One of the most recognizable anti-drug social ads of the 1980s, it featured intense dialogue between father and son. The father was waving a box with some kind of drugs for taking drugs, obviously found in his son's belongings, and demanded an explanation. "Who taught you this?" The father asked in a trembling voice. “You, aren't you? - answered the son. "I learned by looking at you." The camera paused on the face of the shocked father. “Parents who use drugs have children who use drugs,” announced a voice-over.
Despite the general melodrama and controversial messages of this PSA, the argument that parents should not forget about the consequences of their own actions (challenging the hypocritical parental imperative “do what I say, not what I do”) is directly applicable to the analysis. trolls. In particular, the reflexive condemnation of trolling does not (and cannot) take into account the fact that trolling behavior parallels a variety of culturally acceptable logics. Trolls can take these logics to extreme and grotesque limits, but ultimately the trolls' actions intersect with the same cultural systems that form the norm. And this casts a shadow on the systems themselves as well as on the trolls who put them at their service and exploit them.
Again about the troll mask
Building on the previous discussion of the troll mask, in this section we will look at the cultural features through which and through which the troll mask was forged. We will also interpret the ways in which the troll mirror reflects traditional norms of behavior and attitudes (and lets out sunbeams, highlighting unpleasant moments). Three distinct elements will be considered: the relationship between media reporting, emotional distancing and black humor; the ways in which trolling copies the logic of social networks; behavioral consequences of political upheavals.Trash, trash all over the place
The first of the factors supporting the troll mask is the link between media reporting and dissociative humor. Christie Davis identifies this connection in her work "The Jokes That Follow Catastrophe Media Coverage in the Age of Global Television."... Davis argues that laughter in the face of violence or other tragic events is not so much an expression of insensibility as evidence of a specific set of historical and technological conditions. As Davis explains, “sick” humor has been around since time immemorial, at least since the invention of writing, when people started writing jokes. But even the sickest jokes never took the form of modern disaster jokes. Also, while people certainly commented on the scary news, those comments never spilled over into trackable joke cycles (groups of jokes that appear in response to a tragic event evolve and fade over time). Significant historical events have given rise to many anecdotes "in hindsight" - for example, the Titanic disaster or the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
According to Davis, the first major cycle of jokes of this kind followed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and coincided with what Davis describes as "an all-out victory for television." Davis gives three reasons for this connection. First, disaster messages on TV are framed with “bullshit”, which creates a ridiculous set of responses, making it difficult or impossible for normal human empathy to manifest itself. Second, television blurs the line between reality and fiction, fact and fiction. Live broadcasted catastrophes merge with film images of catastrophes, preventing the viewer from believing sincerely in the reality of what is happening and weakening the impact of a real tragedy. Finally, the experience of the tragedy shown on TV is mediated by space, time and geography.
While Davis' analysis focuses on the way television initiates disaster joke cycles, the author certainly looks at the Internet as well. Although his work was written in the early 2000s, when the Web was seen more as an endless electronic bulletin board than an actively creating social space, his reasoning is directly applicable to the modern Internet. I would say that today's Internet, which is more heterogeneous than the most haphazard variety show, and destroys the boundaries between reality and fantasy even more and further removes the viewer from the spectacle, will easily give a head start to television.
Of course, I want to avoid the assumption (with which Davis seemed to be flirting) that technological advancement itself has led to new patterns of behavior and, moreover, that consumers of mass media are so naive and dependent that it should be a little nudged by corporations like they lose the ability to distinguish fiction from reality. But Davis's main point - that media coverage engenders emotional distancing, and that emotional distancing makes detached, fetishistic humor possible - is extremely meaningful, especially in a trolling context.
Consider the very fetishistic attitude of the trolls to the September 11, 2001 attack. Among the most popular photodogs and GIFs are wrestlers who smash the twin towers to small pieces; Will Smith as The Prince of Beverly Hills tap-dancing with the first tower falling; Kanye West addressing the towers with the words "Yo, al-Qaeda, congratulations, I'll let you finish, but the war of 1812 was the best attack on America in history!" Nyan-cat, crashing into towers, with the signature "Forget not"; the hero of educational books for children Wally, flying out of the clouds of dust in a troll mask; emerging from the rubble of the towers of the man from the Kool-Aid ad; Obi-Wan Kenobi making racist "sand people" jokes; towers in puffs of smoke, crudely animated to resemble two figures lighting a joint, etc., etc.
