|
|
|
|
|
Notícies :: altres temes |
|
Campaña de Ateus de Catalunya: la religión fuera de la escuela.
|
|
|
per http://www.ateus.org/ |
29 set 2004
|
Campaña de Ateus de Catalunya: la religión fuera de la escuela.
En estos momentos de confusión nos llega una campaña con un lenguaje
claro. Europa Laica continuará apoyando, en el mejor espíritu de
colaboración, este tipo de iniciativas, mantenga o no relaciones
estructurales con las organizaciones que las promueven.
Sólo echamos en falta las alusiones a la enseñanza concertada
(privada mantenida con fondos públicos), el 90% de la cual está en
manos de congregaciones religiosas católicas.
En ellas, el profesorado pagado con el dinero público, en todas las
áreas y materias, es seleccionado en virtud a su sumisión al ideario
religioso de los centros. Se trata, pues, de una oferta de empleo
público que vulnera de manera directa el artículo 14 de la
Constitución. ¿Qué harían los sindicatos si una oferta de empleo
público de este tipo, para profesores de Matemáticas, por ejemplo,
estuviera reservada a ateos reconocidos?
Por otra parte, las escuelas privadas concertadas cubren, de manera
subsidiaria, un servicio público dirigido a toda la comunidad. ¿Puede
permitirse, pues, en los itinerarios oficiales, un adoctrinamiento en
un ideario particular?
Con esta salvedad, la campaña de Ateus de Catalunya nos parece
clarificadora en estos momentos de confusión.
El archivo en pdf, al ser traducido a word, pierde toda su
presentación, por lo que es aconsejable consultarlo directamente en
la web de Ateus.
Campaña para suprimir
LA ASIGNATURA DE RELIGIÓN
de las escuelas e institutos
Para más información:
Ateus de Catalunya
Apartado de correos, 13.112
08080-Barcelona
Tel.: 696 50 56 36
E-mail: info ARROBA ateus.org
web: www.ateus.org |
Campaña de Ateus de Catalunya: la religión fuera de la escuela.
http://www.ateus.org/
http://www.nuncamas.net/
En estos momentos de confusión nos llega una campaña con un lenguaje
claro. Europa Laica continuará apoyando, en el mejor espíritu de
colaboración, este tipo de iniciativas, mantenga o no relaciones
estructurales con las organizaciones que las promueven.
Sólo echamos en falta las alusiones a la enseñanza concertada
(privada mantenida con fondos públicos), el 90% de la cual está en
manos de congregaciones religiosas católicas.
En ellas, el profesorado pagado con el dinero público, en todas las
áreas y materias, es seleccionado en virtud a su sumisión al ideario
religioso de los centros. Se trata, pues, de una oferta de empleo
público que vulnera de manera directa el artículo 14 de la
Constitución. ¿Qué harían los sindicatos si una oferta de empleo
público de este tipo, para profesores de Matemáticas, por ejemplo,
estuviera reservada a ateos reconocidos?
Por otra parte, las escuelas privadas concertadas cubren, de manera
subsidiaria, un servicio público dirigido a toda la comunidad. ¿Puede
permitirse, pues, en los itinerarios oficiales, un adoctrinamiento en
un ideario particular?
Con esta salvedad, la campaña de Ateus de Catalunya nos parece
clarificadora en estos momentos de confusión.
El archivo en pdf, al ser traducido a word, pierde toda su
presentación, por lo que es aconsejable consultarlo directamente en
la web de Ateus.
Campaña para suprimir
LA ASIGNATURA DE RELIGIÓN
de las escuelas e institutos
Para más información:
Ateus de Catalunya
Apartado de correos, 13.112
08080-Barcelona
Tel.: 696 50 56 36
E-mail: info ARROBA ateus.org
web: www.ateus.org
Ateus de Catalunya
Esta campaña pretende sensibilizar a la opinión
pública en general, pero en especial a la comunidad
educativa, de la necesidad de suprimir
cualquier contenido de carácter confesional o doctrinario
del sistema educativo oficial, incluyendo toda
referencia a elementos religiosos o ideológicos en
forma de fenómenos culturales dentro de las disciplinas
correspondientes, y previniendo la posibilidad
de que el ámbito educativo pueda transformarse en
una plataforma de adoctrinamiento.
