What is the philosophical term for a person who makes controversial claims solely to provoke debate, rather than out of genuine belief? This behavior is often observed in individuals who make racist comments merely to appear edgy, rather than from a deep commitment to racist ideology. Have such individuals existed in the past? What psychological mechanisms drive this behavior, and are such people needed in society?
These Christian LARPers are the most insufferable frauds on 4chan - constantly crying to jannies about "their" board while being everything they claim to hate. Notice how they're always the first to screech about reddit while typing the most reddit-tier "based and christpilled" cringe imaginable. They're basically spiritual powertripping karmawhores trying to colonize an anonymous imageboard.Look how they operate - endlessly attention whoring with their theological blogposts, demanding special treatment from mods, and trying to thought-police everyone else's posts. They act like they own the place while being the biggest special snowflakes on the board. Pure narcissistic entitlement - they can't handle a space they don't completely control. These frauds are so desperate to be accepted they'll claim deep 4chan heritage while manifesting every reddit-tier behavior they supposedly hate. Always talking about "taking back the board" when they're the ones who've been trying to normalize their spiritually abusive hugbox mentality. The absolute state of these narcissistic parasites pretending to be based warriors while begging mods for safe spaces.
Is mindless jidf spam needed in society? i think not.
>>17438158preformative counter-culturalist
>>17438158honestly just call it trolling, there probably is a more official term but trolling just gets the point across, as for in the past probably but at the same time without the internet they would have to do it out in public meaning they would be more likely to get into actual problems
>>17438158>& humanities
