Forum Trolls and The World

[Goldenwind]

I just finished a game of SC2, where my opponent expressed strong verbal harassment throughout the game, without me having spoken a word. This harassment reminded me very much of forum trolling - a plethora of mindless irrationals, bent on offending others to fulfill their hourly needs.

After having lost that game, I took a break for dinner, and watched the news with my family. I noticed that there were two political parties trying to get people's votes. I've never liked politics, because I've always felt all parties seem the same, and all they really do is make dramatic cheapshots. I see politicians using namecalling and propaganda and all sorts of dirty, irrelevant tactics.

And then it hit me.

Could it be possible that the image of a "Forum Troll" is really what the human is like? I see very little different between politicians and trolls.

And then last night, someone I know was ranting about their experience on a bus. They had paid fare to take them halfway across town, when they intended to go the entire route. At the halfway point, the bus driver stopped the bus, and kicked this person off. Offended that the driver had the memory to catch him, he cussed her out, and left.

I don't know, I guess I just kinda feel like people are pretty pathetic. I try my best to cling to hope, that maybe I might be wrong, but I see nothing.

Could it be possible that the *true* forum is the world, and people are all just trolling it?

I used to think forum trolls were scum, below all others, but I'm starting to see how it's not just online.

Discuss.

[Arch0wl]

"troll" is often equivocated (that is, people will use the same word for different meanings and fail to distinguish the meanings.)

there's the "troll" as prankster, the "troll" as argumentative person, and the "troll" as internet sociopath

pranksters aren't that annoying. argumentative people can be annoying, but often people will label anyone who is arguing with them a 'troll' just because it's a convenient excuse for them to walk away. the last one though -- the internet sociopath, i.e. the type of person who would harass someone to the point of suicide if they could get away with it -- is truly awful, and I don't think politicians or pundits are like that sort of person because they usually operate with an agenda while sociopaths usually just operate out of sadism.

[NFD]

Oh jeez I hate when people use 'troll' instead of 'person with a different opinion then mine'.

[PhaeL v2]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

pranksters aren't that annoying. argumentative people can be annoying.

I really second this.



And, about the topic, no, I don't think politicians can be compared to internet trolls. While politicians attack other parties by "necessity", trolls, specially the pranksters ones, like Arch said, do this for pleasure. But, yeah, every human has a "troll" inside itself.

[radxmad]

I think it's fun to watch politicians fight each other buttttt that's just me

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

"troll" is often equivocated (that is, people will use the same word for different meanings and fail to distinguish the meanings.)

there's the "troll" as prankster, the "troll" as argumentative person, and the "troll" as internet sociopath

No. A troll is "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." Word up, Wikipedia.

They're sociopathic by nature. They intend to manipulate people for fun. They find it humorous to elicit emotional responses from their marks. Probably because it's not "cool" to have emotions.

Is it human nature though? Probably. Humans are ****ed up. But that's not what you're describing with politics. They act the way they do because of the system in place. They act to gain power and they act to maintain power. They don't act the way they do to elicit an emotional response, they don't object to the opposition just to make them angry.

Fun-fact: "disrupting on-topic discussion" actually IS a legitimate tool congressmen use. It's called filibustering. But they don't do it because they get jollies out of annoying people, they do it to stop legislation that they oppose.

ps arch, there's no need to use a "big word" if you're just going to explain the term anyway. If you're going to pander to the lowest common denominator, don't stroke your ego first.

[Frozen Beat]

Originally Posted by NFD

Oh jeez I hate when people use 'troll' instead of 'person with a different opinion then mine'.

Although I laughed when I read this, I'm going to have to disagree. What you described NFD, is in its own category, although some people DO clump that in with trolling.

To be honest, who cares about trolling?

As for politicians, it's all constructive, even though most of them are just in it for the job.

