January 26th, 2010 / 6:53 pm
Behind the Scenes
Common tactics employed by HTMLGIANT commenters, as abridged via Ketel One ad responses
1. Passive Aggressive
2. Critical Theory
3. Rhetorical Question
4. Scatological
5. No comment
Jimmy Chen
January 26th, 2010 / 6:53 pm
Behind the Scenes
January 26th, 2010 / 6:53 pm
Behind the Scenes
Shouldn’t you credit the Copyranter for these images?
reply
Probably. But he won’t. Because he’s a little baby.
reply
AN ANALYSIS OF SHIT-TALKING ON THE INTERNET
INTRODUCTION
This article will report my observations of and reflections on shit-talking, such as reasons for the existence of shit-talking, shit-talking styles, shit-talking motives, and the mysteries of shit-talking. I will couple these observations and reflections with specific examples.
WHAT IS SHIT-TALKING?
‘Shit-talking,’ as used in this essay, refers to a negative statement concerning a person, group, or work of art characterized by an implication of objective truth.
WHY DOES SHIT-TALKING EXIST?
I feel that the primary functions of shit-talking are to validate one’s opinion to avoid feelings of cognitive dissonance, isolation, and threat; to reinforce the one’s sense of identity via physically defining, both to oneself and the world, a particular stance on a particular issue; and to protect one from feelings of despair associated with one’s own level of success.
SHIT TALKING STYLES
‘Censorship’ –Unqualified label that passively instigates that content is ‘bad,’ not worth serious consideration, and therefore should not be viewed. Most shit-talking styles may fall within this style—perhaps one of the central facets of shit-talking is its potential to influence, rather than allow free thought. Possibly occurs as the result of exposure to content that does not reflect, to the shit-talker, how the world should be and thus threatens the shit-talkers sense of self and, subsequently, his feelings of superiority and individuality.
‘Uncontrolled’ – Closely related to ‘Censorship’ style. Perhaps a component that exists within all shit-talking. Content is so [something] that shit-talker is unable to keep herself from attempting to censor it. Shit-talker cannot ‘let this one go’; as opposed to allowing others to form their own opinions, she finds the content so offensive that she must tell others that the content is objectively bad and not worth serious consideration. Possibly occurs for the same reason ‘Censorship’ occurs. Likely to occur around works of art.
‘Toned-Down and Subtle’ – Comment that acknowledges and respects the other side of the argument while passively maintaining that content is ‘bad’ and not worth serious consideration. Follows the point in a shit-talking thread where one or more respected internet users defend the content. Possibly occurs as the result of the shit-talker’s desire to define herself via the public display of taking a stance. Random, typical/relevant examples of the desire to define oneself via the public display of taking a stance: Democrat vs. Republican; Tao Lin vs. ‘Literature’; Capitalism vs. ‘Ideal version of humanity as composed of “selfless” individuals’.
‘Epic/Myth/Archetypal’ – Perhaps the most interesting of shit-talking styles, these comments elevate the status of the content to the delusional. Characteristics include framing the content in a sense that disregards facts/ statistics and instigating another reality: one that takes on mythical facets, e.g. ‘evil’ ’scheming’, or omnipotent. Has, seemingly, little-to-no basis in concrete reality. Often uses language associated with the Bible. Not ready to explain why this occurs.
‘Distraction’ – Comment instigating that specific superficial aspects of content (e.g. capitalization, single quotes) make it ‘bad’ and not worth serious consideration, concurrently disregarding the content’s themes, points, or arguments. Similar to ‘Smear Campaigns’ produced by the offices of politicians. Possibly occurs for the same reason ‘Censorship’ occurs. Example: saying that quotes are bullshit [use 'you are a ridiculous human being][date and link] thing
‘Mob Behavior’ – Non-sequitur-ish, negative comment that follows a ’slew’ of shit-talking, offering no new perspective, but most often an unqualified label or term by which the content can be summarized. Possibly occurs as the result of the shit-talker’s desire to display a persona that is as the same as his peers, enabling him to feel validated and not-alone, and/or the desire to define himself through the public display of taking a stance (random, typical/relevant examples: Democrat vs. Republican; Tao Lin vs. ‘Literature’; Capitalism vs. ‘Ideal version of humanity as composed of “selfless” individuals’.).
THE ‘MYSTERIES’ OF SHIT-TALKING
Why don’t shit-talkers think past their feelings of threat and realize they’re simply attempting to influence others to not form their own opinion? Do shit-talkers ever feel, simply, that they’re defending [something] (literature, film, music), and that it’s their cause in life to defend [this thing]? Is this how they justify their shit-talking? Do shit-talkers think about the concept/ philosophy behind shit-talking? Regarding the ‘Epic/Myth/Archetypal’ style, what is it that pushes people toward the tendency to frame other people as epic figures? Is it exposure to the media? What characteristics of the human species allow for or accommodate the spread of misinformation (such as short story contest [link]/tendency to form polarized beliefs based on opinions that focus mostly on superficial information’ (see: Political Smear Campaigns)?
IS THIS ARTICLE SHIT-TALKING SHIT-TALKING?
I am trying to avoid that. I am trying to merely report what I’ve seen and place it in the context of my own perspective.
‘STYLES’ IN WHICH I FEEL THIS ARTICLE IS MOST LIKELY TO GET SHIT-TALKED
‘Censorship’, ‘Uncontrolled’, and ‘Distraction’.
REFLECTION ON SHIT-TALKING
While generally not dismayed by shit-talking, it sometimes makes me feel bad because it feels personal. However, I defeat these negative interpretations by shit-talking shit-talking to myself: I tell myself: It seems [shit-talker] is merely threatened, or something, so she has to say something to make herself feel better; shit-talking does nothing other than influence people that are ready to be influenced into thinking you are ‘bad’, and you don’t want those type of people as acquaintances anyways, so it’s okay that this shit-talking exists.’
Also: ‘Epic shit-talking is good, it makes me more mysterious, or seem bigger than I actually am, which will lead to more hits.’
And: ‘Everyone has their own reality. If truth is subjective, and if truth can only occur in conscious beings, and if conscious beings are everywhere, then truth is everywhere. No one can deny reality. You can not deny someone else’s reality. You can not deny someone’s opinion. The opinion exists. If one desires to shit-talk, then shit-talking will appear. This shit-talking will or will not influence others into thinking that you are ‘bad’. Concurrently, your work exists on the internet; your personality exists in the perceptions of those you have met. All of these things are true; the shit-talking and your physical presence. You cannot deny any of it, so you must accept it, and at the same time either keep making decisions that move you closer to your goals or kill yourself. These types of things, and all other types of things, will continue to happen indefinitely. The bitches of the world are infinite. The trials of the world are infinite. You have already accepted this. Right?’
CONCLUSION
A shit-talker desires to influence the world through specific shit-talking styles. Characteristics that perhaps underlie the majority of shit-talking include ‘The Need to Influence Others to Think in a Certain Way, Rather Than To Allow Them to Form Their Own Opinions’ and ‘Finding the Content So Offensive That One Must Tell Others That the Content Is Objectively “Bad”‘. I feel that the primary functions of shit-talking are to validate the one’s opinion to avoid feeling cognitive dissonance, isolation, and threat; to reinforce the one’s sense of identity (via physically defining, both to oneself and the world, a particular stance on a particular issue); and to protect one from feelings of despair associated with one’s own level of ’success’ (whatever one’s level/definition of ’success’ may be). Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of shit-talking is its sudden ability to take on mythic/ archetypal proportions.
Finally, while I generally process most of this essay’s information while experiencing shit-talking directed at me, it’s not that easy to brush off. I successfully do, however, via specific brain exercises.
Thank you for reading my article on shit-talking.
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 8:32 pmRebekah Silverman—
That is a really long comment. I did not read it.
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 8:39 pmKevin—
tl;dr
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 9:38 pmRebekah Silverman—
had to look it up on urbandictionary, now I feel smart and snide.
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 10:44 pmKevin—
it is quite wonderful. I wonder if Brandon covered it in his essay-comment, being the best offense/defense against shit talking. basically says, in 5 characters, I care so little for your opinion that I won’t even begin to consume it. the internet is an awesome place like that wherein you actually CAN tune people out, as opposed to not being able to unhear.
