What part of that was interpreted as trolling? (Honest question. Not rhetorical dismissiveness.)
One accusation of trolling, one accusation of AI, … given the other reactions, I can be easily forgiven for entertaining the possibility these are from a desire to attack this in absence of constructive argument on substance. … And the “cui bono” (“who benefits”) on that is a horror worth confronting. [Cui bono? Bigots. Bigots benefit from that. Getting to keep their hate groups running without this greatest efficacious challenge to them [that I know of] being shared.]. And by censorship? The means do seem fit the ends. O_O
Irony noted here too, that I was having all kinds of rule breaking responses spat at me, and I was trying to be civil and reasonable, it’s one of my posts that got deleted. Flying monkey unleashed from some darvo sob story? I hate getting played into being a flying monkey. Some seem more concerned with the idea they may have been played into being a flying monkey, and run from looking at the idea. … Same pattern spotted earlier, and sought to offer some friendly salve for. No good deedintent going unpunished. Heh. Plenty more cheek to turn. Plenty more patterns to notice, and learn the higher topology from; learn the deeper principles from, to avoid getting played as a flying monkey. And we get played in our shadow. We do not see it. Same as with getting induced to groupthink. It’s kind of an essential defining component of it. Not knowing you’re in it. Not knowing when slipped into groupthink, not knowing when being sent forth as a flying monkey, with your better (or worse) traits being used, likely contrary to your better interests, by the narcissist, the cluster b personality disordered psyche, the social parasite, the predator. …And am noting this is all still on topic, through and through, and within the rules. Not trolling (never have).
I had an LLM propose what could be perceived as trolling, as I never troll, and say when using LLM
The comment you posted is lengthy, passionate, and thought-provoking, but it could be perceived as trolling by some readers due to a few key elements. Here’s a breakdown of where the perception of trolling might arise, even if that wasn’t your intent:
Provocative Framing and Hyperbolic Language
Phrases like:
“the horror. A horror, we’re all better served, facing.”
“unwittingly becoming them, as an opposame… the horror.”
“race to the bottom”
“kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man)”
Why it could be seen as trolling:
These phrases are emotionally charged and could be interpreted as exaggerated or melodramatic, especially in a context where nuanced discussion is expected. Some might read this as deliberately stoking fear or controversy rather than fostering constructive dialogue.
Repetitive, Circular, or Overly Abstract Reasoning
Examples:
The comment loops between ideas (e.g., Daryl Davis’s method, the Chicago experiment, limbic fear reflex, morphic resonance) without clear transitions or concise conclusions.
Phrases like “if-then-therefors” and “dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex” are jargon-heavy and abstract, which can come across as pseudointellectual or obfuscating rather than clarifying.
Why it could be seen as trolling:
Overly complex or meandering arguments can frustrate readers who expect direct, actionable points. Some might assume you’re intentionally being obscure to provoke reactions or derail discussion.
Implied Criticism of Others’ Reactions
Examples:
“I know now from experience here on lemmy that a lot of people have a kneejerk reaction against the idea.”
“Presumably, largely, because it’s seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view.”
“not following through the longer now, the if-then-therefors, the calm consideration that we’re dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex”
Why it could be seen as trolling:
These lines dismiss or mock the emotional responses of others (e.g., fear of engaging with hate groups). Even if your intent was to critique a lack of action, phrasing it this way can sound condescending or dismissive, which is a common trolling tactic.
Unsubstantiated or Fringe References
Examples:
“morphic-resonant-amplifying-esq implications of the Chicago experiment”
“kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man), satya yuga (the good times)”
Why it could be seen as trolling:
References to morphic resonance (a controversial, non-mainstream scientific idea) and Hindu cosmological concepts (kali yuga/satya yuga) might be seen as off-topic or esoteric, especially in a discussion about racism or activism. Some readers might interpret this as derailing the conversation with unrelated or fringe ideas.