"They find it humorous to elicit emotional responses from their marks. Probably because it's not "cool" to have emotions." -Afrobean

^ not agreeing with this, most trolls don't go along with this at all. They don't find it humorous, in fact, 99% of the time, trolls are trolling because they're absolutely enraged (calm your hormones bro), the people who do it out of sheer humour need their own category, as they're not the same people do it for the same intent.

Intent of person 1-doing it to elicit anger and inflict emotional pain
Intent of person 2-cheap entertainment

[Arch0wl]

afrobean, your tendency to provide irrelevant and halfway-snarky tidbits of advice at the end of your posts when you've already made the most obnoxious type of contradiction possible (NO. A [NOUN] IS...) is probably one of your most infuriating posting habits, especially because you are never un-reluctant to provide it. since I don't know what other word you could take issue with I'm assuming your issue was with 'equivocate', and that's a standard word in texts on logic and argument to describe a fallacious form of term-switching. but instead of considering that my use was for precision's sake and not ego-stroking, you ascribed a motive to me that I didn't have. the way you contradict people like this is unnecessarily provocative and condescending, especially because you leave no possibility (in your attitude, not in the sense that your argument is airtight) that you could be wrong. I'd let this go, but in a forum where we're supposed to have a civil discussion your rhetoric is not helping.

anyway, the problem with saying you can have a One True Definition of a word is that ultimately, people define words according to the way they're used. this is the heart of a lot of definitional arguments. even in citing wikipedia there were people on wikipedia who had to decide how troll was used; there isn't an Académie française that they can appeal to. they had probably appealed to the most traditional use of the word (which is what you defined it as) but that's not by any means the limits of the word.

people do use troll in the way you defined it (which I also recognized in my "prankster" definition). but there are a number of ways that people use troll other than the definition you used; a lot of people use it to mean simply someone who is argumentative. you can say they're wrong, but if enough people acknowledge and understand a common meaning behind the word, it eventually becomes to mean their use as well as its more traditional use. troll is slang. you cannot have a One True Definition of slang; if enough people use it in a certain way, their use becomes valid.

[Vendetta21]

jesus some people like to be mean on the internet and sometimes they are funny

there is no need to create this whole ****ing taxonomy and nomenclature to trolling it really is that simple

some people are mean. some people are better at being mean. some people make being mean funny.

[Arch0wl]

You're right, no one would need to create a taxonomy and nomenclature to describe trolling -- but that's partially because you're not using those words correctly. Defining usages of a noun is not the same thing as creating a taxonomy, which is not the same as creating a nomenclature.

But that doesn't get to the heart of what you meant. If you don't think this subject is worth discussing, then yes you wouldn't need to define your terms. But other people do, and if those people want to discuss the subject critically then their terms need to be clearly defined. In that case it is necessary to define terms, because otherwise you'll probably end up with a bunch of people using 'trolling' to mean different things which results in disagreement that usually isn't disagreement at all but just a confusion of terms.

[PhaeL v2]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

They're sociopathic by nature.

Not every "troll" is sociopathic. Personally, I like, from times to times, to troll someone with arguments, specially when the topic is "music", just to see how much he/she knows about it and, if he/she doesn't know too much, laugh at their faces. And I'm not even close of being a sociopathic.




But, seriously, trolling is pathetic, I admit it.

[Vendetta21]

The vernacular use of the word troll is a cultural zeitgeist you can't explain it much further than that good luck spending countless hours trying to get a lucid grasp on what people really intend to say when they use the term. My mother used the term to describe the Daily Show last week.

[Arch0wl]

Lots of things are cultural zeitgeists, though, and still manage to hold some consistency in their definitions. You're right in the sense that you can't define trolling conclusively, which is totally true of slang in general. But you can at least try to get an idea of what people usually mean when they say it by asking "what do people usually mean when they say 'troll'?" -- in that case it's usually just inferring from different contexts.

