Trolling on the internet

[TerraPrime]

From wiki:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]

While this sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling also used to describe intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[7][8]

It seems that the word has now gained some extra meaning. In earlier days, trolls are people who post messages with the intent to cause discord while not necessarily believing in what they post, not merely that their posts did cause flame fests. And that's the difference that prompted me to make this thread.

Why should we care about the difference between intention?

Beecause in many of the discussions lately, that's where things got bogged down.

Take the instance of the "This is what a feminist looks like" controversy. Many people said that the person who made fun of the original image was just trolling for reaction. For those of us who use the word troll to mean intentionally causing a reaction in others, this doesn't map well. To us, the guy was just being a jerk, and not trolling. By calling what he did a for of "trolling" it comes across as minimizing the offense that his actions caused, because now it shifts the blame onto those who are offended by his efforts to offend, as in, "oh look, you fell for the trolling, you poor dear."

In other words, I think the label "trolling" is a bit over-used, and in many cases, it is deployed in a context to minimize and justify the offense by shifting the responsibility to the people who are offended. It is an internet updated version of "you shouldn't be offended when someone uses offensive epithets like kikes and chinks and cunts, because you have the choice to not be offended."

So while trolling is often done with offensive content, not all offensive contents are trolling attempts. Sometimes, people are just that fucking offensive.

[Prince Alexander]

I think you are right. Offence and attention seeking sometimes go together but don't have to.

And on the other end of troll spectrum are those who simply look for a shot of excitement, and not looking to offend. I consider myself a "troll IRL", if the environment is appropriate I often troll people lightly, without intent of offence.

[Theda Baratheon]

There should be a separate word for people who play a certain character online aswell, like estaban windsmore (YouTube it) and daxflame on YouTube, kinda weird when talking about trolling written could be talking about some racist online or some person being hilarious irritating with no actual malicious content

[DaarioKnowsBest]

Fine line between satire and trolling.

The way I understand trolling is just to get an angry reaction while satire makes a point of social criticism, sometimes with the consequence of angry reactions

[Iron Man]

Trolling can be fun sometimes, I must say. Without crossing the lines, of course.

[Lyanna Stark]

I completely agree TP. Offensive behaviour online often gets explained with trolling and then automatically either to not feed the troll or grow a thicker skin (more often the second).

[Guest Raidne]

Isn't the distinction between troll and asshat whether the belief is genuine, strictly speaking?

I think we've rolled "waste of thread space" into the definition of troll because people are less sure of when they can permissibly tell someone they're being an asshat.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I agree with TP as we cannot know motives when we read a post intent is irrelvant. Abusive posting is abusive posting.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

I think one can get a rise out of people without being offensive about it and I often find people who manage to do that funny. Offensive content is offensive content though, and the terminology doesn't really matter in terms of grouping it.

[polishgenius]

The British media has jumped aboard this wagon full strength. It now uses 'trolling' for basically anything where someone is being mean on the internet, from people mocking Piers Morgan to wind him up a bit on twitter (ie actual trolling) to people bullying kids till they commit suicide. As a result the term is soon going to become essentially meaningless, at least in the UK.

[MinDonner]

Abusive posting is anusive posting.

I'm hoping that this wasn't a typo, and actually Scot calling people assholes in a high-falutin' way. :D

And I think it's a long time since "troll" strictly meant someone posting stuff-they-didn't-really-believe just to get a reaction; you can be a dick about your own firmly-held opinions just as easily. It's not even the offensiveness of the opinion that marks it as trolling IMO, just the way it's expressed and whether or not an argument is entered into in good faith.

One thing that bugs me is the "you're letting the trolls win!" position, which seems to be rolled out regardless of what people do in response. Ignore them so they carry on? Feed them with attention so they feel validated? What, from a troll's point of view, constitutes "losing"? Other than the Almighty Banhammer, that is? Is that the only answer?

[Relic]

It's just one of those words with many meanings, sort of like the word "hipster". The way i understand the word troll is as follows - a troll is someone who intentionally provokes other people in order to get a negative emotional reaction. This person can be doing so online, or not.

The way the word "troll" was used on this particular message board for awhile was just describing one type of troll.

[polishgenius]

One thing that bugs me is the "you're letting the trolls win!" position, which seems to be rolled out regardless of what people do in response. Ignore them so they carry on? Feed them with attention so they feel validated? What, from a troll's point of view, constitutes "losing"? Other than the Almighty Banhammer, that is? Is that the only answer?