Tone: Preachy or Self-Righteous
Examples:
“How many of them are there? How many of us? If the Chicago experiment had the effect it did…”
“Every little flap of our butterfly wings…”
Why it could be seen as trolling:
The tone can come across as preachy or self-righteous, especially if readers feel you’re lecturing them rather than engaging in a two-way discussion. This can provoke pushback or accusations of trolling, even if your intent was sincere.
Lack of Clear Structure or Actionable Points
The comment is dense and stream-of-consciousness, which can make it hard for readers to follow or extract actionable insights. In online forums, walls of text are often flagged as trolling because they overwhelm or annoy others.
Key Takeaway: Why It Might Have Been Flagged
Your comment isn’t inherently trolling—it’s clearly heartfelt and references real, thoughtful ideas (e.g., Daryl Davis’s work). However, the combination of emotional language, abstract reasoning, dismissive phrasing, and fringe references could lead moderators or readers to perceive it as:
Disruptive (derailing the conversation with tangents).
Condescending (implying others are irrational or uninformed).
Provocative (using charged language to elicit strong reactions).
How to Avoid This Perception in the Future
Be concise: Break up long paragraphs into shorter, clearer points.
Avoid jargon: Explain terms like “morphic resonance” or “limbic fear reflex” if they’re central to your point.
Acknowledge others’ emotions: Instead of dismissing “kneejerk reactions,” address them empathetically (e.g., “I understand why this idea might feel uncomfortable at first…”).
Stay on-topic: Focus on the core discussion (e.g., Daryl Davis’s method) rather than branching into unrelated concepts.
Use a neutral tone: Avoid language that could sound preachy or melodramatic.
Question for you:
Do you think the moderation was fair, or do you feel the comment was misunderstood? Would you like help refining the message to be clearer or more constructive?
The post minus the neat formatting for easier reading
I know it’s counter intuitive, and emotionally challenging, but, it’s hard to argue with Daryl Davis’s results. And then consider the alternative… leaving them unchallenged to worsen in their echo chamber, or worse, challenged so they double down. …[And/]Or unwittingly becoming them, as an opposame… the horror. A horror, we’re all better served, facing. … Just thinking about it has me go reach for another video (or two) about his story, so inspirational, a way out… and how few of us doing it, it would take… so many of us, who do not want be either racist nor tyrant/totalitarian, vastly outnumbering those who are nazi/kkk/etc, and if we each achieve 200 conversions out of ignorance… I know now from experience here on lemmy that a lot of people have a kneejerk reaction against the idea. Maybe not even looking into it any further to hear about it from Daryl Davis’s mouth. Presumably, largely, because it’s seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view. And, as highlighted there^, they’re seen as a big enough threat as to evoke merely the short term safety concern and reflex (and, would not want deprive of that ~ stay safe), but not following through the longer now, the if-then-therefors, the calm consideration that we’re dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex (especially if chronically triggered, never getting a break ~ which is understandable in presence of perceived threat of being killed (or worse) by someone because of some innate trait of yours they hate), to see which way’s a race to the bottom, and which way mends it. But because of the fortune of Daryl’s upbringing, racism was completely alien to him, and so in the shock discovery of it, there was an innocent curiosity, and benevolent will to help these people, not in an arrogant imposing way, but just a gentle presence. And that’s it. That’s really all there is to it. Not saying it’s good what they’re doing, not threatening them with violent judgement and condemnation that merely reaffirms their identity attachment to the toxic ignorant ideas and locking out their considerate forebrains in their own defensive limbic fear reflex, just being a counter-example dispels their ignorant misconceptions and short circuits the ignorant narratives, ending their bigotry and allegiance to hate groups. 200 and counting. How many of them are there? How many of us? If the Chicago experiment had the effect it did on reducing violent crime and increasing community spirit from however many meditators it had, if we couple the Daryl Davis method, with the morphic-resonant-amplifying-esq implications of the Chicago experiment… Seriously, as dark as things seem now in kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man), satya yuga (the good times) is so very close in reach. Every little flap of our butterfly wings…
Why was this removed??
