On any major site, there will be problems with trolls. This is particularly true on a feminist site, where society, media and advertising have twisted the cause into something for frat boys to throw beer cans at. So it's natural for people to be on the lookout. But it's important to keep in mind what a troll is.
Trolls are people who post purposefully ignorant or "controversial" (in the juvenile "I'm gonna offend them all!" sense) messages with the sole intention of stirring up shit. The bolded parts are absolutely crucial. If you don't have them both, you don't have a troll. You may have someone ignorant, someone naive, someone wrong -- but not a troll.
There is no group of people that consists 100% of trolls. You can be sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, sizeist, an MRA, an acai berry spammer (ok, maybe not), whatever, but none of that in and of itself makes you a troll. You start trolling when you start posting dumb, purposefully inflammatory messages just to piss Teh Feminists off.
So what I'm saying:
Don't call somebody a troll when they're not.
I bolded that because it is really fucking important. There is NOTHING that invalidates someone's views more than saying they're a troll. Not only is it ad hominem/ad feminam, but it's saying "You're just saying this to piss me off and you don't mean any of it, so I'm not even going to listen." This stifles debate. The difference between a troll and a non-troll is that you can't debate a troll (you just get pissed off and the troll likes it), but you can debate a regular poster. And while trolls aren't going to change their minds, non-trolls just might.
See also: the phrase "concern troll." I fucking loathe this phrase. 90% of the people it gets applied to are not trolling; they just disagree with you. And it's really bloody easy to spot the 10% who ARE trolling. Not only that, but it's being misused. Originally, it meant -- and honestly, should still mean, because that's the only way it makes sense -- someone who pretends to be on one side and concerned about how that side's doing things, but is really on the opposing side. So if I was a concern troll, I'd be a misogynist pretending to be a feminist and I'd say something like "Wow. We feminists need to calm down because this makes us look like man-haters." Mind you, a person new to feminism could plausibly say something like that in good faith. But if someone keeps doing stuff like this, it's suspicious.
That's the key: in good faith. On Wikipedia one of the #1 principles is to "assume good faith" and that's how I approach people who comment. Sure, a lot of my comments are on posts whose content I absolutely disagree with, or dislike, or find offensive. But I don't call the people who posted them trolls. Trolls do not come in good faith. Trolls don't give a shit about good faith. And when you call people trolls who aren't, it's a slap in the face to everyone who does.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Trolling: What it is and what it is not.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14799
The entire MO of this site is shoot first, ask questions later.
It's been danced around before. If you disagree, in any way, shape or form, the first response you'll see is "Troll alert!", or "Jessica, can you please ban this troll?".
I think you reminding them that calling troll is a silencing tactic isn't news to them.
That's exactly why they do it. To silence any debate, disagreement, or otherwise.
Uh, really? It seems to me that there are a lot of disagreement on issues here on Feministing, yet the title "troll" is only reserved for certain types of posters.
I don't ask that anyone agrees with me. I ask that people respond to others intelligently, and not like a jackass - the latter of which you've proven to be on many occasion.
In short: it's not trolls that's the problem. It's someone being a total jackass.
If you hate this site so much, and if you're such a victim, why the hell are you still on it?
It seems to me that there are a lot of disagreement on issues here on Feministing, yet the title "troll" is only reserved for certain types of posters.
I've seen the title incorrectly applied by commenters with a great deal of frequency. The editors seem to do a pretty good job of only banhammering actual trolls, but the commenters in general are pretty quick to call troll on anyone who holds an unpopular opinion.
And while I agree that people being jackasses is absolutely a problem, I think that trolling warrants an instant ban and being a jackass does not. Without naming names, I can definitely say that there are numerous regular posters on this site who are consistently rude, abrasive, unpleasant and difficult to converse with, while still being completely earnest and adding to the overall discourse. I think it would be more productive for everyone if they weren't such jackasses, but frankly, jackassery isn't a problem in the same way that trolling is.
There's a difference between being rude and being a jackass, I think.
I hold no punches - I am not shy about what I say, and I make no apologies for it. I am not the peace and love types of feminist, and that's fine.
What is not okay is to be dismissive of people's opinions and telling them their posts are invalid, or just outright attacking Feministing as a whole, with the sole purpose of attacking, not constructive criticism.
That said, there are those on this site who comment just for the sake of disagreement and to make other posters look bad while doing it. That's what I have a problem with.
