Internet trolls: What to do about the scourge of the Web?

[Daedalus]

I think an essential element of trolling is that it's ultimately done without an overarching goal. Trolling is disruptive, meant to be aggravating and garner attention, sure, but mostly it's just trolling for the sake of trolling. I don't believe that trolling for a cause is actually trolling in any meaningful way.

[Hermit]

So you say.

Yes, my opinion. Feel free to explain to me why it is untenable. Perhaps you could start by convincing me that someone who became famous for spending a quarter of a century in gaol because of his opposition to apartheid was ipso facto an attention seeking, pity mongering troll.

[Audley Strange]

I guess we've moved on from the imagined Black man through Rosa Parks to someone else now?

[Hermit]

I guess we've moved on from the imagined Black man through Rosa Parks to someone else now?

You made a rather sweeping statement when Rosa Parks was mentioned: "they weren't standing up for what's right. However it is pity-mongering." I put it to you that "not all people who bring attention to themselves are trolls, and contrary to your sweeping generalisation Rosa was neither a troll nor pity mongering." Care to address that, or are you determined to continue sidestepping it with irrelevant remarks?

[Audley Strange]

No no, I was wondering why you decided to bring in another "hero".

Sure I'll address it.

Rosa Parks did not merely bring attention to herself. She didn't say "Fuck you Massa!" and march off the bus. She caused a stink, she was deliberately being provocative. Seems to me, that like a lot of trolls she either was really angry about the complacency of a system that did not notice her or consider her worth the same human rights as white humans (and by extension the rest of the Black community) or had a bad day and decided to vent at some officious clown. Both behaviours I'd say are hallmarks of trolls.

That this brought attention to herself because she believed that she was right in a bus filled with people who considered her wrong, confrontational and outrageous. I think she took full advantage of that to garner public sympathy (in other words pity mongering).

[Hermit]

...like a lot of trolls she either was really angry about the complacency of a system that did not notice her or consider her worth the same human rights as white humans (and by extension the rest of the Black community)...

Now you are expanding the definition of "troll" beyond the normally accepted meaning to the extent that the term becomes, well, meaningless.

[FBM]

No no, I was wondering why you decided to bring in another "hero".

Sure I'll address it.

Rosa Parks did not merely bring attention to herself. She didn't say "Fuck you Massa!" and march off the bus. She caused a stink, she was deliberately being provocative. Seems to me, that like a lot of trolls she either was really angry about the complacency of a system that did not notice her or consider her worth the same human rights as white humans (and by extension the rest of the Black community) or had a bad day and decided to vent at some officious clown. Both behaviours I'd say are hallmarks of trolls.

That this brought attention to herself because she believed that she was right in a bus filled with people who considered her wrong, confrontational and outrageous. I think she took full advantage of that to garner public sympathy (in other words pity mongering).

Hmm. Do you think she was out to bring attention to herself or to the injustice inherent in the system? She claims it was the latter. After that indident, she lived a rather obscure life out of the limelight. My understanding of trolls, such as Sharpton, is that they crave to be in the spotlight as much/often as possible. She doesn't seem to fit that mold.

[Audley Strange]

I think that both are indivisible. There is no doubt she was seriously fucked off at the state of affairs (personally I think she had every right to be) as they affected her and as such the larger community. Hardly anyone takes a bold stance against that which does not affect them personally.

Let's remove the myth and consider it this way. It's a fucking hot hot day, some 15 year old bro gets on a bus after being in sports practice all day, he's exhausted and sits down on the bus after having paid for his ticket. As the bus moves off an old person gets on it and since he is sitting in the seat marked "Give this seat up for the elderly and infirm" the driver tells him to move. Eventually the bus fills up with old folk all who get free travel, he's paid for his seat but the driver tells him to get up and give the old person a seat. If that 15 year old boy suddenly refused to move is he just trolling? That the driver has to delay the bus and inconvenience the oldies in order to call the police is a pain in the arse right? The kid stands his ground (or rather refuses to give up his seat). Is he doing it because of ageism and being treated like a second class citizen or is he just being antagonistic because he is fucked off at being moved. Is there any real difference if he considers himself justified?