Not getting any decent responses would be what constitutes losing. By and large, if no-one responds, your average troll won't carry on.

One of the other boards I go on has developed a habit of, eventually, dealing with the particularly persistent trolls by repeatedly changing the subject entirely when they try to start something, starting a discussion about something irrelevant and harmless like your favourite ice-cream or something.

[Sci-2]

What, from a troll's point of view, constitutes "losing"? Other than the Almighty Banhammer, that is? Is that the only answer?

Addressing their posts with calm argument seems to work, as it denies them the outraged responses but also forces them to either stop posting or respond.

Of course this only works if no one else feeds their desire for angry reaction.

That said, I think there is a danger here where someone's honest but contrary opinion is seen as "concern trolling" or just regular trolling.

Now we'll all lose our cool sometimes but I think this is a good strategy as it allows those with extreme contrary opinions to be engaged while those hunting for angry reactions either give up or end up looking foolish.

[Salad_fevre]

Trouble with the attachment of the recent feminist meme to 'trolling' is that it significantly devalues the meaning of the word. There simply is not enough there, and with that attachment the word now can refer to anything that makes me uneasy.

With that, a Christian or other religious type can cite trolling whenever someone explains vaccines and their connection to evolution.

Imagine the word 'assault' suddenly means a mean-looking stare. Whereas now 'assault' indicates someone was physically harmed and sounds serious, might even prompt direct action (though law enforcement have been degrading that word for years... offensive fart? Assault).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Salad,

"Assault" is the anticpation of an offensive touching. "Battery" is an offensive touching.

[Basebourne]

From wiki:

It seems that the word has now gained some extra meaning. In earlier days, trolls are people who post messages with the intent to cause discord while not necessarily believing in what they post, not merely that their posts did cause flame fests. And that's the difference that prompted me to make this thread.

Why should we care about the difference between intention?

Beecause in many of the discussions lately, that's where things got bogged down.

Take the instance of the "This is what a feminist looks like" controversy. Many people said that the person who made fun of the original image was just trolling for reaction. For those of us who use the word troll to mean intentionally causing a reaction in others, this doesn't map well. To us, the guy was just being a jerk, and not trolling. By calling what he did a for of "trolling" it comes across as minimizing the offense that his actions caused, because now it shifts the blame onto those who are offended by his efforts to offend, as in, "oh look, you fell for the trolling, you poor dear."

In other words, I think the label "trolling" is a bit over-used, and in many cases, it is deployed in a context to minimize and justify the offense by shifting the responsibility to the people who are offended. It is an internet updated version of "you shouldn't be offended when someone uses offensive epithets like kikes and chinks and cunts, because you have the choice to not be offended."

So while trolling is often done with offensive content, not all offensive contents are trolling attempts. Sometimes, people are just that fucking offensive.

I agree, but what I can't stand are people labeling everyone they disagree with as a troll as if that is some sort of trump card for winning an argument. The definition never should have been broadened in the first place. A word used in error often enough does not make it right.

[Salad_fevre]

What image does your mind conjure from the phrase "A police officer was assaulted in the line of duty".

[slim da reaper]

What image does your mind conjure from the phrase "A police officer was assaulted in the line of duty".

What about 'A husband "battered" or "beat" his wife'. There was no injury, intention wasn't required to be found and duration of time fleeting/seconds. That's 'Assault by beating' (comes under Common assault as an actual touch.) It's also not 'touching', it's touch. You see it in lowbrow newspapers, there's a very good reason why the words "battered" and "beat" are in quotation marks, they are generalized and used to invoke images of real violence. Prosecutors and other men in positions of 'power' have a delusion that they are in a hyper-masculine role, they give feminism a bad name with their perverse abuse of words, which some people in the general public love. There's actual bodily harm (an indictable offence with the right to a jury), Common assault/assault by 'beating' are summary offenses (no right to a jury.) Any crime that does not give the defendant a right to a jury loses legal validity.

[Robin Of House Hill]

What image does your mind conjure from the phrase "A police officer was assaulted in the line of duty".

Misuse of the English language?

ETA: Legally, assault doesn't require any physical contact. Shouting at someone in a threatening manner constitutes assault.