I like trolls, but only if they're funny and not boring
No you fucking don't. Stop lying.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
mostly that kind of stuff is tiresome to me, though
i guess some people must find trolling funny, or there wouldn't be trolls
to me it depends how bad it is, if it's just like a bad pun and the person loses their shit over it it's difficult to sympathize, especially if said person was being nasty immediately prior
it is inherently sadistic, though
it's weird to see a distinction drawn between Anonymous and the racist trolls
as though there's never racism on 4chan
the terminology is confusing though
because plenty of trolling has been done under that name
For example, having someone inquire as to the nature of Updog.
i liked him less after he died, i felt he became less funny and more annoying
i think that's part of the reason 4chan seems so resentful these days.
The second plot is far superior. It link the Koheleth to the memory of another nihilist, Franz Kafka. A kind of metaphysical detective story, its subject (both psychological and allegorical) is the investigation of a man’s inner self, through the works he has wrought, the words he has spoken, the many lives he has ruined. The same technique was used by Joseph Conrad in Chance (1914) and in that beautiful film The Power and the Glory: a rhapsody of miscellaneous scenes without chronological order. Overwhelmingly, endlessly, Orson Welles shows fragments of the life of the man, Charles Foster kane, and invites us to combine them and to reconstruct him. Form of multiplicity and incongruity abound in the film: the first scenes record the treasures amassed by Kane; in one of the last, a poor woman, luxuriant and suffering, plays with an enormous jigsaw puzzle on the floor of a palace that is also a museum. At the end we realize that the fragments are not governed by any secret unity: the detested Charles Foster Kane is a simulacrum, a chaos of appearances. (A possible corollary, foreseen by David Hume, Ernst Mach, and our own Macedonio Fernandez: no man knows who he is, no man is anyone.) In a story by Chesterton — “The Head of Caesar,” I think — the hero observes that nothing is so frightening as a labyrinth with no center. This film is precisely that labyrinth.
We all know that a party, a palace, a great undertaking, a lunch for writers and journalists, an atmosphere of cordial and spontaneous camaraderie, are essentially horrendous. Citizen Kane is the first film to show such things with an awareness of this truth.
The production is, in general, worthy of its vast subject. The cinematography has a striking depth, and there are shots whose farthest planes (like Pre-Raphaelite paintings) are as precise and detailed as the close-ups.
I venture to guess, nonetheless, that Citizen Kane will endure as a certain Griffith or Pudovkin films have “endured”—films whose historical value is undeniable but which no one cares to see again. It is too gigantic, pedantic, tedious. It is not intelligent, though it is the work of genius—in the most nocturnal and Germanic sense of that bad word.
well I can't disagree with that
Not that the pranks weren't malicious at times, but i thought the element of deception involved was built into the definition of 'trolling'.
Yellow Temperance
Yeah, all of this.
I feel like the original sense was meant to imply getting an interesting reaction out of a person with a penchant for overreaction though, for example, Socratic irony: "I have no idea what [well-known thing] is about at all. Could you enlighten me?" It's an elaborate joke played on the kind of person who takes everything deadly seriously, but most of all themselves.