""trolling""- has the meaning changed?

I can’t remember my last sock.

I only had one but lost it doing a good wash, as one does

Surely y'all recall the trolles of aulde. C-man and KBP and the like, cmon.

yes

is that a pun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeeeah_Baby#/media/File:Yeeeah_Baby_coverart.jpg

A multilingual pun, yes.

I mean

https://img.discogs.com/ORm5-Rwv9G6vE3MIoKURi2V_8ZU=/fit-in/600x600/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-2267661-1273394218.jpeg.jpg

I agree that sarahell's 'piece of shit' post quoted upthread was deft snark and not trolling fwiw

i disagree snark, imo the intent there is to make a dumb situational joke and not to undercut anybody.

but that said: attempts at humour come somewhat under each of tyranny of humour, multivalenced language and troll headings discussed elsewhere, and each of us experiences the taste of chilli powder differently

which brings us back to thread intent, if a thread can be said to have an intent (it can i started it)

http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf

The death of the author whoo boy thats a whole nother thread iirc

a big barthes murdered deems and ran away

dt?

teems if you prefer yes

teems and contortions apply

this thread is like James Joyce with a Twitter account

to be trolling his whoop and all of them truetotypes in missam-

— Finnegans Wake (@finnegansreader) December 28, 2013

this thread is like James Joyce with a Twitter account

― an incoherent crustacean (MatthewK), Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:24 (fifty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yes but does the fact that its inconprehensible mean thats its trolling?

inconprehensible

Very Joycean spelling. Kudos.

kudonts imo

i could throw a thome and hittim from here

disagreeing about politics, but probably agreeing about underlying principles- trolling?

disagreeing about a movie sequel- trolling?

lada can we sort this out, for ilx, in 2019,

asking if this stuff is trolling- trolling?

?!?!?!

mutually consenting from macclesfield just as FFL comes under pressure at Chelsea- trolling or blatant opportunism?

xp that was my assumption tbh

Trolling begins at conception.

Just going to use this thread as an excuse to post more Kittelsen:

https://live.staticflickr.com/7228/7322054634_ce1856f729_b.jpg

You can see why Clarke or Harman are way more credible than nah come on this is just trolling now

― uptown top tanking (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 15 August 2019 13:55 (ten minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

?

Loose definition there: "saying a thing that stands up to no logic scrutiny or could even be a sincere belief beyond the desire to get a rise out of people you don't like"

ok we have baseline

ty for yr service nv

I mean I don't hold with hard definitions in general but baseline, yeah, that's something like a baseline

Next level of complexity is that the sincerity of the troll's statements should always be on some level plausible, like it's just possible a Swinson is so tied into her bubble that she cannot see the logical dishonesty there

gonna have to unpick that one maybe

Maybe not the thread to go deep into that specific example but roughly "I cannot support this candidate with a number of obvious qualifications for temporary leader of the government but hey I had a word with a couple of absolutely unqualified chums and wouldn't they be much better choices?"

Now either she *knows* why they're ludicrous suggestions or she's so deep in her own game she can't see the ludicrousness. The outside observer's uncertainty is a very troll-like situation

Schrödinger stuff, from outside yes

but does it rely on whether or not *she* is aware of the ludicrous uncertainty in order to be trolling (as i type it out it seems obvious that it does)

"a thing that stands up to no logic scrutiny or could even be a sincere belief beyond the desire to get a rise out of people" depends a lot on the individual oftentimes u have two ppl who both think the other person is trolling bc neither are capable of imagining a different perspective

I don't think it does because death of the author and as Burroughs might've described it the troll inside

Intentionality is not being taken into account this season, it's about whether the hand or arm are in an "unnatural" position IIRC.

xp

yeah sure Mordy but to the extent I'm engaging with this in good faith it is very much about perspective, social context, history and the speakers' knowledge of one another, like all language really

you will ofc be aware that in such a designation the other variable is the observer's capacity for befuddlement

allow me to further muddy water by suggesting an advance troll technique:

the observer so puzzled by whether or not something is a troll or not that any third party onlooker (and indeed the original subject, the suspected troll themselves) might wonder whether or not the perplexed-possible-trollée is not infact a faux-trolled-troll

fuckit mordy got in there

lol tim

i think to troll one must be on at least some level intending to troll, so i disagree nv

we shall, possibly, have to lurk under that bridge when we come to it

For there to be trolling, intent is paramount. Except, of course, the most successful specimens rely on the trollee's structural inability to reliably decipher the troll's exact intentions. In other words, the best trolling may or may not be an instance of trolling at all.

Apologies for restating the obvious.

xps

Feel like an essential component of trolling is the ethos that self-amusement/-satisfaction > comity.

eh yes and no

the intent is from the pov of the troll and therefore, while it can be unknown from outside, it can never have an actual value of unknown

xp

Necessary but not sufficient, my criterion.