The Lost Art of the Troll – Part I

reply to post by ottobot


I also agree with your point about discerning intent from typed words.

this is a very good reason to keep your trap shut 99% of the time.

the internet has given people the idea that their opinion is actually of some objective value, and that they ought to voice it as often as possible. but we are not as awesome as we want others to believe we are.

rather than adding to the muddle of "awesomeness", you've got to wait for that special moment to arrive, when you don't have to say much at all to lay the smackdown over the whole situation. everyone becomes clear all at once. a certain amount of poetry always adds a nice zing.

Those suffering are those who created trolls.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


thx for keeping it's head down.

Snaps - dead
Chuck Norris jokes - dead
Memes - why are they still around?
Trolls - still waiting...

The internet is becoming less and less a place for interaction... but I guess that's a good thing.. ?

One thing's for sure, growing up with it in the 90's on AOL, it's pretty easy to tell that it has become flooded with teenagers looking for any attention they can get.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Socrates, Spinoza, and Voltaire reduced to being a troll in the company of Hitchens? *Crazy Internet people*

reply to post by trysts


We have a new judgement; C.I.P.'s. Crazy internet people. Can be taken both ways. Enjoy

reply to post by trysts


Have you read any of Hitchens's books? The man was a modern day Voltaire. You should read Voltaire's "Miracles and Idolatry" and "A Treatise on Tolerance." Even their prose is similar (after translated to English). Both, of course, trolled the Church. Spinoza however is a little out of their league.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You tried to troll me didn't you? I wish I would've been able to admire it before you edited it out.

Ancient mayans were trolling us. Where is that video xD

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Everything was way better in the past, it comes with getting old.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by trysts

 

Have you read any of Hitchens's books? The man was a modern day Voltaire. You should read Voltaire's "Miracles and Idolatry" and "A Treatise on Tolerance." Even their prose is similar (after translated to English). Both, of course, trolled the Church. Spinoza however is a little out of their league.

Do you actually like Christopher Hitchens, or are you just joking around? My recollection of Christopher Hitchens is of some psycho who loved to see the U.S. bombing human beings. Here is an excellent article below concerning Hitchen's viewpoints on the matter, from Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com...

"I‘m not surprised that Christopher Hitchens, the village atheist, is now advocating genocide. His recent speech to a conference of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in Madison, Wisc. – a portion of which can be seen here – dramatizes the completion of his evolution from a trendy leftist of the Trotskyist variety into a full-fledged, foaming-at-the-mouth neocon, whose homicidal tendencies have crystallized into a program, as he says in his talk, to “demolish” not only Iran but all religion everywhere."
original.antiwar.com...

Yes, I would like to see religion go away, but it is insane to me that one would go so far as to want to physically hurt someone who believes in angels.

reply to post by trysts


I suppose hearsay is fairly credible and I understand that appealing to someone's emotions by cherry-picking paragraphs taken out of context is a good way to win followers. But if you've read any of Hitchen's work, you might read that he's actually been to these places (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmere etc.) And by talking to the average citizen of these countries, found out first hand how wicked these theocratic regimes were. Hitchens deplored genocide.

Seriously, try reading one of his books, or even listen to them on youtube before taking some guy's word for it:

Here's a good example that involves the topic at hand.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I just picked an article yes, but Hitchens was a neo-con war-monger who thought that countries should invade other countries and bomb the citizens. I personally wouldn't trust a neo-con's perspective on what other human beings are like in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Sorry to hear the admiration for Hitchens, but if you like war-mongers then he's a good choice.

I believe Jonathan Swift should be included in the list of Trolls of yore. "A Modest Proposal" is one of the best examples of screwing with people's minds that I know of.

Come to think of it, some of the most successful trolls out there were and are comedians, in my opinion. Some of them have actually managed to change points of view by challenging how we think. Look at Lenny Bruce. Look at Richard Pryor. Look at George Carlin. Look at Bill Hicks. These were very intelligent people who knew the best way to talk about a controversial issue was not to take it seriously.

Bravo, the Troll.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Haha, what I meant is that a real life 'troll' has the opportunity to be face-to-face or toe-to-toe with his/her target. Granted, it can be funny to see physical trolling in action, but that's just not socially acceptable, now is it?

If we look at the written works of these collected Troll Kings, we see that they were often commenting about the behavior and beliefs of their colleagues or people in the same social circles - people they knew would read their works, be incensed and, therefore, complain about it in a public forum. They had ample opportunity to address the trolled folks at parties or meetings or in letters, books, etc.

On the internet, your opponent could be anyone from anywhere in the world and any society. Something that a US American might take offense to, a Canadian American might find funny. Something that a Briton would be angered by might have absolutely no meaning to someone from the Philippines.

Unless a person specifically states, "I'm upset!", a response as simple as, "Well, pardon me!" can be taken any way that the troll wants to take it, regardless of the intent behind it. I know that I type "pardon me" in a polite manner as in, "Pardon me for my mistake." Yet, I've come across many who use it over the internet intending a tone of sarcasm or disbelief, "Pardon me for living!" (usually accompanied by an eyeroll or two). Interestingly, most people assume that I am being flippant when I type, "Pardon me" during an internet conversation and so respond emotively.

I admit that I "troll" sometimes by debating points I may or may not believe just because nobody else will. I also post logical and unemotional arguments that I know will cause righteous anger or wrathful hate from some people who will respond. I also admit that I have a strange sense of humor that is not necessarily easily discerned by my words and so I unintentionally upset people in this way. But, I just can't see a point in purposefully going around taunting or baiting people on the internet.

Mostly because it's a little too easy. /blush

reply to post by tgidkp


You always make me smile, tgidkp.

You're definitely right, though. On the internet, as in life, one should never speak unless one has something to say.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by abeverage
I have been called a Troll. But I warily walk in the shadows of the original who spoke against it to the point of mockery yet was a complete Troll himself even making it on to the $100 Bill!

I may stick around for part II cause I can be a sucker too...

edit on 14-12-2012 by abeverage because: (no reason given)

I bet when they called you a troll you could almost smell the vile-poison they spewed when they uttered the word. I too have been called a troll, but my aim was never to bring shame nor harm to any real beings, only their opinions. So how about rather than feel like sh## about it, why not turn a negative into a positive and prehaps embrace it? Who knows, maybe it's impossible.

I have found that rarely there is critical thinking until that real opinion comes out. And often it is followed by swearing, name calling and of course letting me know I am a troll.

V ery intruding topic, trolling is a art

Originally posted by ottobot

Unless a person specifically states, "I'm upset!", a response as simple as, "Well, pardon me!" can be taken any way that the troll wants to take it, regardless of the intent behind it. I know that I type "pardon me" in a polite manner as in, "Pardon me for my mistake." Yet, I've come across many who use it over the internet intending a tone of sarcasm or disbelief, "Pardon me for living!" (usually accompanied by an eyeroll or two). Interestingly, most people assume that I am being flippant when I type, "Pardon me" during an internet conversation and so respond emotively.

That, too me, is the beauty of it. It teaches one not to take things at face value. It teaches one that these are merely words, and that we can hide behind them unaffected and uninjured. And the room for one to wallow in the beauty of irony is immense. The internet has pristine conditions for a troll.

Thanks for the insight. These are things I must think about as I tackle the second part.