What does trolling really mean?

by Dredjir

Rating: everyone
Tags: Slice of Life
Length: 1044

So few people know what it means to troll, but as a 2006 veteran, I can tell you what it truly is

Most people, even the vast majority of trolls, do not know what it means to troll. This is unsurprising though, as the definition of trolling has become so very obscure. To even begin to understand what trolling is, you must first understand the basics.

Trolling is defined as disrupting the peace for humor, although, this is the most fundamental phrasing of the concept. Peace is typically seen as the state of event going as planned. Naturally, very few people pan on being scorned for something they are fond or proud of. Naturally, this means that any criticism that someone isn’t expecting or intending to receive counts as disrupting the peace. Being that this is usually the method that people use to achieve their humor, outsiders and many newcomers to the trolling community typically view trolling only to be harmful to the “victims” of trolling, merely for the benefit of the perpetrator. In reality, however, trolling can be mutually humorous because, as per the actual definition of trolling, a practical joke resulting in everybody laughing, including the person on whom the joke was pulled, counts as trolling.

The main thing to consider though is that trolling is best defined as free speech because it most involves verbal mediums. To be called a troll doesn’t necessarily imply cyber bullying. Rather, it is merely the title attributed to someone who takes on the role of class clown among their peers. What very few people know is that one of the most important unwritten rules of trolling is that one cannot give the label of troll to themselves. They may be able to act as a troll, but they only truly become one when they are labeled one by others. Once this is done, then a troll can adopt that title as they please, but as I say, intending to troll does not make you a troll. In fact, since most people don’t know what trolling actually is, most of the people labeling others as such are guilty of false claims, which means that there are very few real trolls in existence. But since so many people regard the word troll to mean bully, the socially accepted definition has changed, even though the true definition has not. But that is simply due to ignorance.

More specifically to the internet though, there is no possible harm in trolling when the option of blocking, ignoring and turning off the computer are an option. In order to be trolled on the internet at all, one has to volunteer to feed the troll. Moreover, the larger part of trolling requires an initial deviation from social norms to constitute a target, so anyone assuming that trolls are all evil are quite wrong. In a manner of speaking, trolls act as social regulators to keep negative social deviations in check. This can actually be compared to natural ecosystems very easily.

For instance, if we compare trolls to frogs and the trolled to bugs, we can use the food chain to explain for us. Bugs play a certain role in nature, such as spreading pollen, scavenging/decomposing and so on. Frogs prey on these bugs and in effect, they keep the bug population in check. If frogs (and other creatures who prey on them) did not exist, bugs would overrun the ecosystem and the entire food chain would be completely thrown out of whack. The bugs would consume more resources that other animals need to survive and this would subsequently result in the eventual death of that ecosystem. The bugs would even starve themselves after they deplete their resources. Likewise, if the bugs did not exist and all of the animals that prey of them would die out, and so would the animals that prey on those particular predators. The chain reaction then continues, but I think you get the idea.

If you look at society today and use this analogy as the basis for your reasoning, you can see how society would crumble. Another analogy would be the relationship between law enforcement as trolls and criminals as social deviants, but both would work the same way. If there are people trying to exploit other people and resources to get what they want without any regards to how it may hurt the people around them, the natural response would be to put a stop to it. Without criminals, the police would be jobless. Without police, criminals would overrun their areas.

But apart from all of that, there is one last thing that trolling can be used for. Not many people would think of trolling having the potential to be a social service, but if people are going around talking about wanting to rape, or have relations with animals, children, dead bodies and so on, trolls would be very good as a deterrent. And naturally, human nature dictates that a stigma will prevent people from engaging in social sins. As for those who are already part of those misdeeds, however, someone has to be there to prevent the spread of such influences and trolls seem to be the only ones doing anything of the sort. Human nature also dictates that a person will become defensive when criticized. Defending one’s self from lies is perfectly fine, but trying to defend one’s self from a truth that is universally regarded as wrong by the majority is simply cowardice and a further offence. The latter is what we call constructive criticism and this sort of criticism is essential for the progression and improvement of society. It is the foundation of innovation and it is even a form of motivation and means for one to create greater art.

With all of this being said, trolling is most certainly not evil. It is, and I hate saying this, simply misunderstood. The media does its part to spread the lies about trolling being evil because the media is obsessed with telling people what they want to hear and not what the need to hear for the sake of money. Trying to suppress the freedom of speech like the many people who are trying to outlaw trolling is the true crime. Exploiting the people’s ignorance and fear of hearing what they may not want to hear is nothing short of real evil.