[MrRubix]

Trolling is a function of boredom. You get on a forum, stir the pot, and watch your puppets dance for your amusement. Then you move on and have fun with the rest of your life while those on the forum have been worked up and stressed out. It's a sort of psychological schadenfreude that you can have fun with from the anonymity of your computer, and it's sometimes funny. That's about it.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by PhaeL v2

Not every "troll" is sociopathic.

A bit of an exaggeration in my phrasing, but no, to troll is to manipulate a mark in effort to elicit an emotional response.

The people doing it probably aren't truly sociopathic, but it is anti-social behavior. The most telling feature is the lack of empathy. Trolls don't care if they hurt the feelings of their mark; in fact, that's usually their goal.

Originally Posted by some rube

Trolling is a function of boredom.

Funny enough, inability to deal with boredom is another sign of sociopathy.

And schadenfreude that you create out of nothing isn't true schadenfreude. If someone falls into a swimming pool and you laugh at it, that's shadenfreude. If you push someone into a swimming pool to laugh at them when they get angry, that's not shadenfreude.

ps hi arch lol seriously though you should have just said "people will use the word 'troll' for different meanings and fail to distinguish the meanings." I'd also like to point out that your writing style is remarkably uninteresting for some reason and that your lack of capitalization isn't appropriate for this level of discussion.

[scientific]

look who it is my man a0 discussing argumentative people and their annoying properties

finally a topic you actually know something about

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

A bit of an exaggeration in my phrasing, but no, to troll is to manipulate a mark in effort to elicit an emotional response.

The people doing it probably aren't truly sociopathic, but it is anti-social behavior. The most telling feature is the lack of empathy. Trolls don't care if they hurt the feelings of their mark; in fact, that's usually their goal.


Funny enough, inability to deal with boredom is another sign of sociopathy.

And schadenfreude that you create out of nothing isn't true schadenfreude. If someone falls into a swimming pool and you laugh at it, that's shadenfreude. If you push someone into a swimming pool to laugh at them when they get angry, that's not shadenfreude.

ps hi arch lol seriously though you should have just said "people will use the word 'troll' for different meanings and fail to distinguish the meanings." I'd also like to point out that your writing style is remarkably uninteresting for some reason and that your lack of capitalization isn't appropriate for this level of discussion.

Lol you're retarded human interaction on the internet lacks empathy not because people are sociopaths but because they're sufficiently disconnected from others. I don't make an effort to empathize with the 6000 people that died in the last ten seconds and I'm not going to make an effort to empathize with a user-base filled with thousands of people I don't know. I think what we see here is a mind-projection bias. Or you're just a ****ing idiot. The former is funnier.

[Izzy]

We should play sc2 some time.

[Vendetta21]

OH no I responded to the Afrobean I am playing into his sick twisted desire to have a facsimile of human interaction on the internet through arguing! If I acknowledge his existence he has won.

Actually I don't care you need to go get ****ed sociopath because your a waste of resource consumption and you have never said anything that has been worth the effort it takes for others to read because you're a serious nonserious only joking not joking retard that spits out words faster than you can comprehend the subject and still hasn't managed to process anything of more complexity than a ****ing Batman graphic novel in your entire life.

[MrRubix]

I see what Arch means, though. Why are you taking phrases/words from posts and then adding superfluous annotation to them in strawman-like format?

I didn't use "Schadenfreude" incorrectly. Like I said, the idea is to "stir the pot." The reactions, if you're doing it properly, are self-perpetuating. You can ignite a furious debate and watch people tear each other apart. Trolling isn't necessarily a constant act of being involved in the process. You can be an ass and try to link the causality back to the start of a given chain, but that's merely mincing semantics.

And, agreed with Vendetta. The whole point is that the Internet is a disconnected medium to begin with. Trying to invoke this sociopathic stuff is just silly. It's the fact that people take the Internet way too seriously and overreact to things said by random people that simply should not matter in their lives.

Learn2read context clues and quit being a smartass, man.