Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
are the exiled posters just trolls? is it that simple? they don't care about the positions they take. they just come to disrupt?
People are going to have other opinions, but I would say it's not quite that simple, especially if by trolling you mean specifically
insincere disruption.
It is true that they are pretty universally disruptively bad posters. Some are undoubtedly insincere, but not all. I have no opinion on El Lobo Gordo's sincerity at this point, for example. My impression is that Juan sincerely holds the views he expresses, but I have often complained to him that he argues badly for them and is frustrating to interact with. Bundy's attitude towards the forum strikes me as genuine also, like I don't think pure trolls are typically as invested (obsessed?) as he is.
I think in the politics forum "argues badly" is usually taken to be trolling regardless of intent. Hence people also call SenorKeeed a troll because they think he argues badly. Arguing badly
for objectionable* views gets people exiled pretty quickly. There's no doubt that the second part is also important: Ikes was never banned. Keeed isn't banned. Inso isn't banned. Wookie's post about juan isn't just focused on him being a sophist, it's about him being a sophist in support of racist views. When these decisions are discussed some people focus on the first part, and others on the second, but they are both factors.
* from the point of view of the majority of forum participants. Obviously some of the biggest disagreements between liberals and conservatives in the US right now are about what views on race, gender, immigration, and so on are legitimate and which are bigoted. So Mason may be primarily concerned with civility but Juan is not; he's engaged in the larger culture war on those issues.