Published 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Last updated 2013-06-06 23:47:33 UTC

Derp

Most people, even the vast majority of trolls, do not know what it means to troll. This is unsurprising though, as the definition of trolling has become so very obscure. To even begin to understand what trolling is, you must first understand the basics.

Trolling is defined as disrupting the peace for humor, although, this is the most fundamental phrasing of the concept. Peace is typically seen as the state of event going as planned. Naturally, very few people pan on being scorned for something they are fond or proud of. Naturally, this means that any criticism that someone isn’t expecting or intending to receive counts as disrupting the peace. Being that this is usually the method that people use to achieve their humor, outsiders and many newcomers to the trolling community typically view trolling only to be harmful to the “victims” of trolling, merely for the benefit of the perpetrator. In reality, however, trolling can be mutually humorous because, as per the actual definition of trolling, a practical joke resulting in everybody laughing, including the person on whom the joke was pulled, counts as trolling.

The main thing to consider though is that trolling is best defined as free speech because it most involves verbal mediums. To be called a troll doesn’t necessarily imply cyber bullying. Rather, it is merely the title attributed to someone who takes on the role of class clown among their peers. What very few people know is that one of the most important unwritten rules of trolling is that one cannot give the label of troll to themselves. They may be able to act as a troll, but they only truly become one when they are labeled one by others. Once this is done, then a troll can adopt that title as they please, but as I say, intending to troll does not make you a troll. In fact, since most people don’t know what trolling actually is, most of the people labeling others as such are guilty of false claims, which means that there are very few real trolls in existence. But since so many people regard the word troll to mean bully, the socially accepted definition has changed, even though the true definition has not. But that is simply due to ignorance.

More specifically to the internet though, there is no possible harm in trolling when the option of blocking, ignoring and turning off the computer are an option. In order to be trolled on the internet at all, one has to volunteer to feed the troll. Moreover, the larger part of trolling requires an initial deviation from social norms to constitute a target, so anyone assuming that trolls are all evil are quite wrong. In a manner of speaking, trolls act as social regulators to keep negative social deviations in check. This can actually be compared to natural ecosystems very easily.

For instance, if we compare trolls to frogs and the trolled to bugs, we can use the food chain to explain for us. Bugs play a certain role in nature, such as spreading pollen, scavenging/decomposing and so on. Frogs prey on these bugs and in effect, they keep the bug population in check. If frogs (and other creatures who prey on them) did not exist, bugs would overrun the ecosystem and the entire food chain would be completely thrown out of whack. The bugs would consume more resources that other animals need to survive and this would subsequently result in the eventual death of that ecosystem. The bugs would even starve themselves after they deplete their resources. Likewise, if the bugs did not exist and all of the animals that prey of them would die out, and so would the animals that prey on those particular predators. The chain reaction then continues, but I think you get the idea.

If you look at society today and use this analogy as the basis for your reasoning, you can see how society would crumble. Another analogy would be the relationship between law enforcement as trolls and criminals as social deviants, but both would work the same way. If there are people trying to exploit other people and resources to get what they want without any regards to how it may hurt the people around them, the natural response would be to put a stop to it. Without criminals, the police would be jobless. Without police, criminals would overrun their areas.

But apart from all of that, there is one last thing that trolling can be used for. Not many people would think of trolling having the potential to be a social service, but if people are going around talking about wanting to rape, or have relations with animals, children, dead bodies and so on, trolls would be very good as a deterrent. And naturally, human nature dictates that a stigma will prevent people from engaging in social sins. As for those who are already part of those misdeeds, however, someone has to be there to prevent the spread of such influences and trolls seem to be the only ones doing anything of the sort. Human nature also dictates that a person will become defensive when criticized. Defending one’s self from lies is perfectly fine, but trying to defend one’s self from a truth that is universally regarded as wrong by the majority is simply cowardice and a further offense. The latter is what we call constructive criticism and this sort of criticism is essential for the progression and improvement of society. It is the foundation of innovation and it is even a form of motivation and means for one to create greater art.

With all of this being said, trolling is most certainly not evil. It is, and I hate saying this, simply misunderstood. The media does its part to spread the lies about trolling being evil because the media is obsessed with telling people what they want to hear and not what the need to hear for the sake of money. Trying to suppress the freedom of speech like the many people who are trying to outlaw trolling is the true crime. Exploiting the people’s ignorance and fear of hearing what they may not want to hear is nothing short of real evil.