I have complicated feelings about alt-right trolling. Here's the problem: alt-right trolling tactics usually act against a marginalized group. People often react very reasonably against someone acting to marginalize an already vulnerable group. But even the act of trying to defend against said trolling is now itself "taking the bait", so the only things allies "should" do to "not take the bait" is to allow trolling people to continue punching down on minorities. There's no winning here.
For example: It was common for alt-right speakers to find and doxx trans people at universities they would be invited to. Of course, allies would try to protest these speakers coming to universities because they would doxx trans people at them. But trying to keep them off campus plays right into the "we're being oppressed, academia is a leftist hivemind hellscape" narrative that the very same doxxers try to spin. So the only option is to let them come on and doxx trans people? I don't really know. It's nasty.
I mean, 9/10 of the people associated with the movement (online) are trolling. Just like the original 'alt-right', mainly people making fun of extremists while pretending to represent them.
Trolling pushes people further into their echo chambers. It isn't intended to encourage a wider world view, it's intended to hurt. It just convinces people that they're already on the right side.
Trolling can have social value. It can expose the absurdity of a prevailing social movement, as in the case of Oli London, whose parody account acts as a devastating critique of the mainstream trans rights movement and its demands that gender be redefined as a self-sensed property that is assigned through self-identification, and demands pronoun use in accordance with this new definition (which is why university courses now start with each student declaring their personal pronouns).
Non-conformity and conflict are not always bad things. They can be a symