Was Johnathan Swift a troll?

[Offenheim]

Primary idea of trolling: reaction to an extreme idea or action for it's own sake.

Primary idea of satire: humor and/or proving a point.

But are there any trolls that use an extreme idea to provide humor and prove a point by provoking reaction? How easy is it to distinguish between the two?

[Indeos]

Primary idea of trolling: reaction to an extreme idea or action for it's own sake.

Primary idea of satire: humor and/or proving a point.

But are there any trolls that use an extreme idea to provide humor and prove a point by provoking reaction? How easy is it to distinguish between the two?

I assume by his post that if your motivation includes proving a point, you aren't a troll.

[Offenheim]

But are there any trolls that use an extreme idea to provide humor and prove a point by provoking reaction? How easy is it to distinguish between the two?

I assume by his post that if your motivation includes proving a point, you aren't a troll.

Right, but if satire is played straight (i.e., I'm arguing that the United States should bomb China to prove a point about xenophobia and the militarism of the US) how do you distinguish it from trolling? Like that Flat Earth guy who shows up from time to time. Is he trolling or is he satirizing the ability of the internet to allow fringe beliefs and disinformation to flourish?

Is this sort of like Poe's Law in other words?

[Indeos]

I assume by his post that if your motivation includes proving a point, you aren't a troll.

Right, but if satire is played straight (i.e., I'm arguing that the United States should bomb China to prove a point about xenophobia and the militarism of the US) how do you distinguish it from trolling? Like that Flat Earth guy who shows up from time to time. Is he trolling or is he satirizing the ability of the internet to allow fringe beliefs and disinformation to flourish?

Is this sort of like Poe's Law in other words?

It's pretty much exactly Poe's Law. Intent is what makes the difference, and if that isn't communicated clearly (either in a statement or by tone) there's no way to tell.

[Copiosa Scotia]

A troll hopes that readers will think he's literally serious and get angry. A satirist hopes that readers will understand he's being ironic and get some deeper insight out of that irony. That's the difference.

[Coccygia]

Swift was the Einstein of trolls!

[JJ Place]

Wikipedia defines as a troll as: "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages... with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response..."

This definition can likewise be found at dictionary.reference.com (though you have to search for it). So, on this criteria, I have to wonder, was Jonathan Swift a troll?

If you've never read it, Swift's A Modest Proposal (full text there) simply states that the Irish should eat their own children, rather than starve. Swift obviously meant this as satire, but it caused (and continues to cause) a lot of trouble among those people who just don't get that it's satire. And therein lies the problem.

Swift's satirical essay is as dead on the page as any forum post (meaning you can't figure out from the tone of voice/speaker's face what the emotional context is); and was likewise just as anonymous. Now, certainly, you can't quite call it "off-topic" and whether it's "extraneous" is debatable. But it's definitely "inflammatory" and has the primary intention of provoking of an emotional response.

To give a more modern example, Stephen Colbert mocked conservative congressman Bill Posey who introduced a bill requiring candidates for president to provide their birth certificates by claiming there were rumors that Posey's grandmother had had sex with an alligator, and thus Posey was part alligator. Posey thus responded, saying such comments were hurtful and there was no need to claim such things. But Posey failed to get that it was satire. He just understood that Colbert was attacking him. Colbert's "alligator rumors" were inflammatory, extraneous, and off-topic to central debate of whether Obama was Kenyan-born, and they certainly got a rise out of Posey.

I write this as someone who's written somewhat satirical posts before and I haven't been reported to the mods (as far as I'm aware of).

So the question is, where's the line between satire and trolling? Is it no longer trolling if you do it at a national level (i.e. the context matters)? Or is it when it devolves into baiting that it's trolling? Or is there something else that constitutes trolling?

No, Johnathan Swift was advancing a political position by Satire. John's writings where extreme over exaggerations of circumstances utilized as a media of irony and metaphor, satire. Johnathan Swift utilized the skills he harbored, obtain the goal he desired. Swift wasn't a troll, he was a master of political activism.

[Takaram]

Swift as a master of satire who makes any modern day satirist pale in comparison. Satire may appear to be trolling at first, but it is far more elegant and designed to provoke thought, not anger.