![[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
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