AlimNassor
Banned
Bored kids go online and troll because they're bored and can get away with it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Inside the mind of an internet troll
- Thread starter gutshot
- Start date
- Status
Yeah. The way that he completely disconnects online abuse from verbal abuse in person is disconcerting. He knows it's wrong and is totally OK with doing it. Well at the end it seemed like maybe he was thinking about changing....
It doesn't really matter if he sees twitter as a comedy club and thinks death threats are funny jokes if the audience doesn't interpret it that way. If someone went to see Bill Hicks, they were asking for his style of humor. Not to mention that verbal tone and body language are HUGE in showing intent, sarcasm, and other communication cues. A death threat on twitter does not convey that. Many people use twitter for different reasons, most aren't opting into receiving death threats or other abuse.
Christoff Yurievich
Member
So maybe Shawn Elliot has already put his two cents in.
gutshot, thanks for the post, this was a very interesting read.
I think anyone who finishes this exchange and feels like they have "figured it out" or that there's a simplistic explanation for what we just read is merely attempting to lead themselves to a satisfying conclusion, something that aligns with our notions of who trolls are and what they do. But this isn't satisfying. Shit like this:
Maybe everything he's saying to Patrick is bullshit, maybe he is messing with him, maybe he's chortling to himself every two sentences as he types this, but can anyone really tell me that they're sure that's what's happening here? I can't. Consider the unprompted follow-up where he essentially calls himself out on the bullshit edifice he'd constructed to justify what was merely a dickish comment for its own sake. Do you really think he put his stamp on that, sent it off and thought, "hehe, sure showed that fucker. Bet he feels like shit now!"
I felt uneasy reading a lot of this, and it's not because any of the justifications offered by the troll were particularly compelling or novel, but just the fact that he might be capable of the self-reflection that is on apparent display is far more credit than I am likely to give the average troll I encounter in the wild. I am much more likely to write them off as many have done already in this thread, wipe my hands of the matter and move on, secure in my conclusion that they are just shitty people incapable of being non-shitty people. But this really got to me:
Patrick may well have been out of his depth on this one. He didn't handle it adeptly. But I don't really know what conclusion to draw either. I certainly haven't shaken my belief that "don't feed the trolls" is the best advice one can give, but maybe it is worth engaging the individual, sometimes, every once in a while, on the off chance that they're not quite the fixed, heartless and sociopathic monster we conjure as a satisfyingly abhorrent villain in our minds.
I think anyone who finishes this exchange and feels like they have "figured it out" or that there's a simplistic explanation for what we just read is merely attempting to lead themselves to a satisfying conclusion, something that aligns with our notions of who trolls are and what they do. But this isn't satisfying. Shit like this:
Makes me wonder if we even read the same thing at all. Many trolls may completely lack any semblance of empathy, or act purely out of boredom, or a sense of superiority, but I'm not clearly getting any of that from this individual- and we are talking about one, actual, real human being- in fact, I'm not getting anything from him other than long-overdue self-reflection.
Maybe everything he's saying to Patrick is bullshit, maybe he is messing with him, maybe he's chortling to himself every two sentences as he types this, but can anyone really tell me that they're sure that's what's happening here? I can't. Consider the unprompted follow-up where he essentially calls himself out on the bullshit edifice he'd constructed to justify what was merely a dickish comment for its own sake. Do you really think he put his stamp on that, sent it off and thought, "hehe, sure showed that fucker. Bet he feels like shit now!"
I felt uneasy reading a lot of this, and it's not because any of the justifications offered by the troll were particularly compelling or novel, but just the fact that he might be capable of the self-reflection that is on apparent display is far more credit than I am likely to give the average troll I encounter in the wild. I am much more likely to write them off as many have done already in this thread, wipe my hands of the matter and move on, secure in my conclusion that they are just shitty people incapable of being non-shitty people. But this really got to me:
All that? All that. It took, if we are to accept the exchange as genuine, one goddamn person asking him to just take a few minutes and explain his motivation for one comment. The rest all came from him going over his own past, his own biases, his personal vendettas translated into digital rage, almost like he'd absentmindedly slid onto a therapist's chair. Maybe it legitimately was just a few days of unprecedented self-reflection, and maybe it will be enough for him to, next time, type something and then pause, merely chuckle to himself about it, and delete it to spare the human on the other side.
Patrick may well have been out of his depth on this one. He didn't handle it adeptly. But I don't really know what conclusion to draw either. I certainly haven't shaken my belief that "don't feed the trolls" is the best advice one can give, but maybe it is worth engaging the individual, sometimes, every once in a while, on the off chance that they're not quite the fixed, heartless and sociopathic monster we conjure as a satisfyingly abhorrent villain in our minds.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
"Why are you such a fuckin' dick?"
