Just reading through it…you can clearly see who was being unreasonable and who wasn’t.
You are both INTJs yes? Or maybe he is INTP I think…whatever, doesn’t matter much…I just found it quite rude and uncalled for.
"In this case I assumed you agreed on that the OP was incapable of civil discourse, I thus didn't justify that claim."
"Me: OP was capable of civil discourse.
You: OP was incapable originally, but I'm gonna argue the semantics of the word 'incapable' and suggest how we might transform it into 'capablity' through some unknown mechanism and for unknown reasons... "
Taking all bets! 3-1 odds in favor of idiocy over lying! Taking all bets!
"Yeah, I don't care what your or anyone elses opinion is about him. But I think he was getting too many and repeated negative opinions (of which yours was most reasonable). The tone of most of those informally given opinions were unnecessarily harsh, sarcastic or snarky jokes. If people want to criticise someone else I prefer it if they do it politely and clearly. Criticise that is brought in a kind and polite way has more chance to stick in the mind than snarky jokes."
I really enjoy how you say you don't care what the opinion of others are, and then immediately follow that up with how much you care about the manner in which opinions should be conveyed and why.
"Why didn't you say so right after I interpreted it incorrectly?"
Because that's not what I said nor what I meant. It was a correct interpretation, but not the only correct interpretation. This is my meaning when I say you use your words inconsistently, i.e. you change to a different interpretation when it suits you better.
I am currently capable of learning German. I am currently unable to speak German.
He is currently incapable of civil discourse. He is currently capable of learning civil discourse."
How should me calling him out as a troll change from "When others are rude to me, I am incapable of being nice in return." to "I was capable of civil discussion, and hence I am at fault for 'negativity,' 'badness,' 'wrongness,' 'meaness,' or whatever the hell facade of a point you're trying to troll me with?
It's an arbitrary, semantic, and irrelevant point. The rules of the forum neither the opinions of others make exceptions for an 'incapability to follow rules or the opinions of others.' as you seem to imply they should.
I like how you characterize your inconsistency as if it were typographical rather than semantic error. As if it wasn't your meaning or intention to be in error, but rather was an error in the message. You intentionally changed your meaning to suit your whim. You intended to argue that 'calling OP a troll is very bad,' and not 'I was just trying to be good and learn what could be an error in the construction or interpretation of our messages'.
You have given no valid justification for the distinction, i.e. by what mechanism is one or does one become incapable or capable: I am incapable of flying unassisted. If I jump off the roof and flap my arms, will I become capable? No. You reason that calling the OP a troll is counterproductive to the OP's ability to become 'capable' of civil discourse, but reason that being nice will produce the desired change without reasonably justifying why the OP is 'incapable' in the first place or why your response is somehow more effective than calling him out on the behavior.
As I stated at the beginning with respect to the distinction between 'intentional' and 'unintentional,' it is entirely irrelevant. You have failed to give sufficient cause for why the distinction is relevant in the first place, and then have inconsistently used the word to suit your argument as justification for some as yet unstated purpose (supposedly 'niceness' or 'kindness'). The OP was never formally reprimanded, but informally given negative opinions in response which is perfectly valid. You wish to give positive reinforcement to negative behavior because 'goodness,' 'niceness,' 'kindness,' or something. This is perfectly fine in and of itself, but is irrelevant to the argument against having a negative opinion of someone else.
I'm incapable of taking him or you seriously, but I might be capable in the future if you cease your childish behavior.
No, I do not. You, like the OP, seem highly invested in playing with words to annoy others.
I did not directly imply future incapability when I questioned you about your word choice. That was your interpretation. My point was that you use the words 'incapable' and 'capable' inconsistently with respect to your arguments. Given your example it is equally valid to state: I am capable of learning German.
You misuse the word when you use it to rationalize an initial behavior in one manner then change the context by which you rationalize the response. You stated: "He's incapable of being nice, but the others are." I can just as easily state that: "When others are rude to me, I am incapable of being nice in return." If he is incapable based on the appearance of his attitude, then by what manner do you judge other forum members as being 'capable' of being nice even if they display a similar attitude?
Het was nooit mijn bedoeling om de semantiek van incapabel te bediscussiÃ«ren. Jij interpreteerde de incapabiliteit als toekomstige incapabiliteit en ik deed dat niet. Ik was verward door onze verschillende definities
Ja vooruit*1 . Het is niet gemakkelijk of duidelijk of bewezen. Maar ik wil het wel proberen en erover leren. Omdat...
Voor onbekende redenen:
Hij is negatief en cynisch. Ik vind het niet leuk als andere mensen negatief of cynisch zijn. Ik heb een soort behoefte om mensen te helpen en verbeteren. Dit kan heel slecht of heel goed zijn. In ieder geval, ik wil deze jongen*2 dus ook proberen te verbeteren en hem positiever maken. Het is waarschijnlijk iets te idealistisch, maar dat is wie ik ben.
De rest van de samenvatting is vrijwel perfect.*3 Ik vind de bewoording "capabel tot een beschaafde*4 conversatie"*5 mooi. Ik denk dat dat de lading*6 beter dekt dan "aardig of redelijk zijn".
