""trolling""- has the meaning changed?

?

Rhonda get the fUCK in here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORbg3fAE2SU

?

For whom the bell trolls?

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"

― uptown top tanking (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:12 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

ok we have baseline

ty for yr service nv

― phil neville jacket (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:14 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― uptown top tanking (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:15 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― uptown top tanking (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:17 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

gonna have to unpick that one maybe

― phil neville jacket (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:20 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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?"

― HOOS on first (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:23 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― HOOS on first (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:25 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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)

― phil neville jacket (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:27 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

"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

― Mordy, Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:28 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― HOOS on first (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:29 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― Tim, Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:29 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― HOOS on first (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:31 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― phil neville jacket (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:32 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

lol tim

― phil neville jacket (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:32 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― phil neville jacket (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:33 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― phil neville jacket (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:33 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― pomenitul, Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:33 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― Come and Rock Me, Hot Potatoes (Old Lunch), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:34 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

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

― phil neville jacket (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 August 2019 14:35 (one year ago) bookmarkflaglink

The heart of it is in here somewhere, maybe

We don’t need two people doing these shit revives, tbh

we need more

it is *very* important to not fall in love with martin shkreli

Easier said than done.

are we really going back to the viking thing?

lol

(i feel the same way)

I feel comfortable stating that nobody, when first confronted with the phrase "that's where I'm a Viking", has ever sincerely believed that "to be a Viking" is an extant phrase implying excellence

NV, I can see that you have a good deal of insight into the workings of other people's brains, it's a field in which you excel, in fact.

what about sentences such as "when it comes to raiding and looting Irish monasteries, that's where I'm a Viking!"

#notonethread

Hate speech is it

Still think the heart of it was in there somewhere

A+ trolling here, written well enough to make people angry without being over the top

question for the ladies- do you check your man’s phone?? 🤔 would he let you??? 🤔 i explained to my man early on that in order to trust him i would be doing random daily phone checks❤️ happy 3 weeks baby pic.twitter.com/2plFyIXMDK

— Grace (@gracecamille_) March 2, 2021

why u coming home
5 in the morn

yanks cap makes this

I’ve already told my partner the calming effects of Martin Clunes GIS searches, I’ve got nothing to hide

I wouldn't trust a dude enough to announce that I was going to do "random daily phone checks" ... that's like announcing DUI checkpoints, if they're smart enough they'll go around them, and if they're stupid enough not to know, then they're not someone I'd want to be with romantically

best response

I went thru an SO's phone once, but only bc I suspected he was cheating. I was right and my sister, who was house-sitting for us while we were traveling to a wedding, almost trashed his house to avenge me, but I told her not to. We broke up about a yr later but are still friends

— ndr Chrpntr (@quo_vadis_83) March 2, 2021