La función del sistema educativo debería ser formar
a los niños y jóvenes en una educación laica, respetuosa
con las diferentes opciones de conciencia, como corresponde
al marco aconfesional definido por la
Constitución, pero a su vez preservando el ámbito
educativo de cualquier posible injerencia proselitista
por parte de grupos religiosos o ideológicos con sus
propios intereses particulares
La realidad nos muestra en cambio que la asignatura
de religión que figura en los actuales planes de
estudio es una asignatura "confesional" que tiene como
único objetivo la transmisión de la "fe". La religión
es una creencia, no una forma de conocimiento. Es una
ideología administrada por colectivos con intereses
propios y, por tanto, su aprendizaje debería ser algo
completamente voluntario y privado. El lugar natural
de la religión no puede ser el ámbito educativo oficial,
y menos aun ser financiada con fondos públicos.
Su presencia en los planes de estudio es un atentado
inaceptable a la libertad de conciencia que pone
en cuestión la autonomía intelectual del individuo y
la propia neutralidad ideológica del Estado.
En el marco de una sociedad cada vez más pluricultural
es imprescindible garantizar la laicidad del
sistema educativo, preservando el legítimo derecho
a la diferencia que debe de poder ejercerse con plena
libertad, pero sin invadir el espacio público patrimonio
de todos los ciudadanos. Si queremos el día de
mañana una sociedad democrática formada por hombres
y mujeres libres entonces no podemos permitir
que nuestras escuelas e institutos se sigan utilizando
como plataformas de apostolado. Es preciso suprimir
la asignatura de religión del sistema educativo.
Ateus de Catalunya
Manifest per l’ateisme
Nosaltres, ciutadans ateus de Catalunya, lliure i voluntàriament, manifestem que no creiem en cap déu, que no creiem en l’existència d’una realitat transcendent més enllà d’aquest món que ens ha tocat viure i que considerem l’home com un ésser finit amb un principi i un final on tot s’acaba. Entenem que el reconeixement i l’acceptació d'aquesta naturalesa material i finita serà fonamental perquè l’home pugui superar els reptes del món actual i afrontar amb possibilitats d’èxit les dificultats que presenti el futur, i per tant considerem que ha arribat l'hora de reivindicar un paper protagonista per a nosaltres en aquesta societat.
Sostenim que no hi ha cap raó objectiva ni consistent per considerar més enllà de la realitat material, és a dir de la nostra finitud, l'existència d’éssers amb una naturalesa diferent i superior a la humana en els quals es trobin l’origen i el sentit de la nostra existència. Per la mateixa raó també neguem la possibilitat de qualsevol mena d’ànima que segueixi mantenint quelcom similar a una activitat espiritual després de la mort del ser viu.
Algú podria pensar que al negar l’existència d’un déu transcendent i tancar la porta a un més enllà després de la mort l’ateisme aboca l’home a una espècie de carreró sense sortida, a una mena de desesperació, però res no és més lluny de la realitat; l’ateisme no és una forma de pensament negativa ni pessimista basada en l’oposició ni en la falta d’esperança, sinó tot el contrari. L'ateisme és alliberador, perquè retorna a l'home el govern i la responsabilitat dels seus actes i del seu destí.
L'ateisme ensenya que cal valorar la vida a la terra, l'única que tenim, i recupera per l'home l'orgull de saber-se propietari de la seves decisions, de les seves capacitats, de les seves possibilitats. Però també li recorda que la vida dels seus fills, dels seus versemblants i el llegat que transmeti a les futures generacions estan a les seves mans. El món que en resulti serà responsabilitat seva, i per tant té la possibilitat d'esforçar-se per a millorar-lo mica a mica, cada dia, en benefici de tots, o bé de conduir als nostres hereus a viure en un veritable infern, però no en un temps fictici ni en algun indret estrany, sinó en aquesta casa nostra que és la terra. Res no està escrit. Tenim al davant un full en blanc per a materialitzar els nostres somnis i aconseguir el progrés i el benestar de tota la humanitat, o bé per a fer-la desaparèixer.
Per això és fonamental que siguem capaços d'assumir la nostra verdadera identitat i de gaudir amb valentia i responsabilitat de la vida sense esperar ajudes de l’exterior ni pretendre trobar la recompensa als nostres actes en un altre temps, perquè això és tot el que tenim i la nostra vida tan feble s’acaba completa i definitivament amb la mort. Això no és trist ni és alegre, no és bo ni dolent, ens agradi o no ens agradi és tan sols la inexorable realitat. I per a nosaltres és un senyal de maduresa el tractar de veure les coses tal com són, doncs solament a partir del reconeixement de la pròpia naturalesa podrem intentar superar-nos per arribar a construir aquest futur millor que desitgem per a tots.
