Registration has been disabled and the moderation extension has been turned off.

Contact an admin on Discord or EDF if you want an account. Also fuck bots.

Troll: Difference between revisions

From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to navigationJump to search
← Older edit
imported>Y5nr9zSQ
imported>The PolishPrince
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
[[File:JewTroll.jpg|thumb|This troll is also a [[jew]].  Notice the bulbous nose, large ears, and use of candle to save moniez]]
[[File:JewTroll.jpg|thumb|This troll is also a [[jew]].  Notice the bulbous nose, large ears, and use of candle to save moniez]]
{{spoilers|CHILDREN ARE RAPED AND MURDERED EVERY DAY, BUT NEVER MIND THAT, [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3814972/Madeleine-McCann-is-target-of-trolls.html BECAUSE PEOPLE SAYING MEAN STUFF ON THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS!!!!!!!1111]}}  
{{spoilers|CHILDREN ARE RAPED AND MURDERED EVERY DAY, BUT NEVER MIND THAT, [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3814972/Madeleine-McCann-is-target-of-trolls.html BECAUSE PEOPLE SAYING MEAN STUFF ON THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS!!!!!!!1111]}}  
<br>
 
[[File:maximum_trolling64.gif|400px|center|link=]]
[[File:maximum_trolling64.gif|400px|center|link=]]
<br>
 
<br>
The term "'''troll'''" has, over the past few decades, evolved for some into an ideology with a distinct methodology. Seen by many as "Internet Eugenics" - ridding the tubes of [[Retard |idiots]], people who take themselves too seriously, [[bloggers]] and the [[Scum | like]]. Others even go to the extent of idealizing it to the point of qualifying the likes of Socrates as such; clearly outreaching from the more common consensus that trolling as we understand it originated on the Internet. However you see it, trolling has become omnipresent on the Internet; for the better and the worse.
The term "'''troll'''" has, over the past few decades, evolved for some into an ideology with a distinct methodology. Seen by many as "Internet Eugenics" - ridding the tubes of [[Retard |idiots]], people who take themselves too seriously, [[bloggers]] and the [[Scum | like]]. Others even go to the extent of idealizing it to the point of qualifying the likes of Socrates as such; clearly outreaching from the more common consensus that trolling as we understand it originated on the Internet. However you see it, trolling has become omnipresent on the Internet; for the better and the worse.


Nowadays, term has often been bastardized and brutally abused by retards (See: [[Libtards]]) to describe someone with a differing opinion about something, and by [[Minecraft|14 year olds]] with [[trollface]] avatars who believe themselves to be [[retard|TROL MASZTERSZ]], although the primary usage is still presenting intentional logical fallacies or behaving in seemingly irrational ways with the intention of provoking a humorous and boisterous response.  
Nowadays, term has often been bastardized and brutally abused by retards (See: [[Libtards]]) to describe someone with a differing opinion about something, and by [[Minecraft|14 year olds]] with [[trollface]] avatars who believe themselves to be [[retard|TROL MASZTERSZ]], although the primary usage is still presenting intentional logical fallacies or behaving in seemingly irrational ways with the intention of provoking a humorous and boisterous response.  
According to the definition of Wikipedia administrator [[Bbb23]], a troll is anyone who criticizes the Wikipedia administrator Bbb23.


==Quotes==
==Quotes==
Line 30: Line 31:


{{quote|Trolling is a art.|[[Obvious troll]]|center=relative}}
{{quote|Trolling is a art.|[[Obvious troll]]|center=relative}}
__TOC__


==[[The Troll Hunter|Hunter of Trolls]]==
==[[The Troll Hunter|Hunter of Trolls]]==
Line 99: Line 99:
Mastery over trolling methods is not what makes a master troll, but rather the implementation of these methods. A good parallel would be comparing cooks to chefs. A master troll creates and implements his or her own recipes, and begins as a career troll, giving priority to the rigorous study, practice, and combining of the areas of properly executed [[Wikipedia:Fallacy|logical fallacies]], [[Aspergers|social science]], [[drama-generating techniques]], and the [[I see what you did there|identification]] and [[Trolls trolling trolls|appreciation of other trolls]]. Great chef from which you can learn is kitborga, where [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLUE-m2B5xA&t=2143s here] brings him to mental breakdown. The fact is that his films have a slight disadvantage of trying to destroy someone's time, which means that his trolling lasts exactly as long as the conversation lasts, i.e. it does not work in the classic way, where you cast the bait and people shoot the drama themselves, but still it's worthed - he simply chose a form of abuse that is socially acceptable.
Mastery over trolling methods is not what makes a master troll, but rather the implementation of these methods. A good parallel would be comparing cooks to chefs. A master troll creates and implements his or her own recipes, and begins as a career troll, giving priority to the rigorous study, practice, and combining of the areas of properly executed [[Wikipedia:Fallacy|logical fallacies]], [[Aspergers|social science]], [[drama-generating techniques]], and the [[I see what you did there|identification]] and [[Trolls trolling trolls|appreciation of other trolls]]. Great chef from which you can learn is kitborga, where [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLUE-m2B5xA&t=2143s here] brings him to mental breakdown. The fact is that his films have a slight disadvantage of trying to destroy someone's time, which means that his trolling lasts exactly as long as the conversation lasts, i.e. it does not work in the classic way, where you cast the bait and people shoot the drama themselves, but still it's worthed - he simply chose a form of abuse that is socially acceptable.


A good tip to remember when trolling is to make people rage without actually giving away too much. Think of it as standing on a line, but not crossing it. Make your arguments/responses/questions seem logical and reasonable yet almost extremist. A obvious pictorial example is propertarianism where claim that children are the property of their parents, therefore pedophilia is legit if is incestuous. If you are not sitting with these 3 anons who actually believe in this ideology, practically everywhere outside of this environment you will drive almost anyone to immediate furious, but no one will be able to undermine it because logic protects it.
A good tip to remember when trolling is to make people rage without actually giving away too much. Think of it as standing on a line, but not crossing it. Make your arguments/responses/questions seem logical and reasonable yet almost extremist. Like Noam Chomsky said, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” A obvious pictorial example is propertarianism where claim that children are the property of their parents, therefore pedophilia is legit if is incestuous. If you are not sitting with these 3 anons who actually believe in this ideology, practically everywhere outside of this environment you will drive almost anyone to immediate furious, but no one will be able to undermine it because logic protects it.


Admitting to trolling will also nullify your status as a troll, making you a failtroll. The troll is by and large a silent hero in the shadows and lives by this honor; he is Anonymous. There can be some liberties made towards close acquaintances of the troll who may already know his intentions.
Admitting to trolling will also nullify your status as a troll, making you a failtroll. The troll is by and large a silent hero in the shadows and lives by this honor; he is Anonymous. There can be some liberties made towards close acquaintances of the troll who may already know his intentions.
Line 111: Line 111:
:It would be a great mistake to suppose that it is sufficient not to become personal yourself. For by showing a man quite quietly that he is wrong, and that what he says and thinks is incorrect - a process which occurs in every dialectical victory - you embitter him more than if you used some rude or insulting expression. Why is this? Because, as Hobbes observes,17 all mental pleasure consists in being able to compare oneself with others to one's own advantage. Nothing is of greater moment to a man than the gratification of his vanity, and no wound is more painful than that which is inflicted on it. Hence such phrases as "Death before dishonor," and so on. The gratification of vanity arises mainly by comparison of oneself with others, in every respect, but chiefly in respect of one's intellectual powers; and so the most effective and the strongest gratification of it is to be found in controversy. Arthur Schopenhauer - The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument  
:It would be a great mistake to suppose that it is sufficient not to become personal yourself. For by showing a man quite quietly that he is wrong, and that what he says and thinks is incorrect - a process which occurs in every dialectical victory - you embitter him more than if you used some rude or insulting expression. Why is this? Because, as Hobbes observes,17 all mental pleasure consists in being able to compare oneself with others to one's own advantage. Nothing is of greater moment to a man than the gratification of his vanity, and no wound is more painful than that which is inflicted on it. Hence such phrases as "Death before dishonor," and so on. The gratification of vanity arises mainly by comparison of oneself with others, in every respect, but chiefly in respect of one's intellectual powers; and so the most effective and the strongest gratification of it is to be found in controversy. Arthur Schopenhauer - The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument  