"Teh lolz"
.
"Teh lolz"
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrI7QUJfkvI
hehehe...these guys are just so easy to manipulate, yeah...
hehehe...these guys are just so easy to manipulate, yeah...
Patrick chose to not publish it himself. Probably to not give him any publicity just for being an asshole.
But this feels unnecessary anyway. There's nothing to expose or explore here. Feels either naive or conceited. Maybe both.
cheststrongwell
my cake, fuck off
Man, that's pretty good.
I've always wanted to try being an internet troll in the style of Chinner, blamespace, or some of GAFs fallen (free demi?). There's a craft to that kind of trolling that I respect. Being just slightly too absurd for paragraphs at a time, the ridiculous biases, or the perfect four word phrase. But it would take too much work, and I think I write too earnestly/personally to play a character consistently. I'm much better at that type of thing in real life, where I get the bonus of seeing people's reactions.
Trolling along the lines of the guy Klepek talked to is something I never would have considered. It's just mean spirited, and not clever. The art of trolling is to lead someone on, to get them to attempt a rational conversation with an absurd, irrational character. To lead them on as long as possible, then disappear, or reveal the troll's purposes at the person's expense. Not to tell them to kill themselves. That used to be called "flaming," not trolling, and I think we need to separate these two again. Troll has become far too blanketed a term.
Trolling along the lines of the guy Klepek talked to is something I never would have considered. It's just mean spirited, and not clever. The art of trolling is to lead someone on, to get them to attempt a rational conversation with an absurd, irrational character. To lead them on as long as possible, then disappear, or reveal the troll's purposes at the person's expense. Not to tell them to kill themselves. That used to be called "flaming," not trolling, and I think we need to separate these two again. Troll has become far too blanketed a term.
Wanting to be an Internet troll in the mold of lamespace is quite telling.
I never understood the cult of personality that springs up among the worst of Neogaf's posters.
You're playing a character too, just not a troll type. Almost all of us are, just as people do under their real names and pictures on Facebook. That doesn't necessarily make you better than a troll. A troll simply makes the decision to do more than filter themselves through a certain attitude or by selective sharing. On GAF, while you might stay on topic in a discussion, a troll can help the thread's visibility by bringing eyes and responses to that thread, keeping it at the top and more easily accessible to new readers. Optimally, once the gold rush of responses to the troll have stopped, the population of serious posters will have also risen. They have their place, on this forum, the internet, and real life. Only when the ratio of trolls to regular users is off can it be said that there is a legitimate problem.
Besides, I used 3 profiles which are all different styles of troll. Your fixation on blamespace says more about you than me, I'm afraid. I suppose I'm willing to admit that once a troll is a known quantity, their trolling loses the power to shock, if that's part of your beef with blamespace or other GAF trolls. If I ever attempted to troll, I would naturally be my own style, not a copy or cheap blend of the three I mentioned as examples. There would be no joy in it, otherwise.
The joy of trolling is the masturbatory feeling of getting away with something, of feeling smarter and more clever than the object of said trolling. It doesn't have to be mean-spirited, nor does it have to end with hurt feelings (DayZ is currently a playground for trolls like this). In groups, the roles of troll and trollee can go back and forth. Like I said in my first post, the word troll has been simplified too much, to the point that it is used interchangeably with "someone who criticized me," which isn't even what classic trolling is about.
UncleSporky
Member
I don't think so. It sounds more like they don't give a shit what others think and are primarily being comedians for themselves alone, and are happy with that.
The goal isn't to make others laugh.
.
There's a pretty vast gulf between having one over on people ala Chinner or freenudemacusers vs. death threats, harassment, etc.
That was hilarious. I remember seeing that show at a convention once, I couldn't stop laughing but I forgot all about it.
Man, he really is. This guy is fucking with him
Devolution
Member
Sums up my feelings about this. I'd rather he be outed like ViolentAcrez tbh.
Also anyone else remember when trolling wasn't conflated with flaming?
Well... yeah, that's what I was saying. At the moment, all these things fall under the word "troll" in common vernacular. Harassment and death threats need a different word.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
This is trolling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYUbUvzlvFw
shit in the OP is flaming/harassment/stalking
shit in the OP is flaming/harassment/stalking
Or I could just be a real human expressing an opinion.
Oh, and I don't have a beef with anyone here. I just think some posters are awful.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
you have a beef with me
The only truth from the troll was towards the end.
