Sock Puppet
12-01-2005, 12:13 AM
I thought this might be an interesting topic, especially for this board.
I have two main reasons for basking in the warmth of the online flame, or at least two main categories of reasons: the punitive and the playful. These two categories are not mutually exclusive, either.
John Cleese talked about a lengthy period during the run of Monty Python when he and Graham Chapman's sketches consisted almost entirely of two characters "coming in and abusing each other out of thesauruses." He noted that when you combine anger with creative vocabulary, something extremely funny happens. This is the playful aspect of flaming, and it can be carried out against someone you think deserves it, or against someone who takes part willingly and gives it right back. In the latter case, it can turn into a kind of comic performance art, but only if each person involved has some level of talent.
I used to start mock-flamewar threads on heavily moderated message boards. (There's an example in this forum of a mock flamewar, Scarletpeaches' "The Offensive Thread.") I eased the moderators' concerns by placing various restrictions in the OP, such as prohibiting flaming of any who are not actively taking part themselves, not bringing up serious contentions from other threads, and assuming from the outset that everyone you flame is someone you actually like. That, of course, is not necessary here (good thing, too; I hate having to pretend I like everybody).
I personally believe that most, if not all, human impulses have an appropriate outlet, even those that many people find personally and/or morally distasteful. This includes the human impulse toward sadism, which I'll define as the inclination to hurt for hurting's sake. It's repugnant to me when someone indulges their sadism to the point of harming an innocent person (or animal, for that matter). However, I do believe it has a place.
This is where the punitive flame comes in. There is something cathartic about blasting the ever-loving fuck out of someone who desperately deserves it. Some people cry out to be abused by their own actions. First up: the vampiric attention whores. I say "vampiric" because I don't go after those who just come right out and say, "I'm lonely, does anybody want to talk to me?" No, I reserve my wrath for those who use guilt or outrage to get someone to feed their need for social validation; interaction with these toxic people usually makes one feel drained and diminished, as one attacked by a vampire. I flame these types in a specific way, designed to rob them of the type of attention they seek and giving them copious amounts of an attention they don't seek or want.
The second obvious target is your basic, garden-variety troll. If someone cheerfully adopts the role of forum troll, I figure he's fair game for punitive flaming. However, just as with the vampiric attention whore, I take care as to what kind of attention I'm giving them. I don't play into their outrage trap by becoming outraged. To me, that's like getting angry with a fictional character in a movie -- silly and useless. In other words, the flame has to troll the troll, not entertain the troll. But even the most stereotypical troll tends to expose his own buttons while he tries to push others', so it's not that difficult to do.
Even when the flame doesn't have the desired effect, I find the activity itself to be entertaining, even creative in a destructive sort of way. Often a troll will take part in the fun, turning the exchange into the same sort of mock-flamewar discussed above.
But as my title suggests, this thread isn't just about why I flame. I'd like to hear from other flamers why they flame. Non-flamers, feel free to give your reasons why you don't. You can make value judgments if you like, or not. I won't flame anybody in this thread, despite my penchant for it, just for stating an opinion.
I have two main reasons for basking in the warmth of the online flame, or at least two main categories of reasons: the punitive and the playful. These two categories are not mutually exclusive, either.
John Cleese talked about a lengthy period during the run of Monty Python when he and Graham Chapman's sketches consisted almost entirely of two characters "coming in and abusing each other out of thesauruses." He noted that when you combine anger with creative vocabulary, something extremely funny happens. This is the playful aspect of flaming, and it can be carried out against someone you think deserves it, or against someone who takes part willingly and gives it right back. In the latter case, it can turn into a kind of comic performance art, but only if each person involved has some level of talent.
I used to start mock-flamewar threads on heavily moderated message boards. (There's an example in this forum of a mock flamewar, Scarletpeaches' "The Offensive Thread.") I eased the moderators' concerns by placing various restrictions in the OP, such as prohibiting flaming of any who are not actively taking part themselves, not bringing up serious contentions from other threads, and assuming from the outset that everyone you flame is someone you actually like. That, of course, is not necessary here (good thing, too; I hate having to pretend I like everybody).
I personally believe that most, if not all, human impulses have an appropriate outlet, even those that many people find personally and/or morally distasteful. This includes the human impulse toward sadism, which I'll define as the inclination to hurt for hurting's sake. It's repugnant to me when someone indulges their sadism to the point of harming an innocent person (or animal, for that matter). However, I do believe it has a place.
This is where the punitive flame comes in. There is something cathartic about blasting the ever-loving fuck out of someone who desperately deserves it. Some people cry out to be abused by their own actions. First up: the vampiric attention whores. I say "vampiric" because I don't go after those who just come right out and say, "I'm lonely, does anybody want to talk to me?" No, I reserve my wrath for those who use guilt or outrage to get someone to feed their need for social validation; interaction with these toxic people usually makes one feel drained and diminished, as one attacked by a vampire. I flame these types in a specific way, designed to rob them of the type of attention they seek and giving them copious amounts of an attention they don't seek or want.
The second obvious target is your basic, garden-variety troll. If someone cheerfully adopts the role of forum troll, I figure he's fair game for punitive flaming. However, just as with the vampiric attention whore, I take care as to what kind of attention I'm giving them. I don't play into their outrage trap by becoming outraged. To me, that's like getting angry with a fictional character in a movie -- silly and useless. In other words, the flame has to troll the troll, not entertain the troll. But even the most stereotypical troll tends to expose his own buttons while he tries to push others', so it's not that difficult to do.
Even when the flame doesn't have the desired effect, I find the activity itself to be entertaining, even creative in a destructive sort of way. Often a troll will take part in the fun, turning the exchange into the same sort of mock-flamewar discussed above.
But as my title suggests, this thread isn't just about why I flame. I'd like to hear from other flamers why they flame. Non-flamers, feel free to give your reasons why you don't. You can make value judgments if you like, or not. I won't flame anybody in this thread, despite my penchant for it, just for stating an opinion.