Category: trollwatch

“enjoy responsibly”

  • New addition to trollwatch: “eleoptene”
  • And something between a playful LULZing troll and a crusading anti-troll: “recurringtrollouter”
  • Images don’t link anywhere: those familiar with the source-site will recognize it; others probably won’t. All pseudonyms have been censored, except my own and those of trolls

Some material of interest for anyone out there being trolled / bullied online: have a look at the bully-trolls’ strategies, especially their perverse use of terms like “bully” against the very people they themselves are attacking. No, that’s not “irony”: it’s malicious, destructive nastiness.

Look also at what trolls accuse others of, and how:

Continue reading

the gift that keeps on giving

PART ONE (OF THREE)

No further comment, and I did not comment or otherwise contribute to the discussion below. It was clearly a lost cause, insofar as the serious material content was concerned. The non-serious teeters on an uncomfortable edge, given the limitations of the principal troll here. Screenshots aren’t linked to anything, just the images. Those who recognize the format (and perhaps, indeed, pseudonyms) will know where this came from. Others should be able to figure it out for themselves from previous posts.

From a week ago: to allow some critical distance. Main reasons for posting:
1. Trollwatch
2. Observation of assorted trolling styles
3. A nice example of the limits of reasoning, that is, when confronted with human limitations / limited humans
4. Open question: what are the limits to tolerance, and to suffering fools?
5. And another one: humour’s limits?

Where do you draw the line, when dealing with someone who says things that are foolish and ignorant (who knows, the person saying them may be a troll, and not in fact an ignorant fool), but who also expresses paranoia? Convinced about conspiracy theories. Cultish. Led by blind belief (not reason, or intuition, or other forms of active thought).
Bearing in mind at the same time
(a) that these words may be by a troll, who has created an online fiction;
(b) and that this is an individual who sells her own beauty products, regularly shills, does not accept or comprehend that this is against the rules on this particular online forum, and therefore: is a troll;
Bearing these two other factors in mind: this persona’s utterances could be sincere simplicity. Genuine. Honest. And just plain stupid. Yes, a fact’s a fact: people’s brains vary, as do their levels of assorted kinds and expressions of intelligence. Some people are stupid. Some people might not be stupid, but they say stupid things from time to time. Some people say stupid things all the time. Some people say stuff when Under The Influence that they wouldn’t usually say; IQ and reactions are impeded by alcohol–on the other hand, in vino veritas. And some people, regardless of their smartness, lack emotional and / or social intelligence.
There could also be mental health and well-being issues (given the paranoia).
Whatever is going on here, or whatever combination of factors: as my granny always said, “One should not mock the afflicted.”

(All those things having been said: sometimes things are also still funny. That’s another of these things some of like to think of as and call “facts”: in this case, a fact about what makes people laugh, and why, and how, and what’s going on in and behind that reaction of laughing.)

Questions 4 and 5 and that last paragraph were basically why I didn’t comment. As my only comments would have been these, meta-comments, and thus technically “off topic” according to this discussion forum’s rules. Therefore: not to be posted there. I like rules, especially sensible ones and ones that are good for people; that help and protect and nurture and benefit them. That includes shutting people like me up when they need to be shut up: it’s good for me.

Oops, famous last words, once again, on “no comment.” Following on from that last comment on my shutting up: over and out from me.

PART TWO

image1
image
image

PART THREE

And lo: as ever, as soon as I take screenshots, everything changes. And then I have to take screenshots all over again. The life of an archivist is not an easy one. I had a meander back, thinking to myself that this might be the sort of thread that got a bit over-excited and exciting, and might be worth following. In the squeamish surreptitious way one discreetly follows reality T.V., and hates oneself for doing so.

In this third and I hope final part: twists in the tale, blurrings of the border between fiction and reality, and then bam: the whole discussion-thread was Disappeared, some point before 11:00 a.m. Pacific Coast time. Given that I’ve been all prim and proper and discreet about not naming sources or linking to URLs, and have cropped screenshots, you may well be wondering: did she make it all up?

I wonder much the same thing myself, about much that is on the discussion forum in question. I often feel like I’ve walked into a parallel universe or a fictional world, over there.

Add to that the fact that fact is stranger than fiction. You couldn’t make this up. I couldn’t, anyway: which might answer anyone wondering if I did. Sorry, I didn’t: I’m just not that good a writer.

Life’s too short. Other better more useful stuff to do. Reconciliation to get on with and suchlike.

FFS: first world effing problems online.

On the other hand, part of truth and reconciliation is that truth part: ensuring that all stories are told, from all points of view, by all concerned. Recorded and preserved. That history be properly written, as histories: plural. Not as one single history, that is, the story of the victor. And stories may each have elements of truth, or they may all be true, even if contradictory. That’s a human fact, and very human, and marvellous. Often also a marvel.

In this case, the “true history” of the victor, the powers behind this discussion forum? Erasure. Didn’t happen.

UPDATE: famous last words again… I have censored out parts of some screenshots, further to a request to do so, as they are now the subject of moderator / administration action against the party/ies concerned. This is in deference to nice people. And I don’t mind, as the bits whited out weren’t really germane to the main argument. If anything, they were irrelevant tangents to the main points of discussion and Points To Ponder: trolling, tolerance, and the limits to them and to online discussion.

