![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
At what point do you label someone a troll?
Some of the discussions on my blog get pretty intense and heated. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I appreciate it, actually. I learn a lot from people challenging my ideas or offering different perspectives.
I do have a problem with people who consistently violate Wheaton’s Law. But I’ve also watched people swoop into a conversation at Dick Factor Nine, only to eventually turn around and say, “Huh … okay, I guess maybe you have a point there. Sorry for being a dick.”
Yeah, it doesn’t happen often. But it has happened.
To me, a troll is someone who shows up solely to stir things up and piss people off. There’s zero interest in the conversation, zero interest in listening. It’s a game for the troll’s amusement, to poke buttons and see who s/he can piss off.
To me, clueless =/= troll. Angry =/= troll. Even blatant violation of Wheaton’s Law doesn’t necessarily equate to trolling. We all act like jerks sometimes. (I might still ban you for repeated offenses, but I wouldn’t automatically assume you were a troll.)
I think we tend to label people trolls too quickly. And from what I’ve seen, I think we sometimes do it as a way to dismiss people we disagree with. (I’m including myself in the “we” here, by the way.)
What do you think? We can’t read minds, so when do you decide someone is just trolling and no longer worth responding to?
- Is the “Men’s Rights” advocate who shows up in one of my rape posts to argue that “Rape is a weapon used by feminists to attack men!” a troll?
- What about the anonymous commenter who says, “I know it’s off-topic, but I wanted to tell you I read your latest book, and it was utter trash.” Does it make a difference if they aren’t anonymous?
- Does the guy who shows up using offensive language (i.e., “That’s so gay/retarded!”) count as a troll? What if he continues to use that language after being told it’s offensive?
It’s possible I’m overanalyzing this. But I’m curious what others think.
Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Ooh. I like that distinction, particularly since it bypasses the problem of being unable to ever truly know the other person's intention. But of course, authorial intent isn't necessarily relevant :-)
From:
no subject
And there's also Clueless Stupid, which is someone who is genuinely interested in learning, but you really do have to hold their hand every step of the way. They can be nearly as much trouble as a troll, and if you're trying to host a discussion for, say, rape survivors, they are
justalmost as likely to say something hurtful.From:
no subject
I would not disagree with the use of the word 'just'.
From:
no subject
I need to go back to bed for another few hours this morning, I think.
From:
no subject
Contrast, "Are you sure that's what you meant when you said X?" with, "Dawn take you all, and be stone with you!"
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I also think that calling the person who was harassing Seanan McGuire, and the one who harassed me (not the same people, just the same tactics) 'trolls' is minimising their destructive and threatening actions. People who harass female creators are doing it to get them to shut up and go away, and often cross the line into truly threatening, stalking and libellous behaviour in so doing; we need to take them and their creepy obsessions seriously because they are dangerous. If someone cares enough to make a website where they deface your photograph, use your real name if you're not putting it online, post identifying information and make libellous or defamatory statements about you in between making nasty jokes about your weight, sexual orientation and religion, just because they don't like your writing, they're hazardous to your mental health and may be physically dangerous. Online harassment and cyberbullying is also not the same thing as poking a hive to see who gets stung. (I also have a group of friends who are dealing with this right now but redacted the name of their project so as not to call attention to the bully. It's the same damn tactics, every time--slagging on your sexuality and appearance, religious beliefs or lack thereof, and attacking your project, combined with ugly and untrue accusations...)
People who want to tell you your book is trash, anonymous or not, are just being dicks. It may be harassment if they do it every time you write anything, but if they're just leaving a drive-by comment, they're just being dicks. If they were trolls they'd go to a public place where there are lots of people who like you and say it to THEM.
People who use slurs are just showing that they are homophobic/racist/ableist. I tend not to think it is trolling if they actually seem to believe what they say.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
They're always small sites that harassers set up themselves, usually on blog sites. Seanan's 'troll' was working out of a wiki site, most of what I saw, as well as posting abusive material on LJ. I don't know how they put an end to that but I believe Seanan and her other friends managed to get that stopped.
The one who went after me (mostly) and to a lesser degree several other of the people who were doing Lightning War (which is a fanworks mashup of about 20 fandoms) was making fake live journal accounts (and blogs, on blog sites) which were presenting themselves as mine, while posting abusive trash on any account we owned that wasn't locked to friends. This person is one of the reasons LJ developed a ban evasion policy because at one point everyone in Lightning War had a bunch of accounts banned. I lost track at 30 or so. They were eventually banned from LJ forever. That one stole photos I and friends had taken of me and defaced them and posted them on a Blogger site that they lost because we DMCA'd them for stealing our pictures.
This is actually very common behaviour in junior high and high schools; it's called 'cyberbullying'. Kids will make fake accounts, post doctored pictures and slurs and accusations about people they don't like, and put them up on the web for the whole school to see. Unfortunately kids and their parents don't usually know how to stop it and once it's been seen by everyone the damage is done, so there have been suicides.
Unfortunately, in fandom there are people who are not above this sort of behaviour even though they are adults; fortunately, most adults in fandom are conversant enough with website rules and applicable laws that we can usually eventually get these sites taken down.
From:
no subject
Oddly, I had to explain my own internal self-test for these things to someone just this past week, so it's fresh in my mind. It goes a little something like this:
Here's my internal self-test for excluding annoying people:
- What's the quality of their discussion like? Even if I disagree with it, is it well-supported or factual?
- When I'm frustrated or angry with this person, am I also learning? If so, am I learning NEW and USEFUL things, or am I revisiting the same 101 level "wrong on the Internet" kind of crap?
- Is this person obstructing progress? If so, are those obstructions the kinds of things I'd be willing to consider if this person didn't annoy me so much? When I stop and examine this person's argument, is there merit and skill in it?
- Is this person damaging the group dynamic? Driving people off? Making it hard to do things? Why and how? Does the group need a challenge? Is the group becoming a finer thing for it, or coming apart?
In response to your specific examples, I know that I'd be hard pressed not to label the "Men's Rights" person a troll out of the gate, or at least someone who's maybe not going to be easily swayed by nuance. It's also possible that I'm sick to death of people who think that's a novel or useful thing to say. The other two are lesser sins, perhaps -- both are more rude than anything else, but those actions are less overtly about ideology.
It's tactlessness and immature, but it's not quite on the same level as the first, if that makes sense. I can roll my eyes at it more easily.
From:
no subject
I know I have a hard time with the Men's Rights people because usually they're people who don't actually read or follow my blog; they just heard about something I posted, often days or weeks after the fact, and just HAD to rush over to tell me how wrong I am. I'm having trouble finding words to explain why I have less patience for that than for someone who's already a part of the conversation and disagrees with me...
From:
no subject
Exactly.
And yeah, it's way harder to deal with some random person who shows up specifically to argue, and who doesn't know the lay of things. At least the regulars have a sense of what you mean when you talk about certain things. Context is incredibly helpful stuff.
From:
no subject