Example: Make an offensive post and wait for to argue against you. Instead of actually making a counter argument, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy just point out the fallacies] in their argument. That will make them mad real fast. If anyone say "argument from fallacy" you can increase flame saying "in mathematics also check what happens next when the error occurs earlier?" or better "I just found it to be fallacy. Not that it refutes your argument. I am giving you a chance to improve yourself".
'''Example:''' Make an offensive post and wait for to argue against you. Instead of actually making a counter argument, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy just point out the fallacies] in their argument. That will make them mad real fast. If anyone say "argument from fallacy" you can increase flame saying "in mathematics also check what happens next when the error occurs earlier?" or better "I just found it to be fallacy. Not that it refutes your argument. I am giving you a chance to improve yourself".
 
it's quite fun to watch when you point fallacies and after pointing it, people still try to use it again, expecting different results.


Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein.
====Mirroring====
====Mirroring====
a much funnier method is to use their fallacies against them.
a much funnier method is to use their fallacies against them.


Example: Start off by bitching about niggers, Jews, or any other minority. Once they take the bait and inevitably call you a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_discrimination privileged white male],' tell them you're Asian, black or Hispanic, and female. Bonus points if you [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law call them a 'racist', 'fascist' and/or 'sexist'] for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_to_conclusions jumping to conclusions]. Causes them to fucking explode.
'''Example:''' Start off by bitching about niggers, Jews, or any other minority. Once they take the bait and inevitably call you a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_discrimination privileged white male],' tell them you're Asian, black or Hispanic, and female. Bonus points if you [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law call them a 'racist', 'fascist' and/or 'sexist'] for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_to_conclusions jumping to conclusions]. Causes them to fucking explode.
 
'''Tip:''' The point here is not that *literally* use their fallacies against them, only to submit a simple analysis of the consequences. So, when interlocutor use ad personam, don't do exactly the same, always strive for to prove the fracture [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule the golden rule]
 
'''Example:''' Right Not To Be Offended it's these being their pretexts for gaining power over others speech control over others speech is what SJWs want for themselves, though ''they would be horrified were others to apply the same methods to them''; scoring this immorality each time gives two results: agreeing with you (even if it is not explicitly stated) or ghosting. Most people it assholes which they forget about golden rule and you can stab everyone at every time, when they will not be able to justify their behavior. Often they can't stand it at this point either and will use it very quickly 3 fallacies: ad personam, tu quoque or tone policing.
 
Remember, each fallacy you can reverse, always you ask yourself, "since person 1 authorized fallacy X, it means that..." for example:
* You're stupid
* Thank you for your complement
* It wasn't complement you idiot [...]
* out of your mouth, there is.


Tip: The point here is not that *literally* use their fallacies against them, only to submit a simple analysis of the consequences. So, when interlocutor use ad personam, don't do the same, always strive for to prove the fracture [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule the golden rule]. Example: Right Not To Be Offended it's these being their pretexts for gaining power over others speech control over others speech is what SJWs want for themselves, though '''they would be horrified were others to apply the same methods to them'''; scoring this immorality each time gives two results: agreeing with you (even if it is not explicitly stated) or ghosting. it can be worded like this: And that's an X. So I will be able to do the same as you, that is to do Y because in your opinion it is X. Truth? Most people it assholes which they forget about golden rule and you can stab everyone at every time, when they will not be able to justify their behavior. Often they can't stand it at this point either and will use it very quickly 3 fallacies: ad personam, tu quoque or tone policing. Since golden rule is a moral stance, a clear distinction needs to be made here, between tu quoque and golden rule:
most people are sacks of shit who think when they use fallacy it's a one-side argument, so they will be helpless when you throw their own stone at them.


