Interesting and Humour - page 4072
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
That is the essence/objective of any argument -- to humiliate the other party.
When there is a mere discussion of a point of view (however wrong it may be), it is called a debate, a dialogue, a discussion, etc. -- the purpose of which is not to humiliate and degrade the interlocutor, but to discuss the issue at hand.
I disagree, not anyone.
It is possible to troll so that the opponent proves himself wrong in the previous argument and proves himself wrong in the current one.
The goals are not always obvious.
I disagree, not anyone.
It is possible to troll so that the opponent proves himself wrong in the previous argument and in the current one.
The objectives are not always obvious.
You are my second interlocutor who very accurately describes the purpose of any argument:
-- trolling is a form of social provocation or bullying in online communication.
The goals of an argument -- it's always obvious. As an example -- peruse the humor -- the disputants (or trolls, as you correctly put it), there are a couple or three of them and they are always the same (on any topic, even the most unexpected one, the composition of one side of the dispute does not change) -- only their interlocutor changes.
You are my second interlocutor who very accurately describes the purpose of any argument:
-- trolling is a form of social provocation or bullying in online communication.
The purposes of an argument -- always obvious. As an example -- look up humour -- the participants in a dispute (or trolls, as you correctly put it), there are a couple or three of them and they are always the same (on any topic, even the most unexpected one, the composition of one side of the dispute does not change) -- only their interlocutor changes.
There is no need to argue about it. That's exactly what you're covertly doing now. Making an obvious group of people look like trolls. Meanwhile, when one side has no arguments to adequately respond, it starts trolling the other, or accusing it of trolling. But once again, you insist on pointing out the superiority of one side that is not obvious, accusing the other of trolling. Only because it does not coincide with your opinion. Meanwhile, without giving any argument as to why this same side is so. This is trolling. Because it is a statement without arguments, but with the humiliation of the other party initially. In this argument, are you a troll or me? As for the change of topics.
Both sides troll each other back, and it all started long ago. Simply, initially one expressed a position, the other (still reasoned) responded, and when the arguing side can not respond to the arguments, it begins to troll, respectively, troll it back. The number of times you are trolled back, regardless of whether you make arguments or not, the desire to make arguments simply disappears, trolling remains. As a result, those who are in the majority, begin to stupidly take another point of view en masse, because they cannot take it in an argumentative way.
As a result, these two or three people are known to be trolls in any topic. Meanwhile, trolling by another party is not perceived at all, as well as the fact that the number of trolls is much greater.
Again, whether to respond or not is debatable. And it is a personal choice. Which I think he can argue for himself.
There's no need to argue about it. That's exactly what you're covertly doing now. Making an obvious group of people look like trolls. Meanwhile, when one side has no arguments to adequately respond, it starts trolling the other or accusing it of trolling. But once again, you insist on pointing out the superiority of one side that is not obvious, accusing the other of trolling. Only because it does not coincide with your opinion. Meanwhile, without giving any argument as to why this same side is so. This is trolling. Because it is a statement without arguments, but with the humiliation of the other party initially. In this argument, are you the troll or am I?
You are my second interlocutor who very accurately describes the purpose of any argument:
-- trolling is a form of social provocation or bullying in online communication.
The purposes of an argument -- always obvious. As an example -- peruse the humour -- the participants in a dispute (or trolls, as you correctly put it), there are a couple or three of them and they are always the same (on any topic, even the most unexpected one, the composition of one side of the dispute does not change) -- only their interlocutor changes.
My point is a little different -- to troll the troll.
You. He's right - the mainstream trolls here know everyone, and their behaviour is legitimately always expected. And it's not about the rightness or wrongness of the object of their trolling. It's just a bit of fun.
Isn't it fun to write nonsense about, for example, stick efficiency>1? If there is nothing to contradict, usually one does not get into an argument. But why to be engaged in dispute where idea initially can not argue itself in any way, I repeat, asserted quite definitely, and not in a context "probably" and moreover snapping at bases without having under foot the bases, it means to troll.
If you can express any point of view, within the rules, even if it is nonsense, then you have the right to troll that point of view (within the rules of course).
For some reason they always try to single out trolling one side. And the noble (as she considers herself) side posting nonsense has exactly the same choice not to respond, the same choice not to respond to what you think is nonsense.
That's a bit of a double standard.
My point is a little different - to troll the troll.
You can't troll a troll. A troll is not a loner. The exact synonym for troll is jackal. When he gets nailed, he goes straight to personalities. Dirty but effective tricks. The subject of trolling gets offended, he responds in kind, he is outnumbered, he gets banned for insults. Everyone is happy.
The troll can only be eliminated when he is alone. The troll has one weakness: he's extremely vulnerable. A real-life troll is a person with an inferiority complex. And if you hit that vulnerability and also humiliate the troll publicly, he'll back off with a guarantee.
Fucking hell, it's a witch hunt.
Isn't it fun to write nonsense about, for example, stick efficiency>1? If there is nothing to contradict, usually one does not get into an argument. But why to be engaged in dispute where idea initially can not argue itself in any way, I repeat, asserted quite definitely, and not in a context "probably" and moreover snapping at bases not having bases under feet, it means to troll.
If you can express any point of view, within the rules, even if it is nonsense, then you have the right to troll that point of view (within the rules of course).
For some reason they always try to single out trolling one side. And the noble (as she considers herself) side posting nonsense has exactly the same choice not to respond, the same choice not to respond to what you think is nonsense.
That's a bit of a double standard.
About sticks with efficiency - not serious nonsense. Let him talk. It's humour here. And responding to bullshit... I'm sorry... :)
It's just unpleasant. I'm telling you, whether to react or not is debatable. This nonsense is coming out of all the cracks. And if it's coming out even on a perfectly adequate technical forum, it's especially upsetting. You don't go through the trash anyway. And they got here too. That's the thing initially positioned all this not as humor, in the extreme case at the end, when fed did not work, is written in humor. In other cases it is firmly proposed to prove to you that you are not a reindeer, otherwise it turns out that you are a troll.