That grand finale:

imageimage5

news about a circle of hell

Well, it looks like BeautyBash (or, the BB board) is no more. Bloody marvellous. I found out about it when I had a look at the Praise of Folly stats, as one does from time to time. I was pleased to see that one post I quite liked was doing well, and surprised to see another one was too. Turns out this was thanks to a MUAer over on the Café board! Thanks to them, I found out the good news. Massive happiness. Especially if this ending to that kind of unpleasant bashing is a final one. Makes the world a better place.

Welcome, also, to MakeupAlley visitors who have come here ten days or so after this post first appeared, via http://www.makeupalley.com/m_160953682 on the Hair Board. Hello there!

So here’s what happened… What follows is in the form of screenshots with no blacking-out of names, because
(1) as far as I can tell, there’s nothing here that constitutes private information (had there been, I would have edited the images to black them out):
(2) it is 2013 and I’m assuming no-one is so stupid as to have used their real name as their online handle, or to have associated identifying information with their account, or otherwise included private details in a public place;
(3) if any of these people are actual trolls, and worse still if they turn out to be renegade beautybashers, the raw screenshots are potentially useful archived evidence…

… Anyway, back to caffeinated delights:

Screen Shot 2013-08-06 at 2.04.57 PM

RIP educational standards in the general population (these are tech-competent people, and at least one is in the sort of job that involves having at least one intern) if that sort of rapidly-considered, -researched, and -written commentary really honestly seriously looks like “a research paper.” Kudos if it doesn’t: if that’s the case, this is one of the finest bits of tongue-in-cheek I’ve seen from an American.

But whtv, either which way, overall response is LOL. And happiness because this was what led me to The Good News!!!

What happened next: Continue reading

some recent MUA reading (part II)

Screen Shot 2013-05-23 at 2.53.32 PM

Adding in comment, further to yesterday’s Thought For The Day about bottoms: euphemism of the day!

“It’s all relative” = “wrong / false / untrue”

EXPANSION WITH POSSIBLE RATIONALE:

  • innocence and ignorance: the speaker genuinely pseudo-thinks (or, “believes”) that everything really is relative and that there are no such things as rights or wrongs
  • speaker is too dense to understand such differences, and does not hear and understand when they are explained (using their own utterances as examples). They may or not also be blind, deaf, and generally insensitive: to what others say, to being in a conversation, to any learning experience and experience of change (which all communication is, or should be).
  • the speaker cannot possible be wrong, as they are the only right entity in the universe, and otherwise the universe would implode, explode, or otherwise cease to exist. This may also be called the superstitious approach: not wishing to jinx the continuing existence of the universe (and oneself).
  • spoiled pampered princess: cannot possibly be wrong, stupid, or foolish because centre of universe (see previous item). Alternative explanation: speaker has been told all their life that they’re a treasure and treasured, a special unique precious brilliant snowflake, and all their faults and flaws have been translated into positive attributes. Everything they say is right, true, and a gift to the rest of humanity: pearls dropping from their lips (and no jokes about alleged extra qualities of Demi Moore’s alleged latest squeeze). This is of course a fascinating kind of illusion and a psychological gem in its own right. But such people are not diamonds. They are delusional, and may even be dangerous.
  • passive-aggressive self-defence: speaker knows what they said is in fact wrong, but they have not yet learned the crucial distinction between “what one says” and “oneself”, so they err in the view that they cannot say anything wrong as otherwise they would be wrong.
    In many countries, this issue is addressed in kindergarten and is one of the items on the checklist for permitting a child to pass the last year of kindergarten and progress to Primary One.
    In many countries (with some intersection with the previous category), there is also a deliberate re-blurring of the categories, accompanied by infantilization and regression and encouragement of monstrous egotism, in postgraduate study. Especially, irony of ironies, in the “humanities.” Blame Derrida and the religious cult constructed around him. OK, not just him: blame the place of theory in that end of academia.

OK. On which happy note of blaming Derrida (and his mis-translators, and idiot Dummy’s Guide / Spark Notes pseudo-digested versions, and second-hand drivvel based on sketchy skim-mis-reading, and the vagaries of foolish fashion)—on wards and upwards, to a quite delicious recent bout of MUAing. Putting the phenomenon that follows below in its historical context, this might be this year’s incarnation of The Spring Troll. It might, being flat-footed and practical, just / also be a foolish young creature. Hell, the web’s full of them these days, and they get younger and younger every year. But at least it’s always nice to see young people able to read and write. After a fashion…

Continue reading

holistic health

Interesting discussion; and a reminder of how much bigger skin stuff and MUA and suchlike are than just places where trivial girly types hang out and natter pointlessly about pointless tat, compete on hoards, start fads and crazes, complain and bitch and whinge, be silly, and generally exemplify first-world problems and destroy any last vestige of feminist cred. Let alone basic common human dignity. There’s more to skin care than just keeping your skin stuck to your bones; though for some of us that’s already a tall order… There’s everything that’s going on under the skin, including in the mind; and there’s conversations about skin that reveal so much bare naked emotional truth about the interlocutors.

In the following, while there may be grounds for counter-trollism suspicion, there’s much to sympathize with on all sides.

That’s all. No further comment. Continue reading

why posts on cruelty-free and otherwise “green-ish” mascaras might be necessary and matter

Aside from the usual needs: because there’s a fair amount of misinformation, misreading, and pubvertising pseudo-articles around the place.

See for example this recent exchange on the MUA Green Board (a little over a week ago): Continue reading