It's never had a good definition. I first heard the term about ten years ago to describe what had previous been called "flamers". Flamers fell into two groups. The ones who would post ugly opinions just to get people to react, and those who would be a lot more subtle about it, leading someone down the garden path while everyone "sophisticated" enough would spot the joke and watch someone humiliated.
In my mind, the word "troll" came in to differentiate the two types of flamers and a troll was someone who was prepared to put in some hard work to build to a reaction (or just to humiliate without ever showing the pay-off).
Unfortunately, we seem to have regressed again with today's fad of simplifying language and now troll covers not just the two original types of flamer but also people who post stories in the hope of amusing others (they're not trolls or flamers, but humorists, satyrists, or surrealists. Often they'll do it anonymously. They don't want attention, they don't want to hurt anyone. They just want to make people laugh).
I have also seen attention-seeking in general described as trolling, plus having a genuine opinion (that just happens to disagree with the OP or another replier).
I'd prefer troll to mean people who have a deficit of power or control in their own lives and who try to extract it anonymously on the internet. I'd like it not to be seen as something positive.
However, where do you draw the line? Is a political columnist who deliberately tries to antagonise a politician from the safety of his newspaper column a troll? Maybe "trolling" is a spectrum of things.
Where you have one word which means multiple things, my urge has always been to create more words and to differentiate. This is against the prevailing tide of what is happening, though. There are probably twenty or thirty thousand words in this language which mean something with a negative connotation and they're all being replaced with just "fake" and "gay".
I'm convinced the peak of our language was about 1912 and we have deteriorated steadily for the last century. If you read postcards or letters of ordinary common people who left school at 12 and lived in poor towns, they are more literate than our politicians, teachers, and philosophers are today. It's extraordinary. I'm not blaming this on any generation, by the way. It's just an ongoing thing.
You always seem so angry. I hope I didn't imply I made up the word. I was just describing how it entered my life. My feeling about it, putting in the work to get someone to bite, seems to match up with your knowledge (that was interesting, by the way).
I feel that I kind of understood what you and your fishing buddies were getting at. And I'm glad to know where it really came from. I'm still not sure what I did wrong.
Oh no, no!! I'm not angry. Apparently I come across that way, I don't know exactly why since no one has ever told me. By 'people' I didn't mean 'you' I just meant in general people are so inexperienced and apparently don't get out much or read much. To think much of anything today is really 'new' is silly to me. It's sad.
I think I read you wrong. It's so difficult on a website when you can't hear how people say things or see the look in their eye. Plus everyone seems to be snarking so it's seen as the default. What a world, eh?
Define troll...
← View full post
It's never had a good definition. I first heard the term about ten years ago to describe what had previous been called "flamers". Flamers fell into two groups. The ones who would post ugly opinions just to get people to react, and those who would be a lot more subtle about it, leading someone down the garden path while everyone "sophisticated" enough would spot the joke and watch someone humiliated.
In my mind, the word "troll" came in to differentiate the two types of flamers and a troll was someone who was prepared to put in some hard work to build to a reaction (or just to humiliate without ever showing the pay-off).
Unfortunately, we seem to have regressed again with today's fad of simplifying language and now troll covers not just the two original types of flamer but also people who post stories in the hope of amusing others (they're not trolls or flamers, but humorists, satyrists, or surrealists. Often they'll do it anonymously. They don't want attention, they don't want to hurt anyone. They just want to make people laugh).
I have also seen attention-seeking in general described as trolling, plus having a genuine opinion (that just happens to disagree with the OP or another replier).
I'd prefer troll to mean people who have a deficit of power or control in their own lives and who try to extract it anonymously on the internet. I'd like it not to be seen as something positive.
However, where do you draw the line? Is a political columnist who deliberately tries to antagonise a politician from the safety of his newspaper column a troll? Maybe "trolling" is a spectrum of things.
Where you have one word which means multiple things, my urge has always been to create more words and to differentiate. This is against the prevailing tide of what is happening, though. There are probably twenty or thirty thousand words in this language which mean something with a negative connotation and they're all being replaced with just "fake" and "gay".
I'm convinced the peak of our language was about 1912 and we have deteriorated steadily for the last century. If you read postcards or letters of ordinary common people who left school at 12 and lived in poor towns, they are more literate than our politicians, teachers, and philosophers are today. It's extraordinary. I'm not blaming this on any generation, by the way. It's just an ongoing thing.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Look at the etymology of 'troll'. Mystery solved. People always think 'wow, this is new...we made up something new...' Yeah, no ya didn't.
--
Frosties
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You always seem so angry. I hope I didn't imply I made up the word. I was just describing how it entered my life. My feeling about it, putting in the work to get someone to bite, seems to match up with your knowledge (that was interesting, by the way).
I feel that I kind of understood what you and your fishing buddies were getting at. And I'm glad to know where it really came from. I'm still not sure what I did wrong.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Oh no, no!! I'm not angry. Apparently I come across that way, I don't know exactly why since no one has ever told me. By 'people' I didn't mean 'you' I just meant in general people are so inexperienced and apparently don't get out much or read much. To think much of anything today is really 'new' is silly to me. It's sad.
--
Frosties
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I think I read you wrong. It's so difficult on a website when you can't hear how people say things or see the look in their eye. Plus everyone seems to be snarking so it's seen as the default. What a world, eh?