If you’re shitposting and assume everyone is just a troll trolling trolls (and that’s true), then all interactions are performative and a game. However this cannot apply anymore because the rules of engagement on the web have changed, and there a lot more people online now with different needs and different expectations. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being inclusive.

Maybe I just have an old school mentality about this, but wouldn't this be kinda, a better stance to take, even if you were looking for a cozy time online? Would it not be the more accommodating position? A troll is easier to dismiss out of hand for being bad faith, rather than assuming someone who's good faith, but inflammatory, has entered into your space and decided to talk shit and incite reaction. One of those cuts it off before you spend more thought process on it. Thought terminating cliches are useful sometimes, for controlling your own behavior and not engaging with that which you do not wish to seriously engage. Which, I think, is something we need more much of, online. The fallacies are fine, it's just that they are meant to be helpful to you, personally, rather than being a kind of, moral creed to which we all must conform, a creed that must be enforced, if not by strict rule, than by a kind of unspoken social norm, by chastisement.

I think probably it's also weird that people comment like "this person is a troll" or "this person is a bot" as like, a kind of weird flag that's supposed to be helpful, but then they expect not to get engaged with after they post that, by the poster. I'm not super convinced the people doing that "flagging" are always doing it in good faith, though, anyways.