Just for the record, I wasn't talking about you when I referenced rude, abrasive, unpleasant posters.
What is not okay is to be dismissive of people's opinions and telling them their posts are invalid, or just outright attacking Feministing as a whole, with the sole purpose of attacking, not constructive criticism.
I agree wholeheartedly. And I also think that this is what Katemoore is getting at when she admonishes people to be more careful when calling troll; doing so is dismissive, invalidating and not constructive.
Your input is SO enlightening.
Again, disagreement with you does not make someone a "jackass". I'm sorry you have a hard time with debate and disagreement.
Uh, really? It seems to me that there are a lot of disagreement on issues here on Feministing, yet the title "troll" is only reserved for certain types of posters.
I see people called troll relentlessly. It's one of the first labels thrown out at anyone who doesn't toe the line.
I assume you simply think I'm a jackass because I voice my opinion, and refuse to be demure about it, despite the fact that you might not agree with me.
What is not okay is to be dismissive of people's opinions and telling them their posts are invalid, or just outright attacking Feministing as a whole, with the sole purpose of attacking, not constructive criticism.
You are, though. But since you agree with the majority opinions, you think yourself justified in telling people their posts are invalid, and attacking them.
No, you don't voice anything - the majority of the time, you put down other posters, and attack posts as a whole, even questioning why posters write certain things. That's not about opinions, it's you being a jackass.
I am not talking about disagreement, here. I am talking your relentless passive-aggressive attacks on other posters. When was the last time you actually responded to any posts on here through feminist lens?
No one is asking anyone to toe-the-line. In fact, I've been in many heated discussions on here about various beliefs within feminism, and still remained respectful about it.
Do not, however, think you can claim "difference in opinion," trash feminism and expect to get a pass.
In short, if you're going to act like a jackass, I reserve the right to tell you to fuck off ...
Actually, I am about to ...
Now I just did ...
No, you don't voice anything - the majority of the time, you put down other posters, and attack posts as a whole, even questioning why posters write certain things. That's not about opinions, it's you being a jackass.
Of course. Disagreeing with the prevailing opinion, or asking questions is of course, being a jackass, according to you. Thanks for your incredibly, silencing input.
I am not talking about disagreement, here. I am talking your relentless passive-aggressive attacks on other posters. When was the last time you actually responded to any posts on here through feminist lens?
Again, I respond based on my own opinions. Not based on your opinions. I don't comment on things looking through your "lens", or trying to align my opinions with yours, as you'd seem to like. I make my own opinions. My own voice. Not yours.
Do not, however, think you can claim "difference in opinion," trash feminism and expect to get a pass.
Said it before, I'll say it again: Disagreeing with a feminist is not woman hate, misogyny, sexism, or trashing feminism.
You are exactly the example that the OP was talking about. Someone who attempts to render invalid, and silence the opinions of others.
I feel the need to comment on having to look through a feminist lens. This place is a discussion about feminism and feminist issues. One need not be a feminist or see things in a feminist way to comment here.
Hell, three quarters of the time, we're arguing about what a feminist lens is in the first place.
Everything else about being a jackass, though, I'm totally on board.
Hell, three quarters of the time, we're arguing about what a feminist lens is in the first place.
Slam dunk.
'This place is a discussion about feminism and feminist issues. One need not be a feminist or see things in a feminist way to comment here.'
This is however, a feminist space. While of course non-feminists can come and comment here, the site is primarily a place where feminists can come to discuss issues. It is not a site where one should have to constantly justify ones identification as a feminist. Peoples opinions on what feminism constitutes and the internal problems feminism has are of course up for discussion - that is important for the growth of the movement.
OP: I very much agree - gets a little crying troll around here. On the other hand, this site unfortunately does not lack for jackasses.
It's applied incorrectly with great frequency, but also applied correctly with great frequency. In a troll-rich environment, you're bound to have a lot of friendly fire.
I've no idea if the balance is reasonable or not, but it's not obviously not. You'd have to measure it (and I don't think anyone has. Have they?)
(and I don't think anyone has. Have they?)
No, of course not. But I would be willing to wager that if you looked at the last 5 threads that topped 100 comments, you would find at least one instance in each thread of people accusing someone of trolling when they very obviously are not.
I will also point out that whether there is balance between accurate troll-calling and baseless troll-calling isn't really relevant. If people are inaccurately labeling good-faith posters as trolls, either due to a lack of understanding or as a deliberate silencing tactic, that is problematic (for all the reasons Katemoore points out). This holds true even if there are 9 real trolls called out for every 1 good-faith poster that gets called out.
