4 ms·
The difference between "lulz" and this is that the lulz is trollish; this seeks to be taken seriously, and, horrifically, often takes itself seriously.
by ycombinete 10y ago
The difference between "lulz" and this is that the lulz is trollish; this seeks to be taken seriously, and, horrifically, often takes itself seriously.
- mirimir 10y agoIt might seem that way. But lulz always seeks to be taken seriously. And the fact that some people take it seriously, or at least seriously enough to get upset about it, is what makes it so lulzy. To those who get that, it's just lulz. What's new is that Twitter brought lulz to defenseless masses.
- dukeluke 10y agoDon't group everyone together like that. I used to frequent 4chan, and eventually joined in the trolly lulz threads. It was all just for fun. What made the site fun for me was the recognition of a foreign culture, the assimilation period where I began recognizing what made the site's culture unique, then a sense of being because I recognized the mentality the site formed. Like many things, it all had to do with our tribal evolution. Some may take lulz seriously, but don't assume everyone does.
- seppin 10y ago> The difference between "lulz" and this is that the lulz is trollish; this seeks to be taken seriously, and, horrifically, often takes itself seriously. Lolz was not backed by a state, with specific geo-political goals.
- mirimir 10y agoOr maybe it was. Were "Mad Magazine", and then "The Realist" Soviet propaganda? They certainly satirized American culture, and promoted understanding and peace. And we know about other such Soviet efforts. The US made comparable efforts. The CIA promoted modernism. Voice of America was very seductive.