Istelathis Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Interesting sort of historical overview! I've probably run across the kind earlier, "artistic" form of trolling that you mention, but I can't recall an example offhand. Most of the examples of older trolling I know were very self-involved. They might well involve trying to manipulate or push someone's argument over the edge, but it was seldom if ever because the troll actually cared: it was all about self-display. "Look how clever I am!" I think you're correct about the way trolling has become weaponized in a way that it wasn't before. Some of the older trolls I've known were definitely highly toxic, but they weren't wielding the tools of the trade in the service of a particular perspective. I feel as though, sometime about 10 years ago, the same kinds of people who calculated that algorithms could be manipulated using bots to push disinformation also realized that the approaches used by the troll could be pressed into service, often to "ratio" someone on Twitter or elsewhere. So, yeah. I feel trolling now (and this includes these forums) is less about the troll than about the agenda, whatever that is. It's less an "art form" (if you want to call it that) than a corporate, institutional, or ideological tool. I don't know that that makes it more toxic or even hateful, but it certainly means that the stakes are higher. A lot of the time. it is predictable as well. I'll often read things and think how it is bait, I'll pick up on keywords used to trigger a response, and know how some people will react to it. I don't know if it is really being a troll, I think it has just become part of our culture, the way people seem to lately communicate with one another. The Internet has become this weird place, where people often have the same behavior, but no one really learns from it, and the way I am starting to see internet culture a lot of time is as follows: It is all kind of silly, especially on social media sites. I usually just have a laugh now, because this is typically how I see people when they are trying to manipulate one another. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 9 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: a corporate, institutional, or ideological tool. I don't know that that makes it more toxic or even hateful Peeve: I don't think people who "do the stuff we are talking about" would ever admit it. Because then they wouldn't be "free spirits". And "everyone else" is "toxic and hateful". https://whatwedointheshadows.fandom.com/wiki/Trolls 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValKalAstra Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Peeve: And back in the day, we had "flaming" with funny jokes and insults interspersed with annoying ASCII pictures. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 9 minutes ago, ValKalAstra said: 16 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Peeve: And back in the day, we had "flaming" with funny jokes and insults interspersed with annoying ASCII pictures. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Peeve: None of those special characters! Just ASCII and EBCDIC!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 Peeve: When I was a cub, we printed banners with dot matrix printers! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 40 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: So, yeah. I feel trolling now (and this includes these forums) is less about the troll than about the agenda, whatever that is. It's less an "art form" (if you want to call it that) than a corporate, institutional, or ideological tool. Peeve: It COULD be a form a "performance art"; I'll give my unpopular opinion and watch you squirm. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristiano Midnight Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Peeve: people who say kk. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 11 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said: Peeve: people who say kk. Okey, dokey. I understand your peeve. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said: Peeve: people who say kk. I often just say 'k' That is much better.. If feeling especially verbose and a little country, I'll say "alrighty'. Edited June 4 by Luna Bliss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Couturier Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 21 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said: Peeve: people who say kk. As someone that uses it, I feel it's better than adding that 3rd k. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 4 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said: Saying [ House painter with a stupid lip-fur ] was a psychotic egotist, for instance, would not be an ad hominem attack in a debate about factors leading to WWII. University Debate Society Made Up Rules of Anti-Logic Fallacy! "Godwin's Law", you just did aa debate auto-lose, so I "win" right? You just proved my point about bloody "debate teams" and their moronic "rules of debate". Peeve: Pseudo-intellectuals and their made up rules for why they can't lose "debates". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said: As someone that uses it, I feel it's better than adding that 3rd k. This farang wants to know: Mkay is kk too? Edited June 4 by Sid Nagy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 26 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: 5 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said: Saying [ House painter with a stupid lip-fur ] was a psychotic egotist, for instance, would not be an ad hominem attack in a debate about factors leading to WWII. University Debate Society Made Up Rules of Anti-Logic Fallacy! "Godwin's Law", you just did aa debate auto-lose, so I "win" right? You just proved my point about bloody "debate teams" and their moronic "rules of debate". Peeve: Pseudo-intellectuals and their made up rules for why they can't lose "debates". LOGIC: An inference is a rule-governed step from one or more propositions, called premises, to a new proposition, usually called the conclusion. A rule of inference is said to be truth-preserving if the conclusion derived from the application of the rule is true whenever the premises are true. Inferences based on truth-preserving rules are called deductive, and the study of such inferences is known as deductive logic. An inference rule is said to be valid, or deductively valid, if it is necessarily truth-preserving. That is, in any conceivable case in which the premises are true, the conclusion yielded by the inference rule will also be true. Inferences based on valid inference rules are also said to be valid. (Read Steven Pinker’s Britannica entry on rationality.) Logic in a narrow sense is equivalent to deductive logic. By definition, such reasoning cannot produce any information (in the form of a conclusion) that is not already contained in the premises. In a wider sense, which is close to ordinary usage, logic also includes the study of inferences that may produce conclusions that contain genuinely new information. Such inferences are called ampliative or inductive, and their formal study is known as inductive logic. They are illustrated by the inferences drawn by clever detectives, such as the fictional Sherlock Holmes. The contrast between deductive and ampliative inferences may be illustrated in the following examples. From the premise “somebody envies everybody,” one can validly infer that “everybody is envied by somebody.” There is no conceivable case in which the premise of this inference is true and the conclusion false. However, when a forensic scientist infers from certain properties of a set of human bones the approximate age, height, and sundry other characteristics of the deceased person, the reasoning used is ampliative, because it is at least conceivable that the conclusions yielded by it are mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 what about 'mhmm', 'nods', and 'uh-huh' ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Gotcha is kk to use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Hear hear! Can we also ban the ampersand "&" while we're at it? It's a barbaric innovation introduced by those damned Woke Renaissance Humanists, and I'll have NONE OF IT! The Latin "et" was good enough for my great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother, and it's good enough for me! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: An inference is a rule-governed step from one or more propositions, called premises, to a new proposition, usually called the conclusion. In other words, no substitute for ACTUAL thought. You're drinking in a pub with Sherlock Holmes. Some guy walks in, and Sherlock says to you... "Ahha, Obviously a sailor, just returned from a trip to Turkey!, tattoos, the smell of tar, ragged clothing and smoking Turkish Tobacco!" Logic!" You reply... "His name is Bill, he's an accountant from Cheam, he's wearing rough clothing and smells of tar because he's been painting preservative on the garden fence, and his cousin brought him the Turkish smokes back as part of their duty free allowance, after a 2 week holiday in Istanbul, and he gets seasick in the bath. He got the tattoo for a dare when he was 18 and drunk, often the same thing, during Freshers Fortnight at University." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 What about "amen" as a response to a peeve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said: Can we also ban the ampersand "&" while we're at it? but it's purty....k? &&&&&&♥&&&&&& 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristiano Midnight Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 43 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said: As someone that uses it, I feel it's better than adding that 3rd k. it is no shorter than ok, what is the point? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: 13 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: An inference is a rule-governed step from one or more propositions, called premises, to a new proposition, usually called the conclusion. In other words, no substitute for ACTUAL thought. You're drinking in a pub [more stuffs] I never drink. Don't like alcohol. *I'm arguing badly...what rule did I violate? Edited June 4 by Luna Bliss 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristiano Midnight Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 55 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said: Okey, dokey. I understand your peeve. I like okey dokey artichokey 😜 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 mmhm groooovy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said: it is no shorter than ok, what is the point? You do know that "OK" itself is only about 150 years old, and derived from a joking abbreviation for "Oll Korrect," itself a deliberate misspelling of "all correct"? Edited June 4 by Scylla Rhiadra Added detail! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 minute ago, Sid Nagy said: What about "amen" as a response to a peeve? Beats "Ramen"! Plus, if "hell, yeah" is ok then "hallelujah!" should be too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now