I get called a troll about once a week.
Sorry, for example's sake, if I was some white person on a blog about black issues, some straight person on a blog about gay issues, I would seriously mull over and question why I was being called a troll once a week.
That comment was seriously disrespectful. I know this is probably new information to you, but feminism is NOT only about women, and there ARE male feminists. I find your answer really sexist. I like male feminists, and I think there should be more of them. But your attitude is harmful, condescending, and probably dissuades quite a few men from posting. To me, your response sounded like you were saying, "This is girls-only, you're not welcome here." That is sexist and that is wrong.
... I don't know where you're finding any of these things in my suggestion - especially sexism - or why you assume I don't value male feminists. I'm simply suggesting that people posting in minority spaces recognize and try to become more knowledgeable about their own privilege. http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146
"dissuades quite a few men from posting": I just don't find it my responsibility to worry about "teh poor menz" feeling that their all-important opinions are underappreciated. Men are encouraged to express their opinions in various public forums on subjects they know little to nothing about; women are not.
I'd hazard a guess that Steven is well-aware of his privilege, and, in posting comments, is either trying to learn more about that privilege or contribute his own ideas to the feminist sphere. Belittling him because of his gender is sexist.
"I just don't find it my responsibility to worry about "teh poor menz" feeling that their all-important opinions are underappreciated. Men are encouraged to express their opinions in various public forums on subjects they know little to nothing about; women are not.": It seems to me that you're insinuating here that this is a women-only space, and that men are not "encouraged" to comment on anything on this blog (or, at least not when you're around). Once again, you are belittling Steven just because of his perceived gender. I am honestly surprised that you don't recognize your sexism.
When men comment on this site, I view it as an attempt on their part to become educated about sexism, other "isms", and to learn about their privilege. Silencing every man's attempt to learn about anything with accusations of "troll!" is not beneficial to anyone.
What are you talking about?!?!
Allegra was simple saying that if she was on a board (where she had privilege that the majority of the posters did not) where she was constantly being told by the majority that she was being offensive and was wrong week after week after week...chances are that the majority was right and she should take a look at her behavior.
There is definitely a sentiment out there that guys portray themselves as experts while they really are as dumb as shit.
No middle ground.
I have run into that notion several times as a way of discrediting what someone is saying, and a lot of the times it is working with academic notions and definitions in the first place.
A while back on a thread I objected to the definition of racism or sexism as being equal to prejudice+power.
Of course I was confronted with the claims that as a white male I am not an expert in either.
But I do know as a youth counselor I have seen a white male reduced to tears because he was called a racial slur... when he was younger he was beaten unconscious by some non-white males.
And I also do know that people minimize their own behavior as a defense mechanism so they don't have to truly look themselves in the mirror and see what they are deep inside.
There are people that will call me a troll for disagreeing with the definition of Ism, saying that saying someone is privileged or a troll can be used as a silencing technique, any number of reasons.
Dudes are not always wrong, nor are they always trolls.
I think feminists in general are (understandably) oversensitive to trolling.
If you are a male interested in feminism, and want to refine your ideas and beliefs through debate, you are going to get called a troll occasionally. I've learnt to roll with it somewhat.
Of course, having an obviously male handle probably doesn't help you. If you have a handle of ambigious gender there *seems* to be less hostility (though, I admit this may just be a result of the different boards I've posted to with different handles). I've posted a couple of times with my real name on another site (a typical male name) the result was that I was called condescending, and told that because specifically I was a male expressing the opinion I was that was priviledged (I was basically told that a woman could have said the same thing and it would have been fine). Mind you I chose this handle for a photography site originally, because I wanted something that was reminiscent of light (candela with a c was taken), not because I wanted a handle for posting about feminism. I guess if you have an ambigious handle then there is less potential to provoke an emotive response and people generally looks at your arguments more objectively.
So, I'm not saying change your handle, you have a right to present yourself however you want and be taken serioulsy. I guess I'm just relating an observation.
Of course, having an obviously male handle probably doesn't help you. If you have a handle of ambigious gender there *seems* to be less hostility (though, I admit this may just be a result of the different boards I've posted to with different handles).
So... your saying that some people are having a sexist reaction to my real first name and I should bend to that?
...
Doooh, clicked entered too soon...