Al llarg dels segles el món ha avançat gràcies al coneixement, però mai gràcies a la religió. Quan s’han produït contribucions al coneixement de persones amb conviccions religioses sovint ha estat malgrat els impediments de les seves pròpies creences, i sovint aquestes persones ho han pagat car, doncs a la religió no li interessa el coneixement de la veritat, sinó solament allò que li permet justificar el dogma de les seves creences per tal de perpetuar-se. Si la ciència o els descobriments s’han adequat als seus interessos han estat acceptats i recolzats. Sinó, han estat repudiats, i els seus responsables excomunicats, torturats i quan ha convingut sacrificats. Molts homes i dones il·lustres constitueixen el testimoni d’aquesta afirmació al llarg de la història. Una història d’interessos i d’intransigència que no sembla avenir-se gaire amb les idees de llibertat i de tolerància que nosaltres volem veure prevaler al segle que ara comença.
Els nous temps demanen noves formes d'anàlisi i noves solucions. La moral que defensen i tracten d'imposar les religions al conjunt de la societat és una moral caduca i hipòcrita que únicament respon a condicions de vida, a models socials i a interessos del passat, i per tant és una moral que ha de ser superada per noves propostes que responguin amb eficàcia a la realitat del present i que puguin servir de referència a les necessitats del futur. Obstinar-se a mantenir els dogmes de la fe com a paradigma d’una pretesa virtut tan sols serveix per frenar el progrés i per retardar la incorporació a la societat dels avenços proporcionats pel coneixement i les noves possibilitats de la tecnologia, condemnant amplis sectors de la població a un patiment gratuït, o a una contradicció permanent entre la seva forma de viure i els models anacrònics que les religions volen seguir imposant per tal de preservar els seus interessos particulars.
L'home necessita preguntar-se sobre les qüestions fonamentals. La història de la civilització ha estat en definitiva la història de la lluita de l'home contra la ignorància, per reduir l'àmbit d'allò que anomenem el desconegut, de la part de la naturalesa que no hem arribat encara a comprendre. L'ateisme no és més, en realitat, que una conclusió lògica, una resposta consistent davant de determinades preguntes que l'home s'ha fet reiteradament al llarg dels segles. No hi ha cap raó, cap argument, cap necessitat de dipositar en mans d'una força màgica ni d'una suposada divinitat sobrenatural el destí dels homes, i encara menys en una casta d'intermediaris que pretenen constituir-se en interlocutors únics d'aquesta suposada veritat.
L'ateisme fomenta la llibertat de pensament i la reflexió individual, confia en el poder del coneixement, en l'esforç d'autosuperació per a transformar la naturalesa en benefici de l'home però amb la prudència exigible per a no exhaurir-la, en la intel·ligència per a crear un sistema moral i per a organitzar la societat en base a la raó i a la justícia. L'ateisme confia en l'home i estimula la seva capacitat per aconseguir el progrés gràcies al propi esforç i a la col·laboració de tothom. L'ateisme restitueix definitivament a l'home la seva dignitat. La religió en canvi ensenya el menyspreu per la vida a canvi d'una recompensa que solament podrà obtenir-se mitjançant l'obediència i la submissió. Obediència a qui? Submissió per què?
Ha arribat l'hora de renovar les velles estructures de pensament. Ha arribat l'hora de treballar per garantir la defensa del dret de totes les persones a la llibertat de consciència, a manifestar i a difondre el seu pensament sense coaccions imposades per tabús socials ni per la profusió de medis que gaudeixen les religions ni altres formes d'intolerància. Ha arribat l'hora de defensar la igualtat d'oportunitats per a tothom sense discriminacions induïdes per l'adscripció escèptica o religiosa de cadascú, de vetllar per la independència de l'Estat respecte de l'Església, denunciant pressions, privilegis, ingerències, de reclamar per als no creients el mateix tracte respectuós i els mateixos drets que s'atorguen a les demés organitzacions. Ha arribat l'hora de conscienciar els ciutadans sobre l'enorme poder i la desmesurada influència que les religions tenen en tots els àmbits de la societat i sobre les fatals conseqüències que s'en deriven. Ha arribat l'hora de fer de l'ateisme un valor de referència imprescindible a l'hora d'organitzar la vida social.