"I didn't think about it... and now I'm creating an elaborate justification for my behaviour... that I don't even believe."
The rest of it is basically intellectual gobbeldygook. I especially hate when people cite various obscure lines from historical figures or passages as if everyone else is supposed to inherently understand what it means fully within the context of the conversation.
If you have a real point to make, the logic of the argument can be understood by many within a few lines - the rest of the argument is just to back up the logic.
"I didn't think about it... and now I'm creating an elaborate justification for my behaviour... that I don't even believe."
The rest of it is basically intellectual gobbeldygook. I especially hate when people cite various obscure lines from historical figures or passages as if everyone else is supposed to inherently understand what it means fully within the context of the conversation.
If you have a real point to make, the logic of the argument can be understood by many within a few lines - the rest of the argument is just to back up the logic.
TheRagnCajun
Member
I appreciate the impressive display of pseudo-intellectualism, but his (or her) reasoning basically amounts to 'LOLUMAD?'
oneils
Member
Its obvious he really doesn't have much of a clue why he engages in this kind of behaviour.
He probably does it because he finds it entertaining, and has sadistic tendencies.
Slate had an interesting article on this a while back. A group did a study and it showed that maybe 4% of people have anti-social tendencies - some even sadistic - and these are the types of people who troll on the internet.
edit: found the article - http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html
- sorry, the stat is that 5.6% of survey respondents had these tendencies. Not sure how that plays out in the general population.
He probably does it because he finds it entertaining, and has sadistic tendencies.
Slate had an interesting article on this a while back. A group did a study and it showed that maybe 4% of people have anti-social tendencies - some even sadistic - and these are the types of people who troll on the internet.
edit: found the article - http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html
- sorry, the stat is that 5.6% of survey respondents had these tendencies. Not sure how that plays out in the general population.
Interesting article. Even if the guy is more articulate than the average troll, the reasons why he does what he does aren't probably that different than a lot of other trolls.
Overall, for all the culture he seems to have, he reads like a unhappy, frustrated person.
Quotes like :
or
show that the guy has had many problems in his life, and he probably copes with this by being agressive on the internet. His overwrought style is another way of letting things out, a way which is surely more entertaining. He should write on a blog or a forum instead of Twitter.
Overall, for all the culture he seems to have, he reads like a unhappy, frustrated person.
Quotes like :
or
show that the guy has had many problems in his life, and he probably copes with this by being agressive on the internet. His overwrought style is another way of letting things out, a way which is surely more entertaining. He should write on a blog or a forum instead of Twitter.
interactivemonodrama
Banned
These people gets to be in the center of attention, because the victims of these trolls usually likes to get offended by no name losers, and whine about it, and make it look like if this was some complex strange phenomenon, when in reality it is just some jerks with self esteem issues.
TwiztidElf
Member
Awesome.
I don't believe that 'trolls' exist in the form people like to dress them up as - only the act of trolling. All you have to do to incite a reaction and get called a 'troll' these days is asking someone if they're angry after winning an online match. I think it's just dedication, or degrees, that people take it to.
Believing that everyone who wants a quick laugh is some sort of basement dwelling misanthrope is a bit naive, I think.
To sum it up, I think it's paralleled by real life bullying. People may like to think of bullies as 'other' and not normal people, but more often than not, bullies will not be alone - and not just through ignoring the bullied, but through actively participating and getting a quick giggle or laugh at the bullied kid.
Believing that everyone who wants a quick laugh is some sort of basement dwelling misanthrope is a bit naive, I think.
To sum it up, I think it's paralleled by real life bullying. People may like to think of bullies as 'other' and not normal people, but more often than not, bullies will not be alone - and not just through ignoring the bullied, but through actively participating and getting a quick giggle or laugh at the bullied kid.
Maybe my sarcasm detector is broken, but: Seriously?
His reminders are inconsequential in his own mind, but then he wouldn't do it. He understands that people don't think like he does about the internet (thankfully), which is why his comments sting, which is why he does it. His whole sentiment is as incoherent as it is irrelevant. He's saying "not partaking in the internet seriously will secure free speech". Which will be worth nothing, since it won't be "serious".
He is barely nihilistic, wishing to ruin the internet, because it "debases real life structures", but at the same time saying the internet is a "tool" (just look up the definition of tool and see how that's a contradiction), the whole thing just comes across as a guy that's masturbating in his own shit, and the moment someone asks him why, he takes this philosophical and artistic approach. He's still just a moron in my eyes, no matter how he defends it.
FeenieVonKarma
Member
I feel like this is what happens when you have a lot of intelligence but no particular thing to do with it, combined with bad events in their life such as being bullied, having mental episodes, etc.