The whole tone of your comment struck me like the warnings they use to put on grape juice during Prohibition...
Careful, if you do X, Y, and Z this grape juice will turn into wine.
I don't know. I guess what I am saying is that feminism is an emotive issue for many people and we have to be sympathetic to that. We need to keep in mind that many women think of feminist sites as safe havens from men. Certainly, the message needs to be that men != patriarcy. You are doing good just by being here and being an ally, occasionally some new feminists are going to interpret your words differently from how you intended them though, because they are used to seeing criticism from men and they see your name.
By analogy, if my name was Gerry Hitler, and I introduced myself as Mr Hitler to a Jewish person, I would have to expect a less than warm reaction. Even though I would be no relation to Adolf, the imagery is going to be emotive. It will take some time, I'm sure, before the Hitlers can reclaim their name from history.
Dude....
Feminist react to a male name like Jews react to Hitler?
The analogy is not perfect. I was attempting to give a qualitative similarity not a quantitative one.
You'll note, that I said some new feminists and restricted the discussion to feminist boards, where one might expect a large portion of male opinion to be dissenting. In this context a male name could be evocative.
I'm not saying the reaction is an appropriate one, just an understandable one.
... and I should bend to that?
No, you should ignore women's experiences being attacked and ridiculed primarily by men on online spaces and ignore any legitimate reason they may have to feel defensive when told what's what about their movement by a member of a gender-privileged group.
If I am not attacking and ridiculing someone then one should not act like I am attacking and ridiculing them.
And I should not be attacked and ridiculed just because I participate in a conversation.
I was broadsided in this post ( http://community.feministing.com/2009/02/do-we-have-a-better-word-than.html ) when the OP asked how to improve the word, or conceptualization of, privilege.
There in I was called a troll and people were saying I was denying privilege exist. They did not jump the shit of every other person who were writing the same things I was... but my name just seems to be a lightning rod for sexism on this site.
Also, therein someone basically posted a comment along the lines of "I agree with Steven" and then that comment was "liked" more than the original comment I made...
If I had not seen it over and over again it would be amazing.
Sigh. Yes, I know. It's not YOU refusing to self-reflect, it's EVERYONE ELSE. Tell me all about it. Please do. I've never heard it before.
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146 (See especially, "Learn to Listen Rather Than Speak": "When you enter a minority space, you need to realize that this is their soapbox, not yours.")
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/
Ah yes, the much use, "you are privileged I am right argument...
and you use it so expertly.
And no doubt, when instructed to listen more and speak less you no doubt mean shut the fuck up unless I am in lock-step with what you believe.
I know... I know... I should not get in the way of group think feedback loop... I should not notice when people don't address the substance of comments but rather resort to canned speeches about privilege and other generalities... Even though this community forum has been advertised as a place for respectful discussion if I disagree with something there is no way to do it respectfully in your eyes so I should just leave... And I know when your link says "Give minorities the benefit of the doubt" there is no way a lot of them will return the favor.
Everything you have shown me 1) I have seen before and 2) Is an excuse for your own disrespectful behavior and a mechanism to avoid dealing with your own sexism.
My own ... sexism?! *sputter* LOL
Whatever. I'm just surprised that, for having "already seen" all of this, that you honestly don't see yourself in any of it. You feel "put out" by this feminist space? This is how women feel in normal, everyday spaces: classrooms, jobs.
But keep forging on, talk talk talking. Because you know.
You should probably link him to Derailing for Dummies again. I bet doing it twice would work better. Maybe you could obscure it behind a tinyurl link - I've had good luck with that in the past.
Yes, you are sexist. You have revealed (multiple times, in fact) that you are sexist towards men in feminist spaces, and that you'd appreciate it if the troublesome menz would just go away, because according to you, men aren't welcome here.
This.
Oh, Steven, they call you a troll in a loving way and you know it ...
Lies.
I don't think your a troll, but I do think you could use a course in critical thinking (most people could btw).
Katemoore, this post made my day. Really. It sometimes seems like a very substantial percentage of the posters here don't understand what a troll is - and I was starting to think that no one at all actually knew what a concern troll was.
The urge to call "troll" on anyone who disagrees is stifling, and undoubtedly makes moderation more difficult; a good moderator has to take accusations of trolling seriously, since real trolls exist solely to interfere with normal forum communication and must be booted as soon as identified.
So, kudos to you. It's good to see that there are people out there who realize that inaccurate and imprecise language only serves to make it more difficult to productively engage with each other.
