Reactionary Trolling

[sobrique]

In the lifespan of the Internet, the "troll" is an old term. It's meaning somewhat vague and distorted over the period since the genesis of the net.

It's essence is that the troll presents worthless flamebait to the world, and sits back to watch the flames.

I don't agree there. To flame is to provoke argument. To Troll is to provoke thought. And then arguement.

All too often, there are people blinded by their own conceptions, who need to be reminded of this fact.
This is the true art of Trolling. To present an argument, convincingly and concisely, that you trigger the person reading to respond, to give their viewpoint, and maybe even re-consider what they think on the subject.

And so I would urge you all. Go forth. Troll. Awaken the those who's thoughts move sluggishly. They will not thank you for igniting the fire of their enthusiasm. But they may see today a little more clearly.

Comments

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

before i started out on this internet world.. "Trolling" was what you did to look for something (i think its a distortion of the word Trawling)...

[scarletdemon.livejournal.com]

Ohhh yes, your definition is even sexier than mine.

[karen2205]

To flame is to provoke argument. To Troll is to provoke thought. And then arguement.

Definitely agree that the meanings of 'flame' and 'troll' have changed a lot over the years. A while ago I made a post about how to write good flames and had a bit of a rant that I couldn't find any decent resources on how to do it - just loads of things saying 'flaming is wrong, don't do it'. I think flaming is a very good thing to do - people deserve it, it's stress relieving, it reduces stupidity, it reduces breaches of real netiquette (if you're going to get flamed for making the same mistakes again and again then you're less likely to carry on making them) and it's an art form.

[xarrion.livejournal.com]

I try on an almost daily basis. But it doesn't help. In fact I think that particular audience is almost beyond help. Ahh well, It's fun anyway :D

[malal.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with your your definitions, and they don't seem to be the ones used in the bits of the net I inhabit.

A Troll is someone who tries to provoke arguements (and get flamed), simply for cheap laughs. To Flame is to post an overly angry message. Neither Trolling or Flaming is good.

Provoking thought is good, but not best served by either Trolling or Flaming.

This brings up an interesting issue, has the net developed into lots of little groups (a bit like social groups, the goths, the townies, etc), each with their different meanings for certain terms?

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Any time you get slang in use, then you get different meanings.

I draw the distinction between "trolling" and "Trolling".

Former is the act of being an irritating shitbag. The latter is the art form of a thought provoking post :)

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Troll! Flame! but not on my journal. Or 'my' communities.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Ah well, that's a matter of (n)ettiquette.
I mean, like walking through someone's house with muddy boots, it's just rather rude :)