I think the problem here is that many consider "trolls" as an automatic negative. I'm saying it's a set of behaviours that we've sort of defined, they may be justified or unjustified depending on your belief that's the difference between an ally and a troll like it is a freedom fighter and a terrorist. It's a behaviour of provocation. It's the simpletons that are the problem because many of them think that trolling is that which they don't agree with or is being offensive for the sake of it. However someone writing an exquisite POE on a Christian site, or winding up racists or liberals may well be trolling them with purpose.

I think we all do it. Whether we melt-down on the rigid and disinterested call-centre clerk or the guy who changed lanes in front of us. We act then rationalise.

[Audley Strange]

Also what we think of some trolls. The kind that just go "Blahh gaymotherfucker jewfag! Trollololo!" Those would best be considered something else, a simpletons version of a troll, I'd prefer CFC's as in content free cunts.

[FBM]

Standing up against injustice isn't included in my working definition of a troll, though it is possible to use a cause as a mask for self-aggrandizement, ex, Al Sharpton, et al. Also, I see big differences between racism and ageism, so I don't see that as an apt analogy. You're born into a race and can't change it. You're born young and gradually change into an old person. To me, a troll is somebody who angers others just for fun. No deeper cause. Just a personality flaw.

[Audley Strange]

So you see a big difference on being considered second class by skin colour rather than age, really?

Yeah, that certainly seems to be the increasing consensus and sadly, I think I'm willing to concede that the simpletons won out and changed the definition.

Troll: "anyone who says anything I get upset at."

Fair enough.

[FBM]

So you see a big difference on being considered second class by skin colour rather than age, really?

Yeah, that certainly seems to be the increasing consensus and sadly, I think I'm willing to concede that the simpletons won out and changed the definition.

Troll: "anyone who says anything I get upset at."

Fair enough.

Really, I don't think you're being fair here. Who defined a troll as "anyone who says anything I get upset at"? I didn't. A troll attacks people for fun and/or self-aggrandizement. An activist is reacting to an injustice. Nobody said that younger (or older) people are second-class citizens. I give up my seat to the elderly (and handicapped, and pregnant, etc) out of choice, regardless of any law, because I have compassion and respect for them. Not because I think they're inherently superior.I know that if I live long enough, I'll be one of them. A racist thinks his/her race is inherently superior. No matter how long I live, I will never be another race.

[Audley Strange]

Well I would say that you can't know their motivations and that while I agree an ego game is obviously involved. There may well be other motivating factors. You're saying you do know what their motivations are, that they are attacking people only for fun or self-aggrandisement and only that.

Surely that would be a re-activist.

Perhaps said boxer troll put a bet on said boxer and found it unjust he lost. Would that make him less of a troll somehow?

Many many old folk think they are superior to young folk, which seems to be part and parcel of humanity. However what you are talking about is a cultural norm and I put it to you that here is no real difference between a cultural norm that demands certain folks have certain rights at the expense of others and another cultural norm which means other certain folks have certain rights at the expense of others.

This is all moot.

I'm not saying you specifically defined troll in that manner, but it's what you're getting at. After all they're only trolls when they cause a negative reaction an "attack" as you put it. If said boxer troll had said "Youre the bestest boxer ever!" and "You're kids are the luckiest in the world" "One day I'd like you to punch me unconcious!" They'd probably be facebook friends by now.

So it does become a troll is someone who says something that someone gets upset at.

[Hermit]

So it does become a troll is someone who says something that someone gets upset at.

Once again, I think you are expanding the definition of troll beyond usefulness. Yes, I agree that all of the following have said something that someone gets upset at: the person who pestered that boxer, our own Chuck Jones, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. The problem I have is to equate the former two with the latter on the grounds that they said something that someone gets upset at. Your dilution of the meaning of troll renders the term somewhat useless.

[Robert_S]

So it does become a troll is someone who says something that someone gets upset at.

Once again, I think you are expanding the definition of troll beyond usefulness. Yes, I agree that all of the following have said something that someone gets upset at: the person who pestered that boxer, our own Chuck Jones, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. The problem I have is to equate the former two with the latter on the grounds that they said something that someone gets upset at. Your dilution of the meaning of troll renders the term somewhat useless.

Unless you think of trolling as a tactic, sometimes done for a cause, sometimes for the hell of it.

But then you're getting into advanced trollery and not mere insults and threats over the anonymity of the web.