(Though I do need to point out that this: "There is no group of people that consists 100% of trolls" isn't strictly accurate. A look at /b or bantown will prove that there are indeed groups that consist of 100% or nearly 100% trolls.)
****
/Kind of waiting for trolling accusations to pour in from people who disagree with this comment.
Eh, even /b/ isn't all trolls. I know a few non-trollish types who post there from time to time. Of course I don't know what they do on their off-hours, but they're not the type to do invasions.
But how does one actually tell who is or is not a troll? Your definition is based entirely on intention - whether or not they are trying to make trouble - and it's usually impossible to know someone's intention over the internet. Of course, there are some comments that are obviously from trolls, but there are also many instances where it's rather unclear.
It's true that you can't always know for sure. I personally think if unsure, the person should not be banned. If they are really a troll they will continue to reply until it becomes obvious what they really are. If they aren't, their subsequent replies should make it clear they are not a troll. And if they don't post anymore at all, when then nothing is lost.
BTW good post. I have definitely seen cases of people being labelled a troll when they most certainly were NOT. I don't think it helps us in any way to stifle their voices. In fact I think it hurts us.
My definition's based entirely on intention because that's what trolling is. Trolling is about intention.
If you're unsure as to whether someone is trolling, it's always safe simply not to respond to their posts. If someone's trolling, that's when they give up or "make themselves known." If someone's not trolling, then you might be able to engage them in discussion later. But if you call a non-troll a troll, good luck getting them to engage in discussion ever again.
Well, no, I would argue that it's not, just like white privilege and male privilege are not "based on intention." A person coming into a minority space needs to at least UNDERSTAND a very BASIC THING, that they are NOT AN EXPERT, probably not even a novice, in the particular movement. And trolls fail monumentally to do this. This is not necessarily about intention at all.
Did you even read my post? Trolling is defined completely in terms of intention. Period. That's what trolling is. It's not the same as privilege. It's a completely different concept and isn't unique to minority spaces. We just get more of it because people are more hostile to our views.
You're right that trolls fail to take into account that they're novices, but they don't care. Their goal is to piss people off and get attention by doing so. Their goal is to take meaningful dialogue and turn it into a flame war and laugh at everyone who participates.
My definition's based entirely on intention because that's what trolling is. Trolling is about intention.
If you're unsure as to whether someone is trolling, it's always safe simply not to respond to their posts. If someone's trolling, that's when they give up or "make themselves known." If someone's not trolling, then you might be able to engage them in discussion later. But if you call a non-troll a troll, good luck getting them to engage in discussion ever again.
Rather than calling someone a troll, perhaps it's best just to tell other people to fuck off when it's deserving.
Why do people have such a problem with someone telling another person to fuck off? Again, is this the assumption that as feminists, we're supposed to be all nice and pleasant all the time? Here's the thing - if you're commenting on this site, the very least that's expected is that you're not spouting anti-feminist bullshit. If you end up doing so, a loud, emphatic "fuck off" is quite deserving, because at the point, there's no longer a debate.
If you want to debate the various schools of thoughts within feminism and politics, as well as personal experiences, fine. That's what Feministing was created for, in my opinion. But if you're here to discredit feminism, or whine about how feminism short-changes you, you're on the wrong site.
Note: the "you" is not directed at the orignal poster in this case.
Sure, this all makes sense. But the problem comes when we need to determine whether what someone is saying counts as an attempt to "discredit feminism." If that is what they are here to do, then they deserve to be booted. They might also deserve an emphatic "fuck off." But who gets to decide?
Frankly, I think we'd be much better off leaving this to the moderators. It's not your place or mine to decide who deserves a voice here, and while telling someone who you think shouldn't be here to "fuck off" may be justified, at best it doesn't really accomplish anything, and at worst you're being confrontational and hostile to someone you've misjudged.
Think someone is a troll? Report Abuse and don't engage. Think someone is a total jerk and that fruitful discourse is impossible? Report Abuse and disengage. I'm just not seeing where swearing at someone is useful.
(And honestly, if the response is something like "it doesn't have to be useful, some people just deserve to be told to fuck off," I would say that this really isn't the site to engage in that sort of venting.)
Just my opinion.
Okay, so I've been absent from the comment boards for a while, but why do you keep jumping on Marc's dick? Even when he (I'm assuming Marc goes by he--if not then sorry!) posts something that has absolutely no bearing on you, you jump right in and try to start something. Why?
.... I don't think 'jumping on someone's dick' has the pejorative meaning as you used it....
But that is me as a dude.
All comedy aside, I think Unequivocal comment was not really jumping Marc's shit.
While I do not have the same faith in the moderators as Unequivocal does, advocating against escalating a confrontation with invectives is solid advice for a discussion board/forum like the community.
Shit, I wish someone were jumping on my dick - it's been a while.
Actually, to be fair, she was merely discussing and was doing so quite respectfully, as compared to some jackasses on Feministing ...cut her a break.
I admit to being confused by this. While it seems obvious that I've come across to you as being hostile towards Marc, in re-reading my comments I'm not seeing anything of the sort. Could you clarify?
I completely agree. When dealing with trolls or jackasses the best response is just Report Abuse and disengage. And don't feed the trolls!
Actually, I put up with more swearing on feminist forums than I do in any other walk of life. And I put up with it because I was under the assumption that being forceful and rude to an extent was an important part of feminist culture. Isn't it a deliberate action to disavow the idea that women should be sweet?
Great post, katemoore. I definitely agree that there have been too many instances of people throwing around the word "troll." Whenever I see it used incorrectly I cringe a little, knowing that it's potentially giving people who aren't feminists or who are undecided about their feelings towards feminism the impression that we can't listen to opposing points of view, and want people who disagree with us to go as far away as possible. I'd hate for anyone to think that feminists can't participate in a good, intelligent debate. Thankfully, I personally have seen more intelligent debates around here than I have knee-jerk name-calling.
I liked your post katemoore. It is very well thought out. I agree that we shouldn't throw out the word troll just to silence someone. I do not even understand why commentators call others a troll at all. Why not just hit the report abuse button and let the moderators decide.
In fact, I would go even further and say that posters should not call other posters any kind of name at all unless it be their screen name. Calling someone a jackass or any other name such as was done by a commentator near the beginning of this thread is just as bad a silencing technique. Name-calling discourages any kind of useful discussion.
I haven't really come across this problem when I post something. I'm pretty new but I think people need to respect other people's opinions. That's what it all comes down to is respect. I could care less if you disagree with me, but I would like a reason why (just to initiate conversation/friendly debate) and for you to respect my view. It's not really that hard to do, people need to learn to be respectful, even if they are blunt.
I think it's generally obvious who comes on a site to get the posters all riled up about their comment. I can't lie, sometimes I like to reply back to them just for the fun of it. Other times I ignore them. I agree that calling others a troll is not going to really solve anything and it doesn't really have a point anyway...
See also: the phrase "concern troll." I fucking loathe this phrase. 90% of the people it gets applied to are not trolling; they just disagree with you.
Just because you dislike the phrase doesn't mean its not an apt description of someone's posts.
Concern trolling attempts to silence discussion by denying the autonomy of the trolled, by infantalising and claiming the trolled is ignorant of 'the facts' of the topic at hand. Its very different to 'I see your point but I respectfully disagree'.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're using the phrase wrong. Every definition I've found agrees with me:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570701,00.html
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-concern-trolling.htm
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concern_troll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_troll
To name a few.
But Katemoore, even your links agree with my definition
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570701,00.html
A more subtle beast than your standard troll, this species posts comments that appear to be sympathetic to the topic being discussed but who, in reality, wishes to sow doubt in the minds of readers.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-concern-trolling.htm
Concern trolling is a form of Internet trolling in which someone enters a discussion with claims that he or she supports the view of the discussion, but has concerns. In fact, the concern troll is opposed to the view of the discussion, and he or she uses concern trolling to sow doubt and dissent in the community of commenters or posters.
This is exactly what I am referring to. The troll attempts to discredit the thesis of the original poster.
Ie: 'but don't you know that Faaaat is baaaaad'
'you can't be healthy if you are overweight, don't you know your going to diiieeeeeeeee'
Which has the the effect of silencing discussion by trying to invalidate the OP's experience.
I have also been thinking about trolling (especially concern trolling) in terms of privilege but I haven't gotten the big mess of thoughts in my head sorted out yet. Something along the lines of those with privilege (in the particular aspect or attribute) may see comments as 'reasonable discussion' but those without, having heard the same old line a million times will see this a concern trolling.
