Troll Poll

[jimhines]

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.

Comments

[branchandroot]

Hmm. I do think there's some congruency between "clueless asshole" and "troll", actually, in that neither has any interest in conversation. Their comment, and any response to it, is there purely to serve as their personal arena. In the case of trolls, the arena is for their amusement; in the case of the clueless asshole it usually seems to be for their self-justification. In both cases, though, I'd say the point of setting that arena up is to make them feel all comfy with themselves at the clear expense of others. So I think I can see why the two would be used interchangeably in all three of the examples above, and especially the first. The clueless asshole may, as you say, in very rare cases be brought to a state of lesser cluelessness with sufficient hammering--there's a bit less deliberate intent to cause pain and upset there. Usually. Hopefully. But the effect overlap is pretty big, between CA and T, and given that part of most privilege-asshole conversations involve debunking the "I didn't /mean/ to insult anyone egregiously" thing I can also see why some people are starting to use "troll" on the basis of effect rather than intent.

[georgmi]

Add my vote for evaluating based on observed effect rather than deniable intent. Not only does this save you the impossible task of seeing within the hearts of others, it also gives you the ability to separate the action from the actor, just in case they're not deliberately being an asshole.

Contrast, "Are you sure that's what you meant when you said X?" with, "Dawn take you all, and be stone with you!"

[cleverthylacine]

I used to think concern trolls, MRAs and rape apologists were trolls, but now I actually think that makes light of them. Their intent is not just to poke the hive and see who gets stung; their intent is to shut down conversations that threaten the rape culture (or structural racism, or heteronormativity--'trolls' of this nature affect every social justice movement), which imnsho is far more serious and destructive. Calling them rape apologists rather than trolls is more accurate.

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.

[bodlon]

Just realized that my reply to this has been sitting in a tab for days. ARGH.

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.