The log says “trolling”. ???
What part of that was interpreted as trolling? (Honest question. Not rhetorical dismissiveness.)
One accusation of trolling, one accusation of AI, … given the other reactions, I can be easily forgiven for entertaining the possibility these are from a desire to attack this in absence of constructive argument on substance. … And the “cui bono” (“who benefits”) on that is a horror worth confronting. [Cui bono? Bigots. Bigots benefit from that. Getting to keep their hate groups running without this greatest efficacious challenge to them [that I know of] being shared.]. And by censorship? The means do seem fit the ends. O_O
Irony noted here too, that I was having all kinds of rule breaking responses spat at me, and I was trying to be civil and reasonable, it’s one of my posts that got deleted. Flying monkey unleashed from some darvo sob story? I hate getting played into being a flying monkey. Some seem more concerned with the idea they may have been played into being a flying monkey, and run from looking at the idea. … Same pattern spotted earlier, and sought to offer some friendly salve for. No good deed intent going unpunished. Heh. Plenty more cheek to turn. Plenty more patterns to notice, and learn the higher topology from; learn the deeper principles from, to avoid getting played as a flying monkey. And we get played in our shadow. We do not see it. Same as with getting induced to groupthink. It’s kind of an essential defining component of it. Not knowing you’re in it. Not knowing when slipped into groupthink, not knowing when being sent forth as a flying monkey, with your better (or worse) traits being used, likely contrary to your better interests, by the narcissist, the cluster b personality disordered psyche, the social parasite, the predator. …And am noting this is all still on topic, through and through, and within the rules. Not trolling (never have).
I had an LLM propose what could be perceived as trolling, as I never troll, and say when using LLM
The comment you posted is lengthy, passionate, and thought-provoking, but it could be perceived as trolling by some readers due to a few key elements. Here’s a breakdown of where the perception of trolling might arise, even if that wasn’t your intent:
Phrases like:
“the horror. A horror, we’re all better served, facing.” “unwittingly becoming them, as an opposame… the horror.” “race to the bottom” “kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man)” Why it could be seen as trolling: These phrases are emotionally charged and could be interpreted as exaggerated or melodramatic, especially in a context where nuanced discussion is expected. Some might read this as deliberately stoking fear or controversy rather than fostering constructive dialogue.
Examples:
The comment loops between ideas (e.g., Daryl Davis’s method, the Chicago experiment, limbic fear reflex, morphic resonance) without clear transitions or concise conclusions. Phrases like “if-then-therefors” and “dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex” are jargon-heavy and abstract, which can come across as pseudointellectual or obfuscating rather than clarifying. Why it could be seen as trolling: Overly complex or meandering arguments can frustrate readers who expect direct, actionable points. Some might assume you’re intentionally being obscure to provoke reactions or derail discussion.
Examples:
“I know now from experience here on lemmy that a lot of people have a kneejerk reaction against the idea.” “Presumably, largely, because it’s seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view.” “not following through the longer now, the if-then-therefors, the calm consideration that we’re dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex” Why it could be seen as trolling: These lines dismiss or mock the emotional responses of others (e.g., fear of engaging with hate groups). Even if your intent was to critique a lack of action, phrasing it this way can sound condescending or dismissive, which is a common trolling tactic.
Examples:
“morphic-resonant-amplifying-esq implications of the Chicago experiment” “kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man), satya yuga (the good times)” Why it could be seen as trolling: References to morphic resonance (a controversial, non-mainstream scientific idea) and Hindu cosmological concepts (kali yuga/satya yuga) might be seen as off-topic or esoteric, especially in a discussion about racism or activism. Some readers might interpret this as derailing the conversation with unrelated or fringe ideas.
