I disagree with quite a few points, but overall I think I understand and feel most of it.

I try not to be a troll. I agree that people tend to be kinder to to each other and ourselves when we're not in physical, emotional, or existential pain. However, surgery involves additional wounds, anaesthetic involves extra liver injury, and social correction involves self-aware discomfort. (And obv evn more if you prolong it to avoid ego pain by reacting defensively.)

All that to say, removed from the context you've given here, to be fair: I think sometimes 'trolling' (strictly as a negative response and deterrent to repeating whatever the trollee thinks caused it) can be productive. Not the extreme stuff, anything restricting non-harmful freedoms, or advocating population control, more like:
"if you look for loopholes to slide around the letter of an agreement to subvert the spirit of the agreement, then your intent is wrong and you need to reflect before you harm others and yourself by cutting yourself off from the consequences of your actions."

An example could be nuisance DDoS attack on organisations that push for restricting healthcare from certain demographics.
Another might be a punch to someone openly avowing neo-nazi views: not death, but immediate response that other people's lives are more important than allowing rampant hate speech for the sake of looking "impartial". I'm impartial af to people being allowed to live their best or more fulfilled lives as far as not harming others.
But sometimes, people are so deep in their pain that they assume there is no hope out or they dig their heels in and refuse to acknowledge that they could be wrong, change, or be worth anything (much less exactly the same as anyone else).

Generally, yes: do no harm. Step lightly, reduce risk and mitigate harm where it's unavoidable. However, I'm against "turn the other cheek". Yet, there is always, always nuance. "Everything in moderation, including moderation."

.

I didn't know what non-dualism was until I just looked it up. I read a book on tdaoism in high school that might have mentioned it but I probably forgot because yay horrifically stressful life.

People have described to me a different definition of 'shit-posting', but it's possible they were being ironic and I missed it without the original context, or the meaning drifted with time and change in usage. In any case, I know it more as "being intentionally obtuse to provoke a response"'. That's also pretty similar to my definition of art: any piece of media or multimedia created with the intent or retrospectively (retroactively?) considered to resonate emotions in the people engaging with it.

And neither of those are necessarily *only* negative, either. Or always intentional, or limited, etc.
But there are as many definitions for things as there are people who use the term.

.

I don't think it's possible to say "what the Buddha meant by that was..." unless you were in their head, to nitpick.

And finally, if profit incentives and hierarchical thinking continue, then of course tech will continue hostile design.

.

Anger is NOT solely negative. Transformative, yes, and can be destructive to people or an idea, but there is no growth while staying exactly the same. *Something* is removed, with some amount of force.
Or as I read it somewhere, "anger is your body telling you your boundaries have been crossed". And what is a boundary if not an extension of your needs?

.

I dig the vibes, overall.
I'm not spiritual or religious. I am angry because I want everyone (*every*one) to have the opportunities I had and didn't have.
If there is an afterlife, I don't want it. I want the inarguable rest of nothingness, and have done since I was a child. (Yaaaay childhood trauma from selfish adults refusing or being unable to access therapy!)

You've impelled a lot of thoughts out of me with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKuAmp0kbeU