It came from the US political scene six or so years ago, I do not want to repeat the case. It is used as an insult now. ☺️ Mostly by people who pretend to be sensitive to insults.
It has its place though. One side can present facts supporting certain theory; and the other can present alternative facts, still fact but in contradiction with that theory. They are alternative in the context of discussing that theory.
This place desperately needs an Off Topic forum which could serve as a garbage can. The mods (aka "facilitators") could throw away threads there, or parts of threads.
That's not 'trolling'. That's expressing something in a derogatory and insulting manner. There are lots of discussions going on here about where the limits should be and how we keep things 'nice', if we do.
As a result of a creative suggestion by a member, I've secured the domain name DPRevenge.com. We will also have a server going spare in a few days. I'm still trying to work out what to do with them.
"Alternative facts" is a euphemism for lies when you are trying to weasel out of being caught red handed lying.
Oh man! I'd have gone with "DPRumble.com", myself. : )
I've never heard the phrase in that context, though. For example, I've never heard MOND ("Modified Newtonian Gravity") branded as an "alternative fact" with regards to General Relativity, or Lamarkian Evolution branded as an "alternative fact" to Darwinian Evolution. It's only in the political arena that I've heard the term "alternative facts".
I thought the term was a euphemism for "fake news".
David
The political arena is so vocal that any possible prior use of that term would be buried in the noise. Look up "alternative evidence" and you will find hits not polluted by the politics, including references to Newton and Einstein.
Tricky. The 'alternative facts' are those put about by the people (person?) who casts news that contains at least some verifiable events as 'fake news'.
Science doesn't deal in 'facts' - so those guys are largely irrelevant to this discussion.
It does not? Anyway, I was not the one who brought those two guys up.
“When you begin a journey of revenge, start by digging two graves: one for your enemy, and one for yourself.”
What if we call it DPRjustice.com instead?
Here is a definition what does troll mean in internet slang :A troll is Internet slang for a person who intentionally tries to instigate conflict, hostility, or arguments in an online social community". If derogatory or insulting language does not constitute hostility, I do not know what does
There is a case to be made that insisting on alternative facts is trolling.
The person who believes fairy tales to be literally true and posts them as real and true will eventually encounter respondents who point out the falsehoods being posted for what they are. The responses will be rational and will point out documented facts that are contrary to and reveal the myths for the falsehoods they are. At some point, despite being given every reasonable opportunity to see the false posts for what they are, the myth-believer is shown to be willfully ignorant. Continued posting of the same falsehoods as real-world truths has a predictable outcome. Those posts serve only to disrupt an otherwise productive discussion. Posting falsehoods to be intentionally disruptive is trolling.
As to the question of whether or not such behavior should be actionable, that gets to the heart of the kind of forum community being built, here. It's been made clear that DPRevived will not be a place where it's common practice for members to be banned. That doesn't mean admins have to be without options to respond to members whose participation often has a negative influence.
For example, I've suggested that a flag tool be added allowing an admin or facilitator to flag a post in a thread as being a factually accurate response to the question raised by the OP. It's basically the DPRevived seal of approval. If this were put into effect, admins and facilitators would have a tool they could use to call attention to a particularly useful and accurate response. If admins have the authority to unflag a post, that allows for corrective action should a post of questionable value be flagged.
It's a practice that would address the issue of the member who repeatedly posts alternative facts in response to basic questions. It addresses this issue by allowing a correct answer to be flagged as such. It also would encourage and reward members for posting accurate useful responses to questions. It wouldn't be used in every thread nor would every useful response be flagged. Even if the flag tool were only used in threads where one or more members insist on promulgating known false beliefs, it would serve a productive purpose. And it would do so in a civil manner. Nobody's being called out for posting myths and falsehoods. It's just calling attention to an accurate and useful response.
Correction is not the only available option. There's also the path of rewarding and encouraging good behavior. Give admins and facilitators a flag tool that can be used to shine a spotlight on a response that is both accurate and useful. Sometimes the best response to a post that promulgates falsehoods is to let it die in the shadows. If you want to create a shadow, add a light. Use the flag tool as a light that calls attention to good behavior while putting bad behavior in the shadows. It doesn't have to be used on every thread or even on every useful response. Even if the flag tool is used sparingly - only in threads where one or more members are promoting false beliefs as truthful accurate representations, it serves a purpose...to call attention of accurate, useful responses.