I think that again the relevant point is a matter of intent and authenticity. If someone is pretending to be concerned in order to sow internal dissent, that would be concern trolling. If someone genuinely believes, to use your example, that being fat is unhealthy, and they bring that up in order to disagree with someone who espouses fat activism, that is not concern trolling. It's not cool, but it's not concern trolling.
Again, the real characteristic that distinguishes a troll from a non-troll is whether they genuinely believe what they say, or whether they are arguing solely to get a rise out of people. If someone truly believes in what they are saying (no matter how asinine or oppressive that belief may be), then they are not trolling. They may be jerks, they may be stupid, they may be in the wrong place, but they aren't trolling.
This may seem like a nit-picky sort of obsession with proper terminology, but it is actually really relevant to online discourse. It is important to be clear in our distinction between trolls and people who hold differing viewpoints and act like jerks; trolls cannot be corrected or educated, and their opinions cannot be changed, because they aren't arguing from any sort of actual belief. People who hold differing viewpoints and act like jerks may still be redeemable, and it may be worth engaging with them.
While I agree that the word "troll" can be thrown around a bit too much that's really not a concern of mine. When that word is thrown at you, chances are you've said something horribly offensive and I don't really care if it "silences" the offensive commenter. This is (as m.confabulation pointed out) a feminist space. Sure, non-feminists are welcome but it's mainly to discuss feminism. Shocking I know! Most of the threads I've seen welcome respectful discussion, key word respectful. But if you say something asshole-ish you're going to get called out for it. And if you get called a troll almost once a week maybe you should stop and take a look at your posts and wonder what about them upsets people on this site so much. Could it be that you're being horribly offensive most of the time? Not respectful? A jackass? My guess is yes.
Sorry. I don't really feel that sympathetic toward people (trolls) who invade feminist spaces and want to blab blab blab instead of listen and tell women how they're wrong about their own experiences. I (and probably lots of other readers here) can pick them out from a mile away based on their rhetorical tactics. On the Palin thread, you may have noticed the common "Post some extremely hateful offensive name-calling out of nowhere, then apologize later and pretend like you didn't really mean it." In real life, this would be considered dysfunctional, borderline abusive behavior. This person is a troll.
Anyway, re: this whole post, give me a break. Most of these people need to shut the hell up, become acclimated, tone down their egos, and read some comments for a while before commandeering the discussion.
But that still doesn't make people trolls. It might make them derail the discussion. It might make them naive, self-centered, offensive or wrong. It might make them complete tools. But it doesn't make them trolls because if you aren't purposefully trying to piss people off, you're not trolling.
Here's the difference. A non-troll might come onto the Palin thread (which I haven't really read in its entirety, so I'm not calling anyone out) and make it all about herself because for whatever reason, she thinks that's a legitimate contribution to the discussion. A troll would come onto the thread and do the same thing, but as a deliberate attempt to fuck the discussion up. When people start to respond to them, the non-troll might think "Why are they disagreeing with me? Why is someone wrong on the Internet?" The troll, though, would think "LOL, look at all the angry feminists!"
I just find this ... not at all a useful definition. There's absolutely no way you could know what a poster is thinking or what intentions s/he has ever when posting on a thread. Basically, since no one can ever know another's intentions, you're claiming people on this board have no legitimate reason to be angry or call out someone for trolling for any reason. Why are we expected to give offensive commenters the benefit of the doubt when they rarely give the same to us? This is really unnecessarily patient and angelic to me. Silencing the privileged, who prance about blissfully ignorant of their privilege - and often don't care to learn about their privilege when it's pointed out to them - is simply not the same as silencing women who come here because they have few other spaces to speak or share their experiences and considered opinions.
I've done a bit of reading on trolling myself, since I used to post regularly on the troll-infested Yahoo! Answers Gender & Women's Studies board, and liked this article ("Searching for Safety Online: Managing 'Trolling' in a Feminist Forum") especially: http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP02-03B.html .
It might make them derail the discussion. It might make them naive, self-centered, offensive or wrong.
Indeed. This is trolling - most definitely derailing and being offensive. I'm not quite following how you think being offensive (e.g., name-calling) is acceptable on really any forum, not just a minority one.
Indeed. This is trolling - most definitely derailing and being offensive. I'm not quite following how you think being offensive (e.g., name-calling) is acceptable on really any forum, not just a minority one.
Calling someone a troll is name calling and it is even more of a derail than what the poster could have been discussing, becuase the conversation can them become "Is _____ a troll or not?
That is a complete hijack.
