It is really easy to define the meaning of terms if you are the easy-to-agree-with side of a conflict. And now you cannot even mention the elephant in the room anymore without being immediately flagged, banned or at least called a women hating privileged white boy.
I miss those days when I was proud to be a troll, when it meant tricking people into thinking in ways that they normally wouldn't. People used to love trolls! Of course, it didn't just mean that. There were also troll raids when friends would get together and make silly comments on every thread they could find, crashing the party but having fun with it. The incendiary ones used to be called flamers, but I think that term is too trollish to use against trolls these days.
I was never the type to participate in the troll raid style, just the kind to nudge a conversation in a certain direction, more like taking a position in a debate that I didn't necessarily agree with to make it more interesting. I'm thinking of threads on forums where people would actually vote for their favorite trolls. But you would have had to be there to know what I mean.
I think I remember the term flamers being retired as people began to misinterpret it as a negative term for homosexual individuals (based off of flamboyant). This would've been around a decade ago, maybe a bit more, so it could just be a false memory.
Yes, I think that's definitely it. That's what I meant by being too trollish. It's too much like something a troll would say. But I never even realized the anti-gay term was based on flamboyant, although it makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing that out.
EDIT: Removed overreaction to grammatical pet peeve that distracts from the main point.
> It seems that one of the most powerful online political classes have lumped hatred and abuse in with disagreement and mockery.
Its pretty common, online and off, for people of all classes to ascribe disagreement with their preferred position with "hatred and abuse". Mistaking this common error for a feature of a particular "powerful online class" is, AFAICT, the same kind of misperception of persecution as the error itself.
Like holding a straight face and carefully putting forwards an extreme position which you do not hold while making use of the correct memes and language so that it appears congruent to outsiders.
A humorous effect is created because a line can be drawn between those of the audience that know what you're doing and those that do not. A selection of the audience watches on as people that are not in the know either get angry with you or agree with your bizarre statements.
It's effectively hidden satire and that's why it was so fun and so potent.
I use to love to do this while at college. Homosexuality was still controversial enough you would get people debating it. Of course someone would eventually compare it to something most everyone agreed was wrong. Immediately the other side would try to say why that other thing was wrong, at which point I would jump in to defend it. I became so good at it that people would approach me after class to clarify if I was being serious or not. I even wrote a paper for a class that was titled something along the lines of 'A Defense of Consensual Relationships Between Genetically Similar Adults'. I ended up Poe's Lawing myself with that paper.
Sadly corporate environment isn't anywhere near as tolerant of this.
But we are talking about an economic union among states where the biggest state is quick to socialize banking losses among the poorer states, and makes it a morality play about "Those dirty Southerners".
That's a pattern that doesn't end well unless someone is smart enough to hit the partial reset button.
This is exactly why I use a Nespresso machine. At $5 and ~10 minutes per cup of coffee from the coffee shop, with varying outcomes depending on the barista, vs 70¢ + milk per cup and almost perfectly identical every time, it just makes sense to use one.
Even at one cup per working day, that's a saving of over $20 per week for me. Even one of the top end machines would pay for itself in months.
You can get a decent superautomatic for $400, and a nice one for $700. This is quite a bit more than the nestle, but you probably end up breaking even after a year and getting better coffee at the same time.
And, Nespresso usually fixes all problems for free. After all, they are in the coffee business just as equally or more than the coffee machine business. They have absolutely satisfying customer service skills.
The best use I see of those is in all sorts of waiting rooms - at car garages, doctor's waiting rooms, etc. You don't have to train your staff to use an expensive coffee machine which needs cleaning and maintanence, you buy a $100 nesspresso machine and if a customer wants a coffee they get one within 2 minutes,and it tastes very nice, with froffed milk and everything. I feel like it works very well for businesses.
I would bet that in 20 years time many other social networks will not be standing yet Twitter will.
Maybe it makes less money and grows slowly, but I check Twitter every day and can't see myself stopping. On the other hand, Facebook is a ghost town. Many social networks explode into the scene but most burn out quickly.
It's nice to find a way to make a quick buck, but I think they should be thinking of the long-term, too.
I assure you, Facebook absolutely isn't a ghost town. It is transitioning into something very different than it used to be, though. Back in the college days it was a cool service that people were passionate about. These days it's practically a utility - some social glue that helps to hold your life together. That's no bad thing - I certainly don't expect Facebook to go anywhere anytime soon.
Aside from anything else, I value the past content I have on Facebook - photos, mainly. By contrast, Twitter content is almost all ephemeral.
My experience is completely the opposite to yours. My Facebook feed is full of information I really don't care about: what people had for dinner, where they are, invitations to play games, ugly pictures, etc. My Twitter feed on the other hand is full of nuggets that keep me informed on things I'm "really" interested in. My advice to you is that you just need to follow the right people.
No it doesn't. Many of the people I follow on Twitter don't have Facebook accounts and for some that do have Facebook accounts I don't really want to be their friend -- just listen to what they say. I don't think you really understand how Twitter works. Twitter != Facebook. They are not even close.
Sorry but I don't unfriend friends. Reason: they are really my friends and it would be rude -- not to mention hurt their feelings. That is just one example of where Twitter excels above Facebook: you can unfollow or mute a feed. Most of the people I follow are not my friends -- just interesting people that have interesting things to share.
Not saying you're wrong (am a heavy twitter user myself), but we should consider that taste is a fickle thing. Only a few years ago many people checked myspace, friendster, orkut, etc everyday. Now they don't. As quickly as social networks grow they can also collapse.
Don't know (and I don't think anybody knows) if Twitter will be around in 20 years but I do check my Twitter account constantly. Twitter helps me stay up-to-date with things that are important to me. I prefer Twitter over any other "social media" sites (and I subscribe to most).
There is no muslim (extremist or not) law that encourages these acts, research it. You can tweak any law to do exactly as you wanted to do and that's what those people are doing. The last thing I know about a war (if we put this as a kind of war) is don't cut trees, don't kill non-armed soldier, women, children or old people but they keep beheading people on national television.