That's a pretty interesting read. I like that he mentioned Bill Hicks. If he'd been born in this era, maybe he'd be trolling too.
I think that it might be a nasty shock to your regular Joe, who dismisses "trolls" as just thick-as-shit bullies who do it because they can't do anything else. These are people who've made the choice to do that. (And interestingly, seems like he ended up making the choice not to, eventually)
My guess is someone with a few disorders. Borderline personality or sociopath perhaps, something that might explain his split thinking. Of course, it's worth remembering that at the end of their exchange, he appears to realise that the trolling is pointless nowadays. That might explain the conflicting opinions; they're opinions from different periods in his life and he just realised it. (Presuming he is telling the truth.)
He doesn't strike me as on that axis. Sure, maybe Borderline. I don't think sociopath. To me, it's just a guy trying to sound eloquent when asked about something he really hasn't reflected upon, and out comes this incongruent garbage people mistake for being interesting.
I don't understand how they can separate cyberbullying from actual bullying. Leaving aside physical abuse, verbal/mental abuse is clearly real. How is cyberbullying any different to that? I guess the anonymity will play a part - getting a text message from someone at school telling you to 'fuck off and die' probably hurts more than a random youtube comment. But they have volume on their side, and at some point that sticks.
Also the flowery language gets on my tits. Suggests someone with a high opinion of themselves and wanting to illustrate that through overly verbose prose.
Also the flowery language gets on my tits. Suggests someone with a high opinion of themselves and wanting to illustrate that through overly verbose prose.
Written word can hurt just as much as verbal abuse, there's really very little difference between the two, other than the way each is delivered to the one getting bullied. The idiotic "it's just the Internet, don't take it seriously" mentality doesn't get one away with being a moron and hurting people with what one does. That's almost like saying being drunk means you're not really responsible for anything you do. Saying stuff that would get you in trouble in the "real world" should get you into trouble even if you say it "just" in the web. Just because it happens on your computer screen doesn't make it any less real or less abusive than saying it in person (it might be even worse because not as many people will be able to say something horrible like "just kill yourself" in person but throw that around and even worse shit on the Internet), although the act itself is easier for the coward cyberbullies to do than standing in front of a person and say the same things. And as long as people think like you ("people say dumb things on the Internet, it shouldn't matter"), this kind of behaviour of these cyberbullies will be somewhat accepted or at least tolerated widely.
I imagine you two sitting next to each other on a couch with your laptops. Replying to each other on the message board, but there is only silence in the room.
Makes me lol...
The original meaning of trolling got lost when it started showing up in news reports to describe something completely different.
What this guy is doing is definitely not trolling and Patrick isn't helping by calling it that. Its harassment and abuse is what it is and its rightly illegal (in the UK at least).
Pretty much. There are internet forums/communities where trolling is very prominent, such as Misc. Doesn't seem like anyone takes things seriously there or ever gets offended. Meanwhile gaf on the other hand seems to be rather uptight.
Wouldn't it be the intention that defines it? If he wasn't being serious then it kinda is trolling.
I agree with what Cronox wrote a few posts up. He does a good job of explaining the difference between trolling and flaming.
Now the responses that he wrote to Patrick? THAT is trolling.
I just wish we could go back to the days before trolling became a catch all term for "actions on the Internet I don't like". Flaming, griefing, harassing, etc, there's an ocean of words to describe the many different actions of people online and yet we now call everything trolling.
Trolling was basically harmless in the past, as by the traditional definition (it's a fishing term if you didn't know) you were basically baiting people for a response and often this was done by acting the fool but in reality getting one over them. This eventually lead to more and more extreme methods of getting attention until we hit today where people aren't just being smart alecks but just being rather vile and asking others to litearlly kill themselves. But hey we still call it trolling so it's harmless right. No. If people called it what it is, griefing, harassment, being a cunt, then I bet people would honestly stop doing it. Trolling seems to be a sport for some and you are basically making their actions acceptable to them by describing it as trolling
EDIT: Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this.
Trolling was basically harmless in the past, as by the traditional definition (it's a fishing term if you didn't know) you were basically baiting people for a response and often this was done by acting the fool but in reality getting one over them. This eventually lead to more and more extreme methods of getting attention until we hit today where people aren't just being smart alecks but just being rather vile and asking others to litearlly kill themselves. But hey we still call it trolling so it's harmless right. No. If people called it what it is, griefing, harassment, being a cunt, then I bet people would honestly stop doing it. Trolling seems to be a sport for some and you are basically making their actions acceptable to them by describing it as trolling
EDIT: Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked