what is trolling?
what lies at the root of "trolling" mentality?
who would "troll" people
rather than assulting ideas, they assult people
counter-trolling in essence is bringing to light this notion in a clever way
but sometimes people feel that they can only attack an idea by attacking the source
when is trolling usually applied?
when an idea is projected to the wrong audience
when someone project's an idea to an unintended audience, said unintended audience may troll the individual
for being out of context
even if it is the unintended audience that is out of context
right?
generally when it is sensed that one is out of synch with their environment, they are vulnerable to being trolled
they are also vulnerable to being labeled a troll
how does this environmental out-of-synchness occur?
through subjective stimulations?
through isolated indulgences?
but what prevents one from resonating with the average opinion of their environment?
disorientation stimuli?
scope intereferences?
cultural deviations?
it appears that the definition of a troll is intended to deviate from one group of people to the another
and also, who is labeled a troll
and although there is a direct correlation between the definition of a troll, and who is labeled a troll
the correlation does not appear to carry meaning of it's own
one group of people may define a troll as someone who exhibits "undesirable" behavior
while another group of people may define a troll as someone who exhibits "desirable" behavior
the reality is what's defined as "desirable" and what's defined as "undesirable" varies from one environment to another
but people may be lured into associating how the term is defined in the environment with who the term applies to
and the correlation between how it's defined and who it defines has no relevance
someone might try to argue that people who define the term "troll" as "undesirability" may apply to people who deviate from an environmental norm
but the same could be true for people who define the term "troll" as "desirability"
trying to communicate these observations can result in being labeled a "troll"
but i feel that it must be identified that there are two types of trolling
intentional trolling
and unintentional trolling
intentional trolling can be said to be the act of intentionally creating the illusion of an environmental standard existing which infact does not
but intentional trolling also has passive forms
the environmental norm might be established to a point where this form of trolling is perceived as "sarcasm"
and people might passively refuse to define the environmental standard because it is deemed unnecessary
they may also passively refuse to define the environmental standard because they feel that one has not been presented
how can the confusion be clarified when there are parties unwilling to communicate their insight (whether it be subjective or environmental, or both)?
unintentional trolling can be said to be the act of presenting an opinion in a way which creates the illusion of your idea being represented by the environment it's being communicated to
when it is usually one's intent to represent their own personal opinion
these individuals usually feel as though their idea has environmental support although it may not have presented it self to the environment
i feel that the concept of "trolling" discourages the idea of representing one's personal opinion
and encourages the idea of representing the perceived environmental opinion, even if you do not harbor it
why would you support an opinion that is not your own?
in an attempt to avoid being labeled a troll?
when it is deemed that how this idea is perceived from my perspective is irrelevant
it makes it very difficult for you to realize the flaws of the whole "trolling" movement
essentially any opinion that gets introduced to the environment that does not conform to the environmental standard, as defined by the outspoken, is subject to being labeled a "troll"
rather than allowing you to present your opinion, they'd rather create the illusion that their opinion is the only opinion which is relevant
you would imagine that the "trolling" movement is intended to opress opinions through the efforts of subtly implying that no one in the environment shares it
they would essentially enable anyone who demonstrates "trolling" mentality the ability of being able to represent a subjective opinion as an objective opinion
essentially rather than systematically refining the idea that the opinion is formulated on to free it of it's undesirable elements, they'd prefer to attack the person who harbors the idea in a refined format by subjecting them to ridicule
the problem with that mentality is that a refined idea by definition is an idea purged of it's flaw and by never allowing them the opportunity of being able to defend their point, you may close your mind and the environment's minds of to enlightenment
the people that harbor this mentality are often unwilling to allow people to have an opinion that competes for the same space as their own
the idea of people weighing the same variables and coming to a different conclusion disturbs them
it creates the illusion that their values are unvalued by the individual at hand which creates a prejudice twards them
but often times the ideas that are being supported identify other values/ideals that the "troll" may not be aware of
and often times the idea is purged of the elements that invalidate the value that the "troll" perceives the subject to not value
this type of ignorance has many solutions, and "trolling" is not one of them
"trolling" at best will identify this type of ignorance in an environment
essentially "trolling" can be defined as the act of attacking an idea without addressing the concerns of the audience you are projecting your opinion to
"trolling" can also be defined as defending an idea without addressing the concerns of the audience you're trying to project your opinion to
but i feel that "trolling" in it's purest form can be defined as poorly arguing a point
the fact that the definition of "trolling" varies from culture to culture creates alot of room for the flaws the movement is intended to address
some people may defend the idea of "trolling" beacause they define the term as "defending your point successfully from the perspective of the intended audience"
some people may attack the idea of "trolling" because they define the term as "unsuccessfully defending your point from the perspective of the intended audience"
the fact that this term is capable of harboring definitions that contradict eachother brings to awareness to the fact that alot of stereotypes incorporate elements which allow them to be perceived ambiguously
this ambiguous nature of ideas is generally the root cause of most unintentional trolling
when an idea exists in this ambiguous state it can be said to be corrupt
and the only way to salvage the idea is to refine it (eliminate the undesirable elements)
i feel that anywhere the term "trolling" or "troll" is used there are words with more appropriate definition
the term is most ofted used to imply some type of communicational vulnerability
but i feel that the term was introduced in an attempt to corrupt people
in the sense that without identifying all of the aformentioned elements of what encapsulates the essence of the "troll" you manifest a vulnerability that is difficult to address
the fact that there are "successful trolls" and "unsuccssful trolls" is pretty scary
considering the contradicting interpretations of the term
essentially the idea was to lure people who defend their points into perceiving people who attack their points as trolls
while also luring people who attack peoples points into perceiving people who defend their points as trolls
essentially everyone who has experienced unresolvable conflict on the internet is a "troll" in some sense or another
and both of these audiences attack eachother under the guise that the other are "trolls"
it seems that the end-all scenario is manifesting "trolls"
but in an attempt to resolve the fundemental flaw that causes "trolling" to be an issue
the sad part is that this arguement may be invalid when presented with alternative definitions of what a "troll" is
the problem is that the term is very loosly defined and prone to misintepretation
the term in and of it self has no meaning without a context but the fact that people may be unaware of it's vagueness leads to potential issues
simply defending a point without identifying it's vulnerabilities may be perceived as a "troll" if the vulnerabilities exist in the target audience's version of the point
but you could also argue that abstraction from these elements is a form of refinement that renders the idea "free of undesireable elements"
i feel that systematically identifiying potential vulnerabilities in an attempt to invalidate an idea is silly given the fact that these potential vulnerabilities can be eliminated from the idea entirely, rendering the idea unvulnerable
i'm sure there is a defense to argue otherwise
but by doing so you create the opportunity for you to brainwash your self into believing that other people share your vision and ignore these vulnerable elements, but they are not ignoring them, they are abstracting them selves from them
and i feel that by presenting an idea in a corrupt format
you make it more difficult for people to understand why the idea has natural support
but by presenting an idea in it's corrupt form, you're essentially voicing your concern
your concern being that this idea is cannot be uncorrupted in your mind
which is alarming people to your vulnerability
which may make you more or less vulnerable
depending on which audience responds to you
i feel that your techniques are designed to exploit people with these vulnerabilities
which is also an attempt to voice your concern
your concern being that these vulnerabilities have not been abstracted but have rather been ignored
but it can also be argued that by trying to exploit said vulnerability
you risk eliminating the abstraction that renders the idea "purged of undesirable elements"
i feel that if you could prevent this sometimes critical abstraction from being breached, you could prevent alot of vulnerabilities from manifesting
and generally this can be achived by raising the awareness of the people in a position to eliminate this abstraction to the potential issues in doing so, so they can try to avoid those collisions
when your technique is manifesting the undesirable elements associated with an idea
you are no longer voicing your concern about the issue at hand
the fact is that if these vulnerabilities do not exist
your concern no longer exists
it becomes impossible to defend you as someone trying to voice their concern when you go out of your way to create the issue
trying to formulate this into a logically verifiable model
you can either patch the vulnerability or hope that it does not present it self
what happens when you discover an unpatchable vulnerability?
you can always try to abstract the person from the vulnerability
without directly resolving the vulnerability
prevent them from becoming part of interactions where the vulnerability presents it self
but the idea is that every idea is comprised of many other ideas
which carry their own unique sets of vulnerable ideas and unvulnerable ideas
but every vulnerable idea can be backtraced to a pure ideal which renders the idea vulnerable because it is either neglected or is undesirable
i feel that the problem
is that ideas are not being broken down into their fundemental constituents
and cannot be freed from their vulnerability
the idea is that if an idea has natural support, it has components that are unvulnerable
if the idea has support against it, it also has components that are vulnerable
but you also have to consider the value systems of other cultures
and value does deviate from culture to culture
the value of an idea can be determined by the sum of the value of unvulnerable elements and the -value of the vulnerable elements (but scope is also relevant when comparing very complex ideas)
generally the term "vulnerable" is intended to imply subject to ridicule in this context
and essentially to "troll" someone is to "ridicule" someone
some of these interactions may be rendered "taboo" in other cultures and the vulnerability never presents it self
the idea of introducing controversy may be perceived as rude and unwelcome
the culturual standard may be to present only elements which support the idea introduced
or to not express an opinion when the vulnerabilities can be associated with a pure ideal that is critical to the idea (which is usually not the case)
you could argue that value of an ideal is not real
in the sense that it is ideals are only represented through ideas
and when this is true, it could be argued that the value is not associated with the ideal, but rather the idea that constitutes it
but i personally feel that if they are neglecting an ideal that they would align them selves with, the ideal may not be represented in a pure format and may require purification
i'm pretty sure most humans want value to be real and the only way this can be achieved is by creating elemental ideals which are of a pure nature (pure in the sense of being liberated from their unecessities)
so there is no reason not to stabilize it
you don't want to force people into positions where they have to abandon their ideals in order to defend them selves or their ideas
there may have been a time where neurotoxins were purported as drugs and people became enslaved because they could no longer defend their opinions when presented to force
they were advertised as these substances with magical properties and were used to systematically retard and enslave people
when presented with extreme oppresion, it is very easy to force someone into a position where they have to corrupt their value system in order to align them with ideas that they do not intially synergize with
when this force is presented, you can assume that the responsible party is "molesting/killing/raping/submitting" their soul since your soul is essentially the list of ideals that define you
and there may be chemicals out there which may assist in submission/rape/torture/death
generally when this force presents it self it would have been more convenient to refine the idea rather than the ideals that constitute them
and the people who distributed these chemicals could use the fact that the target was ignorant enough to believe their claims in an attempt to justify their opression & enslavement
and could also try to use this element to guilt trip their slave into submission
my point is that the use of opressive force is generally what creates these issues
my point is that these issues are very easy to spot
for people who have been exposed to them
so to assume i'm being targeted for that reason is reasonable
but it would also be reasonable to assume that i wasn't being targeted for that reason
generally the idea is that ignoring this fact creates vulnerability for your self
i would assume that your environment was being opressed in some way shape or form if you're being presented with "trolling" propaganda
generally these people create vague terms which encapsulte a very broad spectrum of ideas (stereotypes if you will) and are often times used to represent the flaws of the pool
a stereotype is essentialy a group of ideas conglomerated into a single definition
a stereotype can only exist with at least more than one trait/idea
a "troll" is an example of a stereotype
maybe they feel that by presenting an opinion that deviates from an anticipated environmental standard
they stimulate the refinement of ideas
refinement being the elimination of undesireable elements
unrefinement being the induction into the state of being unrefined (you can add a desireable element to a refined idea and it will still be unrefined although it is free of it's undesirable elements)
eliminating elements that are non-vulnerabilities is the process of purification
to refine something is to remove the elements that are deemed unwanted
to purify something is to remove the elements that are deemed unnecessary
there is a big difference
when people set out to purify rather than refine, they may end up with unnecessary collisions
generally what they want to achieve
is refinement
when you begin to eliminate "unnecessary" elements, you begin to ignore the other ideas that those elements affect
some people may try to eliminate these unnecessary components before the unwanted components