Nosaltres entenem l'ateisme com un sistema obert, generós, que s'enriqueix quan rep aportacions noves, que té per objecte el coneixement i el progrés, però també que s'oposa a qualsevol dogmatisme. El nostre no és un projecte en contra de déu, perquè entenem que no pot ser la simple negació el motor que impulsi la construcció d'una societat nova. El nostre és senzillament un projecte sense necessitat de déu. És el projecte d'una concepció del món que cerca en l'home els principis d'una societat laica, d'una societat oberta a tots i basada en la tolerància, la cooperació i la solidaritat, sense interferència de la religió en l'exercici del poder polític, que estigui orientada a servir als ciutadans sense distincions i no a mantenir privilegis en nom d'una transcendència que mai ningú no ha conegut, ni mai ningú no podrà comprovar.
El nostre propòsit és agrupar totes aquelles persones amb idees basades en la tolerància, la independència de pensament i lliures de prejudicis històrics que estiguin disposades a defensar el seu escepticisme davant la poderosa influència que la religió té encara a la nostra societat. Esperem poder reunir tots els ateus en un fòrum comú perquè puguin col·laborar amb les seves aportacions a enriquir, lliurement i sense por, el debat comú per decidir el futur que volem, el model de convivència de les societats i els pobles del món. És una iniciativa ambiciosa que requereix la participació i la col·laboració de tots els ateus. Ara és el moment de construir una associació forta. Esperem poder comptar ben aviat amb un gran suport per aquesta tasca.
Aprovat per l'Assemblea General d'Ateus de Catalunya al solstici d'hivern de l'any 2000. |
Mira també:
http://www.ateus.org/
http://www.nuncamas.net/
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comentaris
|
Otro post gentileza de Cercle Obert de la Caja Roja de Nestlé
|
|
per AnTROLLnio Marin Segovia |
29 set 2004
|
Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
On the Internet, troll is a slang term used to describe:
A post (on a newsgroup, or other forum) that is solely intended to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense. (Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not trolls.)
A person who posts these.
The term has negative connotations, and is often applied as an insult, while simultaneously being claimed as a 'badge of honour' by troll organizations or individuals. Sincere but controversial or naive posters are sometimes mis-labeled as trolls, but the term is generally considered to be correctly applied only to those looking to provoke outrage or discord.
A troll's reactions to being identified as a troll can vary widely depending on the forum in which the exchange takes place. Any person unjustly accused of being a troll may be hurt and express indignation. A troll will sometimes react with verbal abuse, raising the stakes with inflammatory remarks maligning the motivation of the accuser. If a person pursues his/her perceived enemy from site to site, that is most certainly a troll.
Trolling is often described as an online version of the breaching experiment, where social boundaries and rules of etiquette are broken. Self-proclaimed trolls often style themselves as Devil's Advocates or gadflies, challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of the forum they are "trolling" in an attempt to subvert and introduce different ways of thinking. Detractors who value etiquette claim that true "Devil's Advocates" generally identify themselves as such for the sake of etiquette, whereas trolls often consider etiquette to be something worth trolling.
Trolls are sometimes caricatured as socially inept. This is often due to fundamental attribution error, as it is difficult to know the real traits of an individual solely from their online discourse. Indeed, since intentional trolls are alleged to knowingly flout social boundaries, it is difficult to typecast them as socially inept since they have arguably proven adept at their goal of inciting conflict.
Contents [showhide]
1 Origins
2 Research and study: "trolling" as identity deception
2.1 Pre-history
2.2 Trolling in the 1990s
3 Usage
4 Trolling in different Internet media
5 Examples
5.1 Other examples
6 Motivation
7 Resolutions and alternatives
8 Usefulness of trolling
9 Related articles
9.1 Specific trolling subcultures
9.2 Notable troll examples
9.3 Miscellaneous
10 External links
[edit]
Origins
The terms "trolling" and "troll-posting", like the term flamebait, originated as a fishing metaphor: like people who troll for fish, trolls were "baiting" reactions of anger, shock, or argument. Later, the verb became a noun; a "troll-poster" was simply called a "troll", an intentional comparison with the ugly, mean-tempered troll of folklore.