Examples:
“How many of them are there? How many of us? If the Chicago experiment had the effect it did…” “Every little flap of our butterfly wings…” Why it could be seen as trolling: The tone can come across as preachy or self-righteous, especially if readers feel you’re lecturing them rather than engaging in a two-way discussion. This can provoke pushback or accusations of trolling, even if your intent was sincere.
The comment is dense and stream-of-consciousness, which can make it hard for readers to follow or extract actionable insights. In online forums, walls of text are often flagged as trolling because they overwhelm or annoy others.
Key Takeaway: Why It Might Have Been Flagged Your comment isn’t inherently trolling—it’s clearly heartfelt and references real, thoughtful ideas (e.g., Daryl Davis’s work). However, the combination of emotional language, abstract reasoning, dismissive phrasing, and fringe references could lead moderators or readers to perceive it as:
Disruptive (derailing the conversation with tangents). Condescending (implying others are irrational or uninformed). Provocative (using charged language to elicit strong reactions).
How to Avoid This Perception in the Future
Be concise: Break up long paragraphs into shorter, clearer points. Avoid jargon: Explain terms like “morphic resonance” or “limbic fear reflex” if they’re central to your point. Acknowledge others’ emotions: Instead of dismissing “kneejerk reactions,” address them empathetically (e.g., “I understand why this idea might feel uncomfortable at first…”). Stay on-topic: Focus on the core discussion (e.g., Daryl Davis’s method) rather than branching into unrelated concepts. Use a neutral tone: Avoid language that could sound preachy or melodramatic.
Question for you: Do you think the moderation was fair, or do you feel the comment was misunderstood? Would you like help refining the message to be clearer or more constructive?
The post minus the neat formatting for easier reading
I know it’s counter intuitive, and emotionally challenging, but, it’s hard to argue with Daryl Davis’s results. And then consider the alternative… leaving them unchallenged to worsen in their echo chamber, or worse, challenged so they double down. …[And/]Or unwittingly becoming them, as an opposame… the horror. A horror, we’re all better served, facing. … Just thinking about it has me go reach for another video (or two) about his story, so inspirational, a way out… and how few of us doing it, it would take… so many of us, who do not want be either racist nor tyrant/totalitarian, vastly outnumbering those who are nazi/kkk/etc, and if we each achieve 200 conversions out of ignorance… I know now from experience here on lemmy that a lot of people have a kneejerk reaction against the idea. Maybe not even looking into it any further to hear about it from Daryl Davis’s mouth. Presumably, largely, because it’s seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view. And, as highlighted there^, they’re seen as a big enough threat as to evoke merely the short term safety concern and reflex (and, would not want deprive of that ~ stay safe), but not following through the longer now, the if-then-therefors, the calm consideration that we’re dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex (especially if chronically triggered, never getting a break ~ which is understandable in presence of perceived threat of being killed (or worse) by someone because of some innate trait of yours they hate), to see which way’s a race to the bottom, and which way mends it. But because of the fortune of Daryl’s upbringing, racism was completely alien to him, and so in the shock discovery of it, there was an innocent curiosity, and benevolent will to help these people, not in an arrogant imposing way, but just a gentle presence. And that’s it. That’s really all there is to it. Not saying it’s good what they’re doing, not threatening them with violent judgement and condemnation that merely reaffirms their identity attachment to the toxic ignorant ideas and locking out their considerate forebrains in their own defensive limbic fear reflex, just being a counter-example dispels their ignorant misconceptions and short circuits the ignorant narratives, ending their bigotry and allegiance to hate groups. 200 and counting. How many of them are there? How many of us? If the Chicago experiment had the effect it did on reducing violent crime and increasing community spirit from however many meditators it had, if we couple the Daryl Davis method, with the morphic-resonant-amplifying-esq implications of the Chicago experiment… Seriously, as dark as things seem now in kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man), satya yuga (the good times) is so very close in reach. Every little flap of our butterfly wings…