Internet trolls are cowardly bullies.

Post Reply New Topic

the Spartans frowned on arrows/peltasts/javelins as "cowards" weapons. Later the church tried to ban the crossbow. I see both as expressions of futile contempt for more advanced methods of war that some established military thinkers disagree with due to traditionalist views. The drone is no different

No troll stripes for you I'm afraid

You know, in the movie Aliens it would actually make more sense to use remote controlled killer robots to deal with the aliens rather than sending in soldiers.

"Your Sneezing" topic

I am back after a few weeks of non-internet busy-ness. Some guy named Silent Sam or some such username pm'd me, asking for the reasons for my sneezing, an apparent research topic. I clicked on his (gender ticked as male) profile and he had made no other posts, so I figured he was a sort of spammer troll and deleted without responding.

My point is that to ignore trolls/spammers/flamers/whatever-label-is-currently-in-vogue might be the best option. I know I delete at least six emails a day from Nigeria.

that's because the Spartans preferred direct man on man action.
They sacrificed to Eros before every battle.

I will never understand why anyone thinks it's better to fight hard than fight smart. I'd much rather stack the odds against the enemy as much as possible than fight a war of attrition. You guys can call it cowardly, but I call it cowardly to insist on "fair fights" because you're afraid of being outsmarted. And yeah, no troll stripes for laffhaqq since trolling isn't exactly mano-y-mano

Its all about traditionalism. Even looking at World War I/II traditionalism was a problem. Those who adapt succeed and take fewer losses. At the beginning of the Second World War the Allies had little reason to adapt new tactics (despite some theorists talking about them, like Fuller, De Gaulle, etc) as they had won the previous war. The Germans on the other hand had every reason to avoid that kind of stalemate and meat grinder and thus effectively utilized blitzkrieg in the early part, while many Allied generals were still thinking in terms of "salients", "containment", and other antiquated World War I terms.

That they did

Not intending to kill anyone, lol.

Call me old-fashioned, but I would argue that there is a marked difference between projectile weaponry, and playing a damned video game that ends life in reality from a continent away. Granted, war is dehumanizing, but if you call the complete dehumanization of war "progress" then I would suggest you undergo a PCL-R screening. But I guess that goes off-topic into the whole notion of what defines humanity... and I do have a deep-seated bias, having derived my ideas about warfare from the most ethical tradition on the subject ever known.



Not saying that fighting hard is better than fighting smart - it never is preferable to get caught up in a war of attrition for obvious reasons. The issue here is not whether using weaponry like drones is 'smart', but whether it is ethical or cowardly. If anyone has an argument that can substantiate the claim that no warfare can be done ethically and intelligently in like turn, then please make an attempt. It would be difficult to do however, because there is historical precedent, and modern global conditions show such an incredible disparity in military capacity between conflicting groups (most of the time.) The best tacticians in the history of warfare were able to win battles with minimal casualties on both sides, in many examples with virtually no casualties on the side of the opposition nor with their own forces, by using smart tactics rather than superior technology or 'dirty tricks.'

I can also guarantee you that anyone being wiped out by our drones worldwide aren't ''afraid of being outsmarted." That is ridiculous on the level of "they hate us for our freedoms." They are afraid of the high propensity towards arbitrary civilian casualties anywhere they are deployed. Just ask anyone that ever attended a wedding party (or any other peaceful social gathering) in Afghanistan. Or Pakistan. Or Somalia. Or Yemen. Yeah, we Muslims (even us Americans) are pretty pissed off about the whole issue (along with many other conscience-possessing humans) because the number of civilian deaths greatly outweigh and outnumber those of so-called insurgents. Especially since, say, in Afghanistan
most of those brothers don't even know why the f%#& we invaded their country.

For the record, I wasn't hoping to earn troll stripes - I figure that I must have earned them through other posts, lol. Just wanted to point out something that, IMHO, has more ethical merit than something trivial by comparison. Trolling is one oddball phenomenon though; I'll at least try to substantiate any claims instead of just getting ad-hominem for s**ts and giggles like a typical troll.

You know what I also dislike? People labeling posters they dislike trolls, even though they aren't intentionally upsetting people. It can become a witch-hunt as well.

You mean the Islamic Canon? That is rich!

ruveyn

And that kids is why you are not allowed to call someone a troll on this boards and if you are concerned about someone displaying trollish traits you have to contact a mod about it.
Plenty of people misuse this term quite frequently and a witch-hunt can lead to an awfull amount of trouble for members that are looking for answers to some of their questions(you go into a serious topic expecting some interesting debate finding members mocking each other and its just sad)and to the moderator team(figuring out on what grounds are they calling each other troll, figuring out wether either of them is a troll or not...).

Or accusing all new members of being trolls just because they suffer from paranoia. Not cool.

Umm... it doesn't look like he's paranoid.

Please remember that suggesting someone is paranoid on the boards can be considered a personal attack and the mods may have to intervene if this doesnt stop now.

Do you have a list of all the things that are considered personal attacks under the new regime? How about if I suggest someone can't spell by correcting a word they used? I assume you mean that "paranoia" is a mean or "wrong" or "bad" thing to be so suggesting it is attacking someone. Do you have a list of all the "bad" words someplace so that the membership can tell in advance when they are coming up against the rules and need to be put back in line?

Saying someone has a psychological disorder is a personal attack(wether its true or not)unless the other member is open about having it(its no longer seen as a suggestion but a well established fact).

Right now the rule we are following is you can attack an idea but you cant attack a poster. You can say that a certain idea is wrong and try to show them why its wrong but you cant say that a certain person is an idiot for having ideas you dont agree with.
donnie_darko´s post is alright because it doesnt include any attack towards him and just shows their perception about how a certain member behaves yours isnt alright because it contains a suggestion of a mental issue which is considered to be a personal attack.

As a rule of thumb you can attack an idea but you cant attack the member that posted it.

So to say that "the idea of thinking that every new user or anyone who disagrees with you is a troll is a rather paranoid notion" is allowed then?