in an attempt to "purify" the idea
the components deemed irrelevant
to the idea
but in doing so they may risk eliminating necessary components
it depends on their goal
they have 3 options
when it comes to purification
although it is implied that purification is the process of eliminating "unnecessary" and "unwanted" components
purification can also be the process of eliminating "unnecessary" components
in the sense that the "unwanted" components may be desirable
it is still a form of purification
because the "undesirable" elements are "desirable"
you can create a purely undesirable idea
or you can create a purely desirable idea
or you can create an idea that is purely unaffected by desire
there may be another one
you can create an idea that is pure of elements that are unaffacted by desire
where only desirable or undesirable elements are present
so you can create a purely desirable idea
you can create a purely undesirable idea
you can create an idea that is purely affected by desire
and you can create an idea that is purely unaffected by desire
i feel that your environment is trying to purify the idea into a state in whcih it is purely affected by desire
but it appears to then have the intent of refining it to remove the desirable elements
or refining it to remove the undesirable elements
it's hard to say which
it's really a matter of definition
they are trying to accurately define ideas
to remove impurities
but some of the ideas that they're addressing are being taken out of context
i feel that they should take the elements that are purely undesirable
and try to find a way to remove them without being forced to eliminate the desirable elements
and bend them to a point where they are unvulnerable
or bend them to a point where they are unvulnerable*
sometimes an idea is fundementally flawed
sometimes they are loosley associated with other fundementally flawed ideas
it's a matter of value
value is the determining factor when it comes to evaluating whether or not an idea is fundementally flawed
essentially
when you find the fundemental flaw
you will find value
a pure value
i feel that by telling your environment that you're there to purify society you're introducing too much ambiguity
same is said when you tell them that you are there to refine society
although telling them that you are there to purify society is slightly more ambiguous
refinement implies the elimination of flaw
purification implies the elimination of unnecessary components
by implying that you're there to purify society, you're implying that you're there to purify the IDEAS of society
which is generally done in an environment where you do not interact with society
because you are not there to strip people of their definition
you're there to isolate ideas into their fundemental constituents
where as refiners may be there to strip people of their flaw
although refinement can also occur in an environment where you do not directly interact with society
but refinement can also be misinterpreted as purification
it is better to eliminate this confusion rather than letting it progress into something out of control
the idea of purifying a person is nonsensical
because technically, they are purely them selves
they are pure in their natural state
they are the definition of "pure them"
but the idea of refining someone makes sense
you can refine someone into the individual they want to be
you can't purify them into that individual
actually, you can
it's weird
too complicated of a concept to explain
to "purify" someone is to free them of their "unnecessary" components
to "refine" someone is to free them of their "unwanted" components
can purification occur without refinement?
it's a matter of what type of purity you're trying to achieve
refinement can only occur when desire is the only trait addressed
where as purification doesn't require desire to be an addressed trait*
right?
wrong?
because by definition, refinement is the removal of undesirable components
unrefinement is the process of introducing flaw to an environment
or an idea
but it is also accompanied by the notion of introducing potentially unflawed elements
technically speaking
impurification is the process of introducing elements regardless of their desirablity
although unrefinement is often asserted as this
to unrefine something is to create the state of being not-refined
but it can be misinterpreted as
to unrefine something is to introduce elements deeming the idea/entity unrefined
refinement can occur without changing anything
refinement is the process of eliminating flaw from an idea/entity
you can refine something without eliminating flaw from an idea/entity
or it is often asserted that this is the case
if there is no flaw present
and the idea was in the state of being unrefined
you can be said to have refined it
i hope this clarifys some confusion in your mind
a "troll" is defined by their environment
someone labeled a "troll" in one environment may not be labeled a "troll" in another environment
for many reasons
because the environments definition of the troll variaes
AND because the environmental standard for what is considered trolling varies
and these variables change with eachother
which makes it very difficult
it is impossible to eliminate the association between those two variables
logically speaking
that flaw may bring about alot of confusion
the defintion of the "troll" and who is doing the "trolling"
they are not directly correlated
but there is a direct association between the two
that cannot be eliminated
although they both rely on the environment to obtain definition