[edit]
Research and study: "trolling" as identity deception
[edit]
Pre-history
Prior to DejaNews' archiving of Usenet, accounts of trolling were sketchy, there being little evidence to sort through. After this time however, the huge archives were available for researchers. One early troll was Brad Weage, who frequented the PLATO system in the middle of the 1970s, but this is poorly documented. Another poorly documented case is the 1982–1983 saga of AlexAndJoan from the CompuServe forums. Van Gelder, a reporter for Ms. magazine, documented the incident in 1996 in an article for his publication. Alex (in real life a 50+ shy Jewish psychiatrist from New York) pretended to be a highly bombastic, anti-religious, post-car-accident, wheelchair-bound, mute woman named Joan "in order to better relate to his female patients". This went on for two years and "Joan" had become a hugely detailed character with an array of emotional relationships. These began to fall apart only after "Joan" coaxed an online friend of hers into an affair with Alex.
"Even those who barely knew Joan felt implicated—and somehow betrayed—by Alex's deception. Many of us on-line like to believe that we're a utopian community of the future, and Alex's experiement proved to us all that technology is no shield against deceit. We lost our innocence, if not our faith." (Van Gelder, 1996, p.534)
[edit]
Trolling in the 1990s
The first reference to "trolling" in the Google Usenet archive was Miller (1990 February 8). In serious literature the practice was first documented by Donath (1999), who used several anecdotal examples from various Usenet newsgroups in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguousness of identity in a disembodied "virtual community":
"In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm is: one body, one identity. ... The virtual world is different. It is composed of information rather than matter."
Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which trade on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:
"Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings and, upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they—and the troll—understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.
"Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling—where the rate of deception is high—many honestly naive questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)
[edit]
Usage
Calling someone a "troll" makes assumptions about a writer's motives that are impossible to determine, whereas using the verb (calling a post "trolling") describes the reception of a post without making assumptions about motives. Such assumptions would generally be an example of the fundamental attribution error; i.e. inferring that behavior results from a person's nature or personality rather than examining behavior in the context of events surrounding the behavior. In other words, "trolling" may have more to do with context than with personality. Also, it may be possible to troll unintentionally. Regardless, both users and posts are commonly labelled as trolls when their content upsets people.
The term "troll" is highly subjective, and some posts will look like "trolling" to some while seeming like meaningful contributions to others. For example, a so-called "troll" may be playing "Devil's advocate" by stating conservative opinions in a liberal forum. Behavior which might be considered a simple rampage or an emotional outburst in other environments is often tagged with the term "troll" in internet discussion.
The term is frequently misused to discredit an opposing position in an argument. This usually amounts to an undefensible ad hominem argument: many views that have met with opposition and even the ridicule of experts have subsequently been found to be justified, so the label "troll" used this way is actually likely to indicate a correct but controversial position that is stirring up flames precisely because it has challenged a doctrine others actually realize is wrong. (It is quite possible to stir up controversy with a wrong argument, but these can more effectively be met by simply responding to the substantive issue.)
Possible reasons people use more slang monikers in Internet-mediated discussion include the feeling of anonymity and impersonal perceptions of other conversants.
Regardless of the writer's motives, controversial posts are virtually guaranteed, in most online forums, to earn a corrective or patronizing or outraged response by those who do not distinguish between real physical community, and a mere exchange of words and ideas. Customs of discourse, or etiquette, that originated in such physical communities are often applied naively by newcomers to the Internet who are not used to the range of views expressed online - especially due to increased anonymity.
[edit]
Trolling in different Internet media
Trolling takes distinct forms in different media; it started on newsgroups, and as the internet has evolved, so has trolling.
Usenet — hierarchies of newsgroups limit trolls' exposure, but crossposting can overcome this. Some Internet Service Providers implement limits on the number of newsgroups a message can be crossposted to. In one notable example, alt.net instituted a crosspost limit after the trolls on the system had become so notorious that Peter da Silva instituted a campaign for other systems to cease exchanging news with alt.net until they did something about the problem.
Mailing lists — usually controlled by moderators, so unwanted contributors can quickly be banned.
SlashCode-based forums use a rating system so that readers can moderate a post up or down from its initial rating. Readers can then choose to ignore posts that others have "modded down." Timing of trolls is particularly important, since anything less than the first 20 or so posts is unlikely to be read. An ideal troll would generate much heated discussion and posting without further intervention from the troll.