January 26th, 2010 / 10:57 pmbrandon—
i feel like that’s semi-covered by ‘mob behavior’ and kind of by ‘censorship’, but mostly by ‘distraction’ in that it focuses on a superficial (to the main point) aspect of the content (length) but….seems also, maybe, a sort of ‘putting me in my place’ shit-talking style, which wasn’t covered in the essay, i think…
January 26th, 2010 / 8:43 pmjereme—
hey brandon you know i love you but i thought this was sort of boring and pointless to me.
“Finally, while I generally process most of this essay’s information while experiencing shit-talking directed at me, it’s not that easy to brush off. I successfully do, however, via specific brain exercises.”
that last line is more interesting than the entire article.
really this is an illustration of passive-aggression and nothing more.
‘good job’
it was effective.
but like if you want to defend jimmy why don’t you just defend jimmy?
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 8:46 pmjereme—
oh and you forgot dismissal which is paramount to ’shit-talking’.
sort of ironic and funny that you forgot, no?
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 9:08 pmtao—
sweet
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 9:14 pmErik Stinson—
brandon, elaborate re ‘via specific brain exercises’
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 9:17 pmtao—
jereme ’shit-talking’ your essay…lol…
…
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 9:19 pmjereme—
‘:)’
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 10:30 pmCB—
Now that’s a lot of shit-talking, dude. Your breath must smell like my ass.
reply
January 27th, 2010 / 12:31 ammagick mike—
this is awesome
reply
January 27th, 2010 / 4:00 amisaac estep—
i read part of this. is this a comment on shit talking shit talking?
reply
feel like ‘dismissal’ is the same as ‘censorship’
in that you just say something’s bad and not worth serious consideration
i didn’t ever mean to defend jimmy, i didn’t know he needed defense. is he under attack? jimmy wouldn’t need my defense if he was under attack. i just thought it would be good to post this as a comment.
my essay does not contend to cover every type of possible shit talking, or be accurate, at all, and that also, the styles are hard to define, a lot of them run in combination with each other, so they’re hard to delineate
reply
January 27th, 2010 / 3:29 pmRebekah—
‘dismissal’ is clearly not the same as ‘censorship.’ that is ridiculous.
reply
‘feel like your version of censorship is/has nothing to do with censorship.’
‘feel like you haven’t really thought this out.’
‘feel like the styles are really easy to define.’
’still feel like you haven’t thought this through.’
‘really feel like you have generated at least a +5 (with a -1/+1 margin of error) increase to your web stats.’
‘feel like you have been productive.’
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 9:27 pmbrandon—
jereme…bro….post an essay of your own, lets battle bro….bring it bro…battle to the death ….
eric, like telling myself the information in that essay repeatedly, i should have taken that part out, sounds gay
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 9:46 pmjereme—
i’ll bring the cardboard if you got the moves…
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 10:53 pmZZZZIPP—
I censored you this evening. You and Tao ganged up on this post like two adolescent males logging onto an “ICQ” “random” “for their first time.” That made your essay “obviously a gimmick or plot”.
“Hey Tao I posted an essay about ’shit-talking’. We could get some ‘press’ ‘out of this’.”
“There’s no *better* ‘press’ than ‘internet literature *website* press’.”
reply
January 26th, 2010 / 11:08 pmbrandon—
jereme posted much more than tao
kevin and rebekah posted the same number of times as tao
tao just said ’sweet’ and said something to jereme, i have not addressed tao in this comment section or shared any of the opinions he expressed in these comments, nor have i acknowledged his comments
he didn’t reinforce any of my points or defend anything
i don’t see how tao and i ganged up on anything, what do you mean, that doesn’t even make sense dude…. honestly…
January 27th, 2010 / 12:26 amZZZZIPP—
damn
now I’ve posted as many times as tao
January 27th, 2010 / 1:11 amZZZZIPP—
brandon you need to break up with tao a little bit.
