Who makeß the stàndàrď .. whère ìs it learnt and how were these "Troll" class assessments determined, seems like a pretty big blanket CLASSification..
Good thing this articles merit chimes in so deafening that its sheer magnitude of knowledge in the "Art of the troll" should be documented and noted as the new standard in the troll awareness..
Lets be sure to gear direction push the hair twirling trolls up onto their acceptable soap box as this article states the narrative on this and forces regulatory opinion from 4Chan poppycock.
Can someone post that class list again of all the kinds of trolls these troll "scientists" have determined are the acting body
It's not really about "trolling" so much as its slamming those with dissenting views who get colorful.
Leftwingies tend to label anyone a troll who argues with them and they get rather hysterical when someone name calls back.
That's more what this article is talking about.
Actually, it's more about viciousness vs cleverness. Viciousness is just not a winning troll. And it does not single out the left for being bad at this. It singles out anyone from either side who posts attacks that have no meaning other than to be nasty.
"But most of the trolling done online today, particularly by groups that are labeled part of the “alt-right,” doesn’t have any purpose or deeper meaning. For the most part, it’s just offensive. It is arguably distinct from the internet shenanigans of groups like anonymous or 4chan, which dominated the mainstream understanding of “trolling” just one or two election cycles ago. As political culture and internet culture have become increasingly intertwined, mainstream media outlets have become more likely to spot and amplify the offensive behavior that characterizes the fringes of American politics."
Interesting article, Lotes.
I agree there's a yuge difference between being witty or clever and being nasty for the sake of being nasty.
Telling someone to "go die in a fire," say, isn't particularly "artful." To me, people who do this are signalling that the quiver of their imagination is empty.
Getting a rise out of a target, when done intentionally while remaining pleasant and quippy, is indeed fast becoming a lost art. There was once a tradition (here expressed in the film
) that considered weaponized wit and humour as a useful tool for survival in the courts of regents and monarchs.
To be successful and artful at this, you must embrace, and give voice to, your Inner Passive-Aggressive Class Clown. You're at the top of your game when your target can't decide whether you've just insulted them or thrown them a bouquet of roses (when, in fact, you've just done both, in the hopes that a thorn will also draw blood).
One of my exes was a master at this kind of subtle equivocation. She worked for a number of years as Chief of Cabinet for a prominent politician and she once told me that her job essentially consisted of making members of the public think or believe that she just told them "yes" when she actually said "no."
Trolling is a harder art to master than is flaming (where Biggie-style word salad text walls pass for wit).
I don't troll much. But I'm trying to learn.