Wikis — the flat, asynchronous and open model allows anyone to post anything; users work to undo negative changes using the built-in reversion tools, but this requires hundreds of volunteers to monitor large popular sites. Trolls tend to be more subtle than in discussion groups, often posting material that could be legitimate, but will cause controversy. Difficulty is compounded by the impossibility of discerning whether a user is simply espousing a controversial opinion, or trolling.
Weblogs — in their most common form as a personal soapbox with the ability for anybody to leave comments, popular weblogs often make effective springboards for trolls, either as inflammatory comments or provocative entries. The ease with which weblogs can be linked encourages troll propagation.
IRC — the open nature of most IRC channels on popular networks enables any potential troll to enter and utilise any of a range of techniques, ranging from simple crapflooding to subtly irritating remarks to garner angry responses. The relative ease of evading bans from channels and servers and the volatile nature of many IRC users can allow trolls to perpetuate indefinitely.
Multiplayer first person shooters; online gaming attracts a large number of teenaged men, who take advantage of the combative atmosphere and their general anonymity to disparage other players. See pwn for more information. After becoming the target of verbal abuse in the game Unreal Tournament 2004, the authors of Penny Arcade proposed the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" (http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-03-19).
Online Fantasy Sports; A troll will infiltrate a free, online league with multiple teams from different identity accounts and then attempt to make lopsided trades of players to improve one team. The troll will leave numerous messages on the league bulletin board from different identities to give the appearance of legitimacy to otherwise illicit behaviour. Players that object to the obvious complicity are usually showered with insults and other attempts at evasion.
[edit]
Examples
Common types of troll messages or activities:
off topic messages — "Can anyone help me make a webpage?" "No, this is a music forum."
inflammatory messages — "You are an idiot for including this type of message in your list."
messages containing an obvious flaw or error — "I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best movie."
intentionally naive or politically contentious messages — "I think George W. Bush is the best/worst President ever."
intentionally posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error; often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted but may instead continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.
a subclass of the above is the flawed proof of an important unsolved mathematical problem or impossibility (e.g. 1 = 2); these are not always troll-posts and are usually at least mathematically interesting.
including offensive media such as annoying sound files or disturbing pictures in a message, or linking to shock sites that contain such media. Often these links are disguised as legitimate links.
after a flamewar ensues, pretending to be innocent.
posting plot spoilers to popular movies and books without warning, sometimes surreptitiously buried in an otherwise innocuous message.
posting politically sensitive images in inappropriate places.
off-topic complaints about personal life; sometimes this is the "cry for help" troll.
[edit]
Other examples
Some trolls may denounce a particular religion in a religion newsgroup — though historically, this would have been called "flamebait". Like those who engage in flaming, self-proclaimed or alleged Internet trolls sometimes resort to innuendo or misdirection in the pursuit of their objectives.
A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting content obviously severely contradictory to the (stated or unstated) focus of the group or forum- for example, posting cat meat recipes on a pet lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a creationist forum, or posting messages about how all dragons are boring in the USENET group alt.fan.dragons.
Cross posting is a popular method of choice by Usenet trolls: a cross-posted article can be discussed simultaneously in several unrelated and/or opposing newsgroups; this is likely to result in a flame war. For instance, an anti-fast food flame bait might be cross posted to healthy eating groups, environmentalist groups, animal rights groups, as well as a totally off-topic artificial intelligence newsgroup.
An example of a successful troll is the well-known "Oh how I envy American students" USENET thread which got 3000+ followups.
[edit]
Motivation
Most discussion of what motivates Internet trolls comes from other Internet users who claim to have observed trolling behavior. There is little scholarly literature to describe either the term or the phenomenon. The comments of accused trolls might be unreliable, since they may in fact be intending to stir controversy rather than to advance understanding of the phenomenon. Likewise, accusers are often motivated by a desire to defend a particular Internet project and references to an Internet user as a troll might not be based on the actual goals of the person so named. As a result, identifying the goals of Internet trolls is most often speculative. Still, several basic goals have been attributed to Internet trolls, according to the type of disruption they are believed to be provoking.
Proposed motivations for trolling:
Self-proclaimed trolls and their defenders suggest that trolling is a clever way of improving discussion, or an alternative method of viewing power relations on large public wikis.
Anonymous attention-seeking: The troll seeks to dominate the thread by inciting anger, and effectively hijacking the topic at hand.
Cry for help: Many so-called trolls, in their postings, indicate disturbing situations regarding family, relationships, substances, and school. Some believe that trolling is an aggressive, confrontational way by which trolls seek a sort of "tough love" guidance in an anonymous forum.
Effect change in user opinions: A troll may state extreme positions to make his or her actual beliefs seem moderate (this often involves sock puppeteering, where the "bad cop" is a sock-puppet troll) or, alternatively, play the role of "Devil's advocate" to strengthen opposing convictions (with which he or she usually actually agrees).
Test the integrity of a system against "social attacks" or other forms of misbehavior: For example, blatantly violating terms-of-use in order to see whether any action is taken by the site administrators.
Amusement: To some people, the thought of a 70-year-old Internet user being sent to a sexually explicit or gross image is genuinely funny. People opposed to trolling think of individuals of this sort as immature and annoying.
Wasting others' time. One of the greatest themes in trolling is the idea that you can spend one minute of your time posting a troll, causing 10 other people to waste ten minutes of their time, more or catalytically affecting lots of other people. Most trolls enjoy the idea that they wasted others time at comparatively little effort on their behalf.
Domino effect: Related to amusement, but a more specific fashion: starting large chain reactions in response to one's initial post. Achieving a disproportionately large response to a small action is the general theme. This is similar to how a young child that goes missing (but is actually hiding) may act with glee, seeing a large number of people conducting a massive search in response to the supposed disappearance.
Fight "groupthink": Many trolls defend their actions as, when a sort of conformism settles, shocking people out of it.
Satire: In these cases, the individuals do not think of themselves as trolls, but misunderstood humorists or political commentators.
Personal attacks against one particular user or group of users.
Self-promotion.
Lowering signal to noise ratio. On Slashdot, points that could be used to moderate interesting things up get wasted on moderating down things like ASCII pictures of the goatse man. This lowers the quality of comments at certain thresholds.
Since there is a wide spectrum of possible motivations for trolls, some of these functions being benevolent and others, clearly malevolent, to typecast users as "trolls" in the negative sense is often rash.
Some users of internet forums are considered to be "trollhunters". While they do not actively seek conflict, as trolls do, they willingly enter conflict when trolls emerge. Often, trollhunters are as disruptive as trolls. A single troll-post may be ignored, but if ten trollhunters "pounce" following a troll, they will drive the thread offtopic.
Regarding troll-related conflicts, there are five groups into which users might be classified:
Trolls are users who actively provoke conflict.
Trollhunters (or Trollbaiters) behave according to a principle of "second strike". They do not initiate conflict, but escalate it once it begins. Often they use other trolls as an excuse for their own misbehavior, and in many cases, typecast a user as a "troll" regardless of his or her intent.
Ignorers seek to ignore the conflict, continuing with the topic at-hand. They usually express a nonchalant disdain for the troll, but do not seek actively to insult him or her. They behave like elders, issuing simple words of wisdom such as "do not feed the trolls," or other phrases that generally mean the same thing: "ignore the troublemaker and he will give up and go away."
Moderators (not in the same sense as a "system moderator") seek to resolve the conflict, making all parties happy, if possible.
Bystanders withdraw from the conflict. In particularly bad cases, they will leave the forum in disgust.
In the "attention-seeking" cases, trolls seek the conflict provided by trollhunters, whereas in the "cry for help" cases, they seek the consolance and compassion offered by moderators.
[edit]
Resolutions and alternatives
In general, popular wisdom advises users to avoid "feeding" trolls, and to ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll with the craved attention. When trollhunters pounce on the trolls, ignorers reply with: "YHBT. YHL. HAND.", or "You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day." However, since trollhunters (like trolls) are often conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have preferred that the conflict not emerge at all.
Literature on conflict resolution suggests that labeling participants in Internet discussions as trolls can perpetuate the unwanted behaviors. A person rejected by a social group, both online and "IRL", may assume an antagonistic role toward it, and seek to further annoy or anger members of the group. The "troll" label, often a sign of social rejection, may therefore perpetuate trolling.
Better results normally ensue when users take the moderator role and describe more constructive behaviors in a non-judgmental, non-confrontational way. Trolls are excited by trollhunters and frustrated by ignorers, and neither of these emotions produce positive results for the forum. Engaging trolls results in "flame wars". Trolls frustrated by the "ignore strategy" may leave the forum (and either troll elsewhere, or become constructive users) or may become progressively more inflammatory until they get a response.
[edit]
Usefulness of trolling
A major debate on the Internet is whether or not trolls perform any useful function. Because "troll" is such a broadly-applied term, if all definitions thereof are to be accepted, the answer must be non-definitively, "yes and no".
Users performing many useful, but controversial, functions are often decried as "trolls", and in these cases, so-called "trolling" may actually benefit the forum in which it occurs. For example, the presence of a radical right-winger described as a "troll" may allow a conservative "lurker" to feel more comfortable expressing her viewpoints, which seem very moderate in contrast. On the other hand, if trollhunters mount a flame war against this right-wing "troll", the conservative bystander may feel less comfortable expressing her views, to the detriment of the forum. As much as trolls claim to "fight groupthink", they may actually encourage it by solidifying opinion against them.
Even though useful content and productive users are sometimes decried as "trolls", the general consensus is that pure "trolling"—seeking conflict for its own sake—benefits only the troll and trollhunters, and has no place in any forum. Most forums reject the claim that pure and intentional trolling serves any useful purpose.
[edit]
Related articles
[edit]
Specific trolling subcultures
Adequacy.org
Slashdot trolling phenomena (see also Slashdot subculture)
Troll organization
Trollgnaws: alt.syntax.tactical, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, Trolltalk, GameFAQs LUE
[edit]
Notable troll examples
Baiting
Page widening
Naked and Petrified
[edit]
Miscellaneous
Gadfly (social)
AOLamer
Breaching experiment
Devil's Advocate
Virtual community
[edit]
External links
alt.troll FAQ (http://groups.google.con/groups?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=36a7593e.227@ruble.net&lr=&hl=en-us) (how-to)
Spiralx Slashdot troll how-to (http://spiralx.dyndns.org/howto.html)
How to Handle a Troll and Beat Them at Their Own Game (http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/)
alt.syntax.tactical FAQ (http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/net-abuse-faq/troll-faq.html)
afk-mn FAQ (http://faqs.jmas.co.jp/FAQs/1999/Feb/990211.01) (mostly old-style Usenet trolling)
What Makes A Fuckhead? (http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fsckhead.html) by David Kendrick
"Oh how I envy American students" (http://groups.google.con/groups?q=+%22Oh+How+I+Envy+American+Students%22)
"Oh how I envy American students" (http://groups.google.con/groups?lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=Pine.ULT.3.91.96012)
False repentance (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FalseRepentance)
The relationship between social context cues and uninhibited verbal behavior in computer-mediated communication (http://www.emoderators.com/papers/flames.html)
Moral panic and alternative identity construction in Usenet (http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue1/baker.html)
Searching for Safety Online: Managing "Trolling" in a Feminist Forum (http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/WP/WP02-03B.html)
Is Your Son a Computer Hacker? (http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html) One of the most successful trolls ever, this article on the now defunct Adequacy.org attracted almost 6000 responses.
Troll (http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html) entry in the Jargon File
Humorous definition of a troll (http://www.jestsandjokes.com/show.php3?joke=185)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
no visites nuncamas.net (porque encontraràs las mismas noticias que aqui colgadas por el mismo colgado que se dedica a saturarlo todo) |
|
Re: Campaña de Ateus de Catalunya: la religión fuera de la escuela.
|
|
per Ateos y creyentes |
29 set 2004
|
La diferencia entre una persona que se declare atea es que, en la actualidad, el ateísmo es fruto de un proceso de convicción personal , mientras que el creyente se ha limitado a seguir las directrices que se le dieron en su infancia a través del sistema educativo, fuera cual fuere.
La truculenta presión de las iglesias sobre los Gobiernos para que perviertan el sistema educativo con la mal llamada "enseñanza religiosa", lo que hace es convertir el ateísmo en una reacción a la imposición religiosa, lo que corrompe la libertad de conciencia y la espiritualidad libre a la que tiene derecho todo individuo.
Por eso en mi opinión, es tan importante y necesario expulsar a las iglesias del sistema educativo: para permitir que cada persona escoga libremente su espiritualidad, sin tener que verse supeditado a escoger entre las patrañas confesionales o a la reacción alternativa del ateísmo. |
|
|
