I loathed Clarkson when he was going on about black crippled lesbian mothers as a bit of a laff, and now that he's alienated a good chunk of his remaining constituency (despite their being commie union brethren), we can see who's laughing out of the other side of their face.
Also, for certain idiots who bitch about "pc gone mad" when it comes to exercising basic respect for each other, this is what comes round to bite you on the bum.
Well, with neologisms like these, I hardly want to say I'm an authority (see above for some variations on shades of meaning other people get from the term), but it's certainly the feeling I get : "X should be like this; you're being (wilfully) ignorant if you think or act otherwise".
@Lucy, I don't disagree these people don't actually care so much about their audience, and it's definitely more about them, albeit dressed up as "concern". Although, again, I do think some do genuinely think what is best for them is best for other people.
The "trolling" part, other than people being deliberately vexatious (definintely the most obvious troll), I would also interpret as people who persistently and uncompromisingly seek to impose their opinion on others, even in forums where they have been told it's not welcome. People who refuse to listen or "agree to disagree" and keep banging their drum about their "concern", particularly when whatever-it-is has no actual impact on them personally. This is of course beyond the point of people having disagreeing points of view, but who can actually discuss them in a productive way beyond "I'm right and you're wrong".
While the term originated in web forums, it is not exclusive to them - I use it in real life all the time, and so do many people I know.
While the term can most definitely be about insincerity and sophism, it can also be about people who quite genuinely think that people who are doing X should really be doing Y instead, to "help themselves" (without bothering to expend any braincells on speculating WHY people might prefer to do X). So the advantage of using it is that you don't have to speculate about someone's motivations - it's about the effect the concern troll is having on their audience.
(I'll let Craig answer as to what he might think is underlying Winston's so-helpful comments)
Exactly. Yeah, thanks so much for your "help", dudes.
Yes, to further expand on concern-trolling with a more blatant example I'm very familiar with:
"But you butch lesbians look like men! Aren't you worried about losing respect from other [read, "normal"] people due to your grooming?"
Thanks anyway, I don't look like a man, I look like butch-of-centre woman. My professional competence, and "business look" tend to get me professional respect. I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of how I look outside the office. The people I'm personally interested in appreciate how I look.
And this example can be extrapolated to any number of communities/subcommunities who don't fit some arbitrary "norm". Concern trolls aren't worried about anyone else, just in being wankers and/or enforcing their norms on others.
Yes, apparently "Dr Brash formerly resigned last night."
No word on whether a Tardis was involved.
And with attitudes like those still abounding, there shouldn't be any wonder that my (gay woman) party vote has never been cast for Labour.
4000 with that possible lean seems like a pretty reasonable number to help those electorates retain their current MPs. I don't think party votes will make an appreciable difference now, unless the Greens can pull another one of their hat (or Winnie's crew, god help us)
Can we stick Trotter and Lhaws in a cage and may the best rabid dog win? I think Trotter (and those of his ilk in the party he represents - Waitakere Man is a good one) is reason #1 I still refuse to vote Labour when I have a choice (although I was happy to cast an electorate vote for Annette King).
So which way do the specials tend to fall? And I'm dying to know how many were cast for Christchurch Central