I can understand the desire to get as many downvotes as possible on reddit. I don’t sympathize, but I can at least see where people are coming from. Because Reddit gives you that total and shows it to you.
And I’m sure it’s possible to use an API to really that number up on Lemmy, but “total karma” doesn’t seem to be something Lemmy cares about by default, so where is the motivation coming from?
Is it just the same reason people have always been trolls? Because I’ve never quite understood that, either
How does one define a troll here?
Oh, or “just asking questions” and sealioning. I’d pretty much universally consider those to be trolling.
Not sure how dumb a question this is, but could someone give me a ELI5 on this “sealioning”? I am no stranger to being accused of it (perhaps almost 95% of the time by people that are banned by the end of the week), yet I look up the term constantly and the definition always seems like a good thing. It’s almost as if it’s the next big buzzword. Where is the line drawn?
It’s bad because of the, like, stalking/prodding people until they engage part of it. Just like JAQing, it starts with a pretense of doing no wrong. This means sometimes it’s possible to accuse someone of it when they’re acting in good faith because what they said closely resembles others who have acted in bad faith.
As someone who believes in the concept of benefit of the doubt, this seems against anything I would call someone out for then.
I’m with you. I wouldn’t think it was happening until it already happened.
I don’t know. I was thinking about, like, bad takes argued for in bad faith, or at least bad form. Constant straw-manning and ad hominems to support an argument like “women are inferior to men” or some other bs
Oh, you’re talking about the dark and tragic trolling. That is because they are very sad people.
Yeah, I guess. I can take a joke pretty well, even when I don’t think it’s funny, so other kinds of trolling are just pretty whatever to me.
Comedy is hard.
Oh, those. I always just shrug at the idea people might disagree with something, it’s not the same as malice.
Disagreeing is fine, but fallacious arguments aren’t. I feel it’s important to be able to understand why you believe what you do, or at least not to expect others to agree with you if you can’t. Fallacious arguments are not good reasons to believe something, and outright false ones are even worse.
Holding an opinion I disagree with is fine, it’s when you tell me my opinion is wrong and offer only bad reasoning to convince me that it’s a problem.
Commenting with the goal of being disruptive rather than constructive (or at least funny).
I mean many might try to be one such thing and then something else entirely ends up being the result. Like once upon a time there did live a simple belief who wished harm upon nobody but who was persecuted because it was different that what everyone was prepared for.
Usually by their usernames, their name is whining about mods or leftism or some pathetic tate-ism.
Genetically Modified Skeptic has entered the chat.