While the 9/11 trolls' play on 9/11 may seem particularly soulless, it provides a striking example of the complementary relationship between troll humor and media coverage of tragedy - in this case, electronic media. After hitting the Internet, videos and photographs of attacks on WTC buildings found themselves in a maelstrom of absurd content, from pictures with pretty cats to hardcore porn. Plus advertising - more than a dozen advertising banners, flash and audio clips could be laid out on one web page, and all of them set the frame and belittled what the person viewing the page thought they were looking at. If televising the attacks was emotionally alienating - thereby inviting comedic reactions, as folklore scholar Bill Ellis wrote in his study of the joke cycles that immediately followed the 9/11 attacks.
The troll's ability to transform artifacts into visual jokes further widens this emotional chasm. Unlike viewers who saw the 9/11 attack live, the trolls had nearly 15 years manipulating the footage of the attacks to satisfy their trolling needs. The most notable of these is the need to combine death and destruction with pop cultural iconography. As Davis might have predicted, the more these images were taken out of context and the more the audience's field of view (literally and figuratively) was cluttered, the more likely these images would become blanks for further memetization, further increasing the emotional distance and more ... more attracting trolls.
Therefore, the trolls' use of the 9/11 attacks for their own purposes should not only come as a surprise. It is the direct result of the chaos and emotional splitting caused by the modern media landscape, which can be described as the "overwhelming victory of the Internet." From this point of view, the troll games with tragedy - what happens when current events become content - is a term often (and cynically) used in the blogosphere to describe mottled scraps of digital junk that can be disseminated, shuffled, and of course monetized through advertising.
Trolling and filter bubbles
The continuous, incoherent flow of digital information is not the only condition for a troll mask to emerge. This mask is also forged from the cultural logic of social media, which values and in many cases directly commodifies openness, a sense of community and sentimentality. Trolls don't just deny these values; they deliberately target their most prominent defenders. At the same time, trolls simultaneously personify and in fact are a grimace of even more controversial aspects of social media-based culture, namely objectification, selective affection and egocentrism, which feed the desire for lulz and ensure the "right" interaction with social networking technologies.Consider the difficulty of establishing and maintaining context online, and how context (or lack thereof) creates detached emotional responses (and thus detached emotionless laughter discussed in the previous section). As Henry Jenkins writes, just one hotlink - and Internet content, whether it be in the form of home videos, family photos or remixes of sound bytes pulled from local news - in general, everything that can be posted on the Web is detached from its original context. ... If you try, you can usually trace the origin of most artifacts back to their original source. After all, all content on the Web came from somewhere, and it doesn't matter if a particular Internet user can or wants to trace its origin. In addition, online content is rarely presented in full political, material and / or historical context.
Everyone knows that the sound bytes used by TV people can distort what was actually said by a person (can one sentence convey the essence and nuances of hour speech?). Similar problems arise when what people do, share and create is appropriated by those to whom it was not intended. Take, for example, the cases of Star Wars Kid (a chubby teenager clumsily fighting with a homemade lightsaber against invisible enemies, filmed himself in a video that his classmates posted on the Internet. This video has received tens of millions of views), Steve Scumbag (Boston rapper, whose image ended up on Reddit and quickly turned into an on-call meme), Goatse (whose gaping anus has become a cultural fetish, at least in certain internet circles).
Despite the fact that behind each story there is a real person in very specific social circumstances, in memes they instantly transform into grotesque caricatures - and such a transformation fits perfectly with the logic of social networks. Since content is so easily alienated from the creator, and information spreads over the Web at the speed of melting snow (over time, contextualized information is lost, not accumulated), real people will inevitably turn into characters. And the architecture of the World Wide Web has nothing to do with it, since it is a direct consequence of the ways in which this content is created, distributed and used on the Web.
In particular, Internet users are free (or, one might say, actively encouraged) to choose content as they see fit, avoiding what they find offensive or uninteresting. The network does not function as a supreme democratizing and pluralizing force - it was created and is a portal for what Eli Paraizer calls "online filter bubbles" - personalized monads that not only take into account individual choice (frequent visits to those blogs that you like , hiding posts Facebook friends you hate, blocking unwanted followers on Twitter or Tumblr), but also introducing algorithmic tricks using super platforms such as Google and Facebook, whose robots mark what you like and what you avoid.
According to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, such bubbles are a boon for the user. He once remarked, "A squirrel dying outside your home may be more important to you at this moment than people dying in Africa." In other words, if you are not interested in certain content, then you shouldn't. Outside of the walled Facebook and Google gardens, users even have the option to cut off offensive content; Greg Loich explored this concept with numerous self-censorship plugins, such as his Shaved Bieber project, which is designed to block all links to the ubiquitous Canadian teenager, and the Olwimpics Browser Blocker for all links to the 2012 Olympics. It goes without saying that being able to choose carefully online, let alone being chosen, is a tremendous privilege. it is also an opportunity to standardize selective emotional attachment. Trolls take this privilege to the extreme, preferring to only deal with content they find funny and ignoring anything that goes beyond their interests (such as the feelings of their victims). As a result, their fetishisation of Lulz may seem alien to average Internet users, but they essentially obey the same cultural logic that underlies "normal" online interaction.
"The more you resist, the harder my penis is."
First, the priority that trolls give to cold rationality over emotionality, coupled with their emphasis on winning, coveted wine, ie the successful demonstration of dominance over the enemy is a logical continuation of androcentrism, which the cultural theorist Pierre Bourdieu describes as "permanent, unspoken, invisible prohibitive norms "that make the phallocentric worldview natural. Although androcentrism can manifest itself as aggressive sexism or misogyny, it is most effective when its manifestations are considered something natural and necessary, something inevitable.The troll's androcentrism is best seen in their copying of the adversarial method that feminist philosopher Janice Moulton calls a hallmark of Western philosophical tradition. According to Moulton, the essence of this method is to be cold-blooded, unflappable, and impeccably rational; make specific statements; to check whether they can resist possible counter-arguments - and all this in order to defeat or otherwise surpass the opponent. It would seem that there is nothing to complain about (and how else can you argue?), But the adversarial method is a textbook example of androcentrism and allows you to see how masculine thinking is secretly "naturalized". So, setting the rules of "proper" discussion, the adversarial method initially presupposes the superiority of "masculine" qualities (rationality, assertiveness, dominance) over "feminine" qualities (emotionality, cooperation, desire for reconciliation). In doing so, the adversarial method privileges - and actually embodies - the androcentric worldview, while denying the less confrontational models of discourse the right to exist.
In Arthur Schopenhauer 's work, The Art of Controversy, the adversarial method is ideally laid out. While this is far from the only possible example (Schopenhauer uses rhetorical techniques known since the days of Aristotelian logic), "Eristika, or the Art of Winning Arguments" is unique in that many trolls consider it a ready-made recipe for modern trolling. In fact, the book was recommended to me by a troll who worked with me, promising that I would find in Schopenhauer much of the troll.
Indeed, Schopenhauer understands by eristics "the art of arguing, but in such a way as to always remain right, that is, per fas et nefas" ("by hook or by crook" - translator's note). Schopenhauer writes that the real state of affairs and even the conviction of oneself in the rightness mean less than the ability to win in an argument. In other words, truth is good, but victory is better. To provide the latter, Schopenhauer offers 38 axioms, or tricks, designed to hack dialectics.
For example, as one of the strategies for winning a dispute, or rather, defeating an opponent, Schopenhauer advises “to take the opponent's position out of natural, natural premises, discuss it in the most general and broad sense, and expand as much as possible. The more general the statement is, the wider the field of action opens and the more it is open to attack and nagging. "Thus, the opponent is forced to defend the positions that he voiced and which are easy to refute with a series of counterarguments. Another technique is“ to try to irritate the enemy, because under the influence of anger he is not able to watch himself , express correct opinions and even notice that he is right. Anger can be provoked by constant nagging and obvious bad faith. " Other tricks include replacing the terms that the opponent uses to describe his position, terms that distort or cast a shadow on this position and on the opponent (for example, replacing "abortion" with "killing a child"), and personalization of arguments by requiring the opponent to act in accordance with his views (for example, during a discussion about suicide with medical assistance, suggest that the opponent commit suicide, since he considers suicide such a good idea). Schopenhauer considers it a good technique to “puzzle and confuse the enemy with a meaningless set of words and phrases. This trick is based on the fact that "people, if they hear something, are accustomed to thinking that some thought is hidden under the phrases." and personalization of arguments by the opponent to act in accordance with his views (for example, during a discussion about suicide with medical assistance, invite the opponent to commit suicide, since he considers suicide such a good idea). Schopenhauer considers it a good technique to “puzzle and confuse the enemy with a meaningless set of words and phrases. This trick is based on the fact that "people, if they hear something, are accustomed to thinking that some thought is hidden under the phrases." and personalization of arguments by the opponent to act in accordance with his views (for example, during a discussion about suicide with medical assistance, invite the opponent to commit suicide, since he considers suicide such a good idea). Schopenhauer considers it a good technique to “puzzle and confuse the enemy with a meaningless set of words and phrases. This trick is based on the fact that "people, if they hear something, are accustomed to thinking that some thought is hidden under the phrases."
As for the last trick, which is perhaps the most poignant weapon in the arsenal of the debater, Schopenhauer warns that the opponent, quite possibly, will resort to it himself and begin to offend you. In this case, you should remind him that there is no place for personal insults in a rational discussion, and demand that he return to the subject of the dispute - and then begin to insult and juggle again.
Trolls take a similar approach, openly abandoning the search for truth (usually leaving "real life" outside the competitive play area) in favor of victory and, more importantly, dominance. At the same time, trolls energetically and willingly attack those who use different rhetoric - “soft”, feminized thinkers. For trolls, gentleness means anything emotional, anything that falls short of impeccably rational; for trolls, strong negative emotions such as sadness, despair, or suffering (collectively referred to as "butthert") are targets that glow with bright neon lights. Trolls torment and bite their victims until metaphorical blood flows (note the popular declaration of the trolls: "The more you resist, the harder my penis"), and then point to this blood as proof of their superiority and weakness of the victims.
The "ability to argue" (I have often heard trolls refer to their discursive methods as such) is not only a source of pride for trolls, but provides a built-in rationale for their antagonistic behavior. After all, if cold rationality really stands above softer ways of thinking, then belittling and silencing the feminized Other is not just justified, but a cultural duty of trolls (the trolls I worked with often reacted to the stress of their victims in the spirit of "You're welcome"). Ultimately, it turns out that the main difference between "normal" implementations of the adversarial method and modern subcultural trolling is that trolls absolutely do not try to mask the ideological consequences and inherent sexism of their behavior.
An even more eloquent example of the tendency of the trolls to "stick" to the adversarial rhetoric - and, in a broad sense, to the Western tradition - is their obsession with Socrates as a role model. Here is what the editor of the Socrates article in the Encyclopedia Dramatica writes: “Socrates was the famous Greek IRL troll even before these internet of yours. He is credited with first describing the technique of trolling and laying the foundations for the science of lulz. It is widely believed that he was the most annoying type in the entire history of mankind. The article is accompanied by a quotation from Plato's Apology of Socrates, in which the philosopher says that he is assigned to Athens as an annoying gadfly, “which all day, without ceasing, sits everywhere and wakes each of you, persuades, reproaches”,
• Ask a bunch of questions about an uninteresting shnyaga.
• Be demonstratively condescending, pretending to agree with what is being answered.
• Rape your victim with logic.
• Pretend to be objective and ignorant.
• Offer a totally crazy theory for the lulz.
• ???
• PROFIT.
As a finishing touch, the author of the text adds that the last words of Socrates were "I did it for the lulz", and inserts the tag "This article is part of the topic" Trolls "".
In the plot, shot in 2012 for Huffington Post Live, the famous Troll Weev is the former President of the Troll Group and Hackers GNAA (Association of the Gay Niggher of America), which was in 2013 to prison for unauthorized access to AT & T Server and "Assigning Aliens" (in 2014, the verdict was overturned by a higher court), - explained the reasons for this attitude towards Socrates. “Socrates was a troll,” weev said. - He went to confrontation. He tried to provoke a reaction and destroy the existing establishment. "In general, Socrates" raped with logic. "According to many trolls, this was the best trolling result possible.
To understand why the trolls were so eager to place Socrates on their banners, consider Socrates' behavior in Plato's Meno Dialogue, which begins with the question of whether virtue can be learned. Socrates admits his ignorance in this matter, Meno, his interlocutor, repeats what he thinks is common truth. But instead of being satisfied with the answer, Socrates begins to methodically smear, figuratively speaking, Menon on the wall, interrupting only to choose Menon for sophistry or to let go of an ambiguous compliment to his appearance. Soon enough Menon asks for mercy: “And now, in my opinion, you have bewitched and enchanted me and spoke to such a degree that I have complete confusion in my head ... In fact, my soul became numb, and my tongue was taken away: I don't know about you and answer."
In other words, Menon has merged. But Socrates did not finish. He calls Menon a trickster, accuses him of cunning and continues the discussion, despite Menon's protests and the fact that he has already proved his point of view - which he immediately refutes, explaining virtue by divine providence (many experts in antiquity consider this an ironic device).
Socrates might not have given the only answer to the question of virtue, and, in fact, to any other question. But, outlining the boundaries of the "correct" engagement in philosophy, Socrates embodied a special model of discourse, which later became known as the Socratic method. The Socratic method is not so much a position as an attitude to seek answers. Trying to extract as many lulz as possible from the online victims who most "deserve" it, the trolls drive this method to extreme antagonism.
It is clear why the trolls saw their own in Socrates. But even if you disagree with the fact that Socrates was "the famous Greek IRL-troll even before these Internet of yours", the fact that the trolls have chosen as their intellectual talisman one of the most respected and fetishized figures in Western philosophy, the rhetorical method of which is taught to every student in The United States, in itself, means a lot. And just as much is the fact that, against a backdrop of condemnation of troll and trolling, equally antagonistic - and highly gendered - rhetorical methods are considered something every 18-year-old student should strive for. A curious example of double standards, to put it mildly. Of course, trolling is clearly more offensive, cruel and destructive than traditional models of discourse.