Also, (not to anyone in particular) in re derailing a conversation... not all tangents off of a conversation are derails just because they are disagreements with an argument or the underlying conceptual structure that underpin the argument that an OP made.
I never said name-calling or being offensive was acceptable. I think it's very unacceptable. But it's a different kind of unacceptable than trolling. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with being angry. Calling someone a troll, though, is not the same as being angry. It's making an assumption about someone's intentions that, if wrong, pretty much kills any desire on their part to listen to you anymore.
You raise a good point when you say that it's not possible to know people's intentions, but most genuine trolls make themselves known eventually. The "reveal," if you will. Like wax_ghost said, "a true troll can never resist being an ass and their true colors shine through fast enough."
And in my experience here (granted, I don't know what's in moderation), most of the trolls we get are either the one-shot kind or the carpet-bombers, both of whose posts get deleted pretty quickly.
Great post. I have seen too many people jump to calling troll when someone disagrees with them here. But you can have a dissenting opinion and not be a troll.
It can be hard to tell, sometimes, though. Usually, if I can't tell, I will try to engage them honestly. But a true troll can never resist being an ass and their true colors shine through fast enough.
For the rare times that a troll does pop up, I tend to just troll them right back. They want to try to push my buttons? I'm going to try to push theirs back. It's my way of refusing to be mistreated.
The troll label is thrown out a little prematurely because of a common pattern. Person A will make a comment that has very little to do with the current topic and reflects a lack of understanding about feminism. Person B (and sometimes C and D as well) will tell person A that they are wrong. Person A will refuse to accept their ignorance about the topic and reveal anti-feminist thinking. Eventually it escalates to person A resorting to troll like behavior. I'm not saying it is right, but immediately labeling someone as a troll is a way to escape that.
Example: As of right now, the last person who commented on the gender binary Depends ads was talking about men paying more for auto insurance and feminists not speaking out about it. Not trolling, but obvious derail and misconception about feminists advocating for gender equity.
Heh. Yeah, I'm with you. That's an accurate assessment.
It might make them derail the discussion. It might make them naive, self-centered, offensive or wrong.
Indeed. This is trolling - most definitely derailing and being offensive. I'm not quite following how you think being offensive (e.g., name-calling) is acceptable on really any forum, not just a minority one.
The point is, that's not trolling. I can naive, self-centred, offensive, derailing and wrong and still not be trolling. Trolls act in bad faith; clewless people do not.
Trolls act in bad faith; clewless people do not.
Again, my point: there is absolutely no way you could know from a person's online presentation and written text whether they're acting in bad faith or just "clueless" unless s/he apologizes and admits to being clueless. This definition based on intention is completely non-functional.
So, you're solution is to treat all naive posters like they are acting in bad faith? That doesn't sound very useful.
What's a troll? Well this diary is a good example of one.
Perhaps also see here, "Borderline Trolling on Feminist Blogs," http://bloggingfeminism.blogspot.com/2007/04/borderline-trolling-on-feminist-blogs.html . Here, trolling is defined as "commenting intended to stop the ongoing conversation or to turn it into a fight. A troll is someone who has no real desire to engage in the conversation but a considerable desire to stifle it or to make it into something troll-centered." This latter is a type of derailing. In the above link to the U of Indiana paper, there are three "definitional criteria":
"1) messages from a sender who appears outwardly sincere,
2) messages designed to attract predictable responses or flames,
3) messages that waste a group's time by provoking futile argument."
Your definition overlooks basically all of these things, particularly the fact that trolls often purposely present as outwardly sincere, not all-out asking-for-a-ban offensive.
With regard to "calling someone a troll is still name-calling," I'm sorry, calling someone a troll because they come onto a blog with no intention to learn about the movement is in no way going to "disrupt discussion" to the extent that someone coming onto a feminist blog and calling women sexist names is. I think this is putting way too much focus on "teh poor trollz' feelings"; I don't see that calling out trolls has "shut down discussion" on this blog hardly at all. If there was no calling out of trolls because of their ambiguous intentions, this place would be frickin' overrun, as any feminist blogger's collection of hate-mail can attest.
All the things you have quoted have one thing in common: an intent on the part of the poster to be a nuisance. So, it seems you are in agreement with the OP on that point.
As regard to calling someone a troll being name calling. If as you say the poster has no intent to debate in good faith then it is not name calling. If on the other hand that is not the case, calling troll is akin to name calling; it will derail the discussion.