I’ve been thinking about this. You wrote that whole essay and all he said was “sweet”, to let you know he read it? tao lin should be able to say more than “sweet” about your essay. He is not a good friend.
Is “the ambivalence of friends you assign higher status” in your essay about shit-talking?
January 27th, 2010 / 3:30 pmRebekah—
this means I am as good as Tao, or better. Now I’m posting more.
gotta watch tao, gotta. Snares, platinum snares…
jereme sour today
drink, jereme, more or less
reply
jereme can barely write. i doubt he can write a whole essay.
reply
January 27th, 2010 / 12:47 amgena—
oh god another tao lin follower (copier).
reply
January 27th, 2010 / 12:56 amgena—
except you’re not as “successful” as tao.
i’m sorry. but if you want to talk shit on other people’s writing, i think you should have written something noteworthy, or at least be a semi-popular online writer.
reply
January 27th, 2010 / 12:59 amStu—
I call bullshit.
January 27th, 2010 / 1:09 amZZZZIPP—
no, gena is right.
but maybe bryan was just illustrating the principles shown in brandon’s essay, though he did it in an incredibly hurtful way
January 27th, 2010 / 2:21 amgena—
i was just defendin’ my man.
no true hatred to any of you. forrealz.
January 27th, 2010 / 3:44 pmbryan—
wait a second, since when do you have to be popular to talk shit?
January 27th, 2010 / 4:06 pmgena—
well i guess you don’t have to be popular to talk shit. you proved that.
January 27th, 2010 / 4:33 pmjereme—
hahahaha hey look gena. bryan with a ‘y’, who is a unique snowflake unlike me, has a fucking animal in his blog title.
how ‘original’.
bryan, if you are going to throw rocks at the pitbull at least pick up the big rocks.
try not to get any dirt on your lovely & manicured clothes.
it is best to tighten the wrist while hurling the rock.
this concept may be difficult for you to master.
keep trying.
January 27th, 2010 / 4:49 pmgena—
yeah i was going to mention his lame blog title and its unoriginality, but i refrained. thank you for mentioning it for me.
oh, i was also going to mention his uniquely spelled name, but once again, i refrained.
i think the fact that we both thought the same things is more effective than anything at this point.
January 27th, 2010 / 4:53 pmjereme—
do you think it warm beneath the colored skirt he lives in?
January 27th, 2010 / 5:05 pmreynard—
will you please stfu, please?
January 27th, 2010 / 5:14 pmjereme—
are you really crying over ’shit-talking’ in a ’shit-talking’ forum?
your weakness is disgusting reytard pussyfart.
so sure, with sugar, i’ll be quiet.
now you can feel safe..
i wish that Black Bart Society’s Life Of Crime was still a rag…could be really useful.
if you want to know what shit talking is peep game…
http://www.spdbooks.org/Producte/9780918395269/life-of-crime-documents-in-the-guerrilla-war-against-language-poetry.aspx
reply
Seems if someone wrote an essay on ‘praise-talking’ it wouldn’t be as popular.
reply
i ride spinnas. they dont stop
reply
we should aim to flip troll tactics for the sake of confusion
reply
January 27th, 2010 / 5:34 amshaun—
i’ll start
i’m gay
reply
January 27th, 2010 / 3:31 pmRebekah—
“like”
reply
i’ve been no commenting all over this bitch
reply
January 27th, 2010 / 4:34 pmJimmy Chen—
nice non comment
reply
shit-talking might be a way to identify as a more honest and authentic person.
“i am stating my true opinion; i am pure; i do not compromise.”
it might also be a way to expel anger and other unpleasant emotions — dissonance? — actually shitting through your mouth.
reply
i didn’t realize that a little bit of shit talking in a shit talking forum would stir up so much shit talking! i’m not usually abrasive for the sake of being abrasive, but that was kind of fun!
cheers!
reply
[...] spambot tried to leave the below list as a comment on Jimmy’s Ketel One post. I’m kind of impressed, if for nothing more than sheer mass. And, oddly, its restraint within [...]
[...] an article written in the comments section of this post, Brandon Scott Gorrell discusses some of the most prominent ‘shit-talking’ techniques utilized [...]