[Vision2020] Of trolls and trolling

[Phil Nisbet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Use_as_pejorative

Internet troll
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In the context of the Internet, a troll is a message that seems to at least 
one user to be inaccurate, inflammatory or hostile, which by effect or 
design causes a disruption in discourse. The word is also often used to 
describe a person posting such messages.

Some authorities consider the term "troll", when used to label a person, as 
being roughly equivalent to "riff-raff" or "scum" or some other term that 
dismisses a person as being unworthy of being heard for reasons that are not 
directly stated. Some even consider it to be racist.
Use as pejorative
As a pejorative, the term "troll" is very often a slander of opponents in 
heated debates. People who identify as trolls and those who vehemently deny 
that they are trolls will both use the term, often making it obvious to all 
neutral third parties that both participants are, in fact, trolls: one who 
admits it, and one who does not. Accordingly the view has arisen in some 
circles that trolls, the plural, is a valid term, but that it is not valid 
to refer to someone as an Internet troll on their own. In other words, it 
takes two to troll, and once they do, they're two trolls.
Many times a person will post a sincere message that they are emotionally 
sensitive about. Skilful trolls know that the easiest way to upset them is 
to falsely claim that they are a troll. On other occasions a person may not 
instantly understand or fit into the social norms of a forum where most 
people are the same - and so acting just slightly out of social norms, often 
unintentionally, for legitimate reasons gets the poster called a troll. 
Whether they actually "are" a troll depends wholly on whether one takes the 
political view of trolling, in which motives are not considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking through all the current definitions, it would seem clear to me that 
Joan just as readily fits the pattern for trolling and seems to use the term 
itself as a way of IDing her political opponents, thus employing the power 
of positive pigeon holing to label all who disagree with her broader 
political agenda as some how driven by bigotry.

Its is also very possible that Joan is acting out by posting as the troll 
herself as a means of gaining sympathy for her causes.  I note that she 
tends to lump any who think differently than she does as evile 
reactionaries, nasty old conservatives, religious fanatics and tends to use 
exceptionally nasty scatological terms about anybody who disagrees with her 
conclusions.  This tends to bring her sympathy within her personal group, a 
possible motive for Joan to post trolled messages as counter arguments to 
herself.

As for bravery being displayed in posting by Joan, I would note that she is 
actually in a position of power.  Other posters who disagree with Joan do 
not have the power to head down to the radio station and spend two hours a 
week casting aspersions on the ideas, physical characteristics or moral 
integraty of those who disagree with them.  Neither do other person who post 
here have the power to write articles in print and electronic journals in 
roles as ‘journalists’ or authors.  Disagreeing with Joan can have serious 
consequences for the person who does not agree with her arguments or even 
her style, but she suffers no risk or harm from calling those who do, troll, 
a-shole and a host of other things.

Phil Nisbet

PS  Meanwhile back on the topic of Moscow’s future, what do any of the 
various BS postings about religion or homosexuality have to do with it?

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/