More advanced victim, out of powerlessness, they will try to use your technique against you, but they will never succeed because these retards never educate themselves on how fallacies work. Eg. It will be common practice to confuse merit argument + ad hominem vs. pure ad hominem, because they don't distinguish between criticism and hatred.
====Morality====
====Morality====
Finally, to completely destroys you victim, you must touch their absolute moral value and pointing out their even not hypocrisy, but that they are the aggressors.
Since golden rule is a moral stance, a clear distinction needs to be made here, between tu quoque and golden rule:
Logical form tu quoque:
Logical form tu quoque:
* Person A claims that statement X is true.
* Person A claims that statement X is true.
Line 128: Line 142:
* Therefore, X is false.
* Therefore, X is false.


tu quoque it's ad personam based on the analogy. If I say shouldn't smoke but *I* smoke, it doesn't refute the notion that shouldn't smoke.  I commit a tu quoque anytime I approve of A but not of B or vice versa.
[http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2017/04/internet-warriors-guide-to-surviving.html tu quoque it's basically two wrongs don't make a right]. If I say shouldn't smoke but *I* smoke, it doesn't refute the notion that shouldn't smoke.  I commit a tu quoque anytime I approve of A but not of B or vice versa.
Meanwhile logical claim to The golden rule is filling this gap. "If i approve A them i must also approve B" A tu quoque merely points out that one party has inconsistent attitudes toward two purportedly similar things. It doesn't make any claim about the attitude we ought to have toward them (supposing the analogy is a good one). In other words, people get even more fun at this point, because they are trying to prove moral superiority by applying amoral familism themselves.
Meanwhile logical claim to The golden rule is filling this gap. "If i approve A them i must also approve B" A tu quoque merely points out that one party has inconsistent attitudes toward two purportedly similar things. It doesn't make any claim about the attitude we ought to have toward them (supposing the analogy is a good one). In other words, people get even more fun at this point, because they are trying to prove moral superiority by applying amoral familism themselves.


so enjoy this FATALITY formula:
so enjoy this FATALITY formula:
  if you claim that X is ok, it means that I can do the same as they do, i.e. X because you thinks X is okay, right?
  if you claim that X is ok, it means that I can do the same as they do, i.e. X because you thinks X is okay, right?
Example:
if you claim that harming and cheating customers / users is ok, it means that I will be able to do the same as they do, i.e. "hurt" them, that is, pirate their product because in his opinion the treatment in question is okay, right?


Remember, context does matter and sometimes using literal mirroring could be beneficial. Other example: Ask if a programmer has access to the source code, why forbid others to obtain this privilege. Usually you hear [https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Just-Because-Fallacy because yes]. since such an argument has already been allowed by the interlocutor, you can use the same for him and say eg. "so i can pirate, because yes".
Remember, context does matter and sometimes using literal mirroring could be beneficial. Other example: Ask if a programmer has access to the source code, why forbid others to obtain this privilege. Usually you hear [https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Just-Because-Fallacy because yes]. since such an argument has already been allowed by the interlocutor, you can use the same for him and say eg. "so i can pirate, because yes".
Line 315: Line 331:


*[[Skankhunt42]]
*[[Skankhunt42]]
*[[Madison Russo]]
*[[Master Trole]]
*[[Noobmaster69]]
*[[Noobmaster69]]
*[[Master Trole]]




Retrieved from "http://edramatica.com/Troll"