing to believe something about what I believe based on my expressing my like for something is not neurotic. ASking me to explain myself or seeking further information about my choices is certainly not neurotic. Choosing to believe I'm an idiot because you like something else and because I didn't attempt to intellectually bludgeon you into agreeing with me is _____, but it's not neurotic. But someone getting so invested in what they think that a stranger believes, such that they have to start a flame war? And expecting that I have some sort of obligation to their egocentricity such that I must respond to their questions? Well, I'm not a psychologist, so the odds are strongly against this being clinically neurotic. But it isn't for me, and I don't feel a compulsion to play along. p.s. Again, this isn't about people's right to believe what they want to believe. I'm ok with people believing I'm an idiot. They may be right! But what I'm talking about is whether I have to respond. I don't. I also don't have to worry about it when I write such that I try to deflect criticism or protect my reputation.
Confusion 15y ago
I find it difficult not to respond for at least two reasons: - The information is often factually wrong. Letting wrong information go uncorrected will lead to that information spreading and that doesn't seem like a good thing to me. - It often doesn't seem to be the intention of people to troll and it is hard to suppress the urge to teach. It would be awesome if you could get more people to intentionally not-troll. The first may be an instance of http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/ and the second may be a case of vanity (thinking you can change people), but just ignoring people doesn't improve things either, so shouldn't you at least try? Unfortunately, attempting to address both these points simultaneously seems a recipe for disaster and just results in 'feeding the troll'.

Troll_Whisperer 15y ago

By choosing a favorite, you cannot help but choose an infinitude of not-favorites. With a high-traffic blog such as yours, it's near certain that some people will believe you've shown yourself to be an idiot by missing a superior choice. Neuroses may be at work in some cases, but it's arrogant to assume that all who disagree with you are neurotic.

raganwald 15y ago
Choosing to believe something about what I believe based on my expressing my like for something is not neurotic. ASking me to explain myself or seeking further information about my choices is certainly not neurotic. Choosing to believe I'm an idiot because you like something else and because I didn't attempt to intellectually bludgeon you into agreeing with me is _____, but it's not neurotic. But someone getting so invested in what they think that a stranger believes, such that they have to start a flame war? And expecting that I have some sort of obligation to their egocentricity such that I must respond to their questions? Well, I'm not a psychologist, so the odds are strongly against this being clinically neurotic. But it isn't for me, and I don't feel a compulsion to play along. p.s. Again, this isn't about people's right to believe what they want to believe. I'm ok with people believing I'm an idiot. They may be right! But what I'm talking about is whether I have to respond. I don't. I also don't have to worry about it when I write such that I try to deflect criticism or protect my reputation.

Confusion 15y ago

I find it difficult not to respond for at least two reasons: - The information is often factually wrong. Letting wrong information go uncorrected will lead to that information spreading and that doesn't seem like a good thing to me. - It often doesn't seem to be the intention of people to troll and it is hard to suppress the urge to teach. It would be awesome if you could get more people to intentionally not-troll. The first may be an instance of http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/ and the second may be a case of vanity (thinking you can change people), but just ignoring people doesn't improve things either, so shouldn't you at least try? Unfortunately, attempting to address both these points simultaneously seems a recipe for disaster and just results in 'feeding the troll'.