1 'Fair enough' figuratively translated. Literally 'vooruit' means 'forward'. In the sense that we can move on from this point because there is agreement.
2 'Jongen' is actually boy, but we don't have an equivalent to guy. Maybe 'jongeman' (young man) could fit, it's not used as much anymore though.
3 'Spot on' isn't literally translatable next to an old and unused phrase, I just use 'perfect' (means the same) now.
4 'Beschaafd' is literally more like 'civilised'. 'Civiel' (civil) is comparable to the meaning in 'civil servant'
5 'Discourse' in Dutch describes an abstract entity and is only used in philosophical or linguistic context, not on the level of our discussion. I use 'conversatie' (conversation).
6 Literally translated I should've used 'het' (it), but when translating 'to cover' in this context the combination of 'lading' and 'dekken' is much more common and clear.
I'll translate the rest later if you want, but I'm going to get some dinner going now.
It was never my intentions to argue semantics of incapable. You just interpreted the incapability as future incapability and I didn't. I was confused by our different definitions.
Yeah fair enough. It's not easy or clear or proven. But I like to try and learn about it. Because...
For unknown reasons:
He's negative and cynical. I don't like it if other people are negative or cynical. I have some kind of urge to help and improve people. This can be very bad or very good. Either way, I thus also want to try to improve this guy and make him more positive. It's probably a bit idealistic, but that's who I am.
The rest of the summary is pretty much spot on. I like the phrase "capable of civil discourse". I think that covers it better than 'being nice or reasonable'.
Example of my interpretation of (in)capability:
I am incapable of speaking German.
Someone teaches me German.
I am capable of speaking German.
Civil discourse isn't as easily taught as German is, but I believe it can be taught.
You: OP was incapable originally, but I'm gonna argue the semantics of the word 'incapable' and suggest how we might transform it into 'capablity' through some unknown mechanism and for unknown reasons...
"I feel reasonable people respond to something if they're called out on something. I don't think he would. He's not as reasonable. So a direct and personal approach won't work."
"He's not capable of being nice, but the others are. You should be as nice as you can be. He's never been loved (likely) so he doesn't know how to be nice. If we aren't nice to him, he'll never learn how to do it."
He's not even capable of being nice! He's a sociopath! But...but...if we teach him out of the niceness and goodness of our hearts, we can save him!
Which is it? He's capable or incapable of being nice?
I like how you start off condemning his behavior and where we appear to be in agreement, then you downplay it, excuse it, and follow that by condemning everyone else's responses. That's really cute. I give more weight to those who were less hostile to begin with.
I don't take any issue with your definition of trolling, but I do not quite understand what your reasoning is in passing judgment given the context.
You seem to believe that labeling or calling someone out as being a 'troll' or exhibiting 'trollish behavior' is a harsh judgment and very bad:
"I've added some negative reputation comments to people who claim that he's a troll. I believe he is not. Claiming that someone is a troll is really bad on a forum. If you notice a troll, simply ignore or report. Calling a troll out is baaad. Either he's a troll and you just baited. Or he's not a troll and you get a really nasty thread going."
I'm wondering how you differentiate between the behavior of the OP and the responses from others. Unintentionally rude and abrasive behavior is excusable, but calling someone out on it is not simply because we disagree on the intent? Why does an intentional troll quit when called out, but an unintentional one would not? I find that conclusion....very peculiar. I am of the opposite opinion: an intentional troll does not stop if called out, but an unintentional troll may if his behavior is pointed out to him and made clear. Is that not the meaning behind the usage of 'unintended'?
The golden rule is to treat others as you'd have them treat you. If you believe the OP was, in fact, rude to begin with, then I have to wonder why you would conclude that being rude in response was somehow less acceptable....
I thought my responses were in fair measure. I admire your willingness to grant the benefit of the doubt, but I see little doubt in what occurred.
I think you acknowledge a distinction between intended and unintended trolling, whereas I find the distinction irrelevant. Unintended trolling is not without consequence whether it takes the form of general dislike or disagreement. One need not use belligerence to make a point.
I think you rely too heavily on a positive/negative dichotomy to describe reactions: Could I have been harsher in tone and used more perjoratives? Could I have been more negative? How positive was I? Is there a neutral stance or not? Was I fair and even-handed or did I go too far?
You say he saw a negative perspective confirmed. What was the initial negative perspective? Was it that NTs are stupid? Was it NFs are stupid? In what manner was it confirmed?
I disagree with the report and ignore plan. Ignorance, as you and I described the OP/part of the problem, is only of good usage when picking your fights. Reporting is useful for clear and unambiguous breaches of the rules. If you report something for trolling, but can't specify what exactly the problem is or how it breaks the rules then you have accomplished nothing. I think reporting trolling would be going too far in response to someone either merely bending the rules or trying to game the system; it's unnecessary.
I respond not for the benefit of the baiter, but other people who might read the thread, know something is amiss, and who may accidentally engage the person at first and be enticed into argument by someone bent on arguing for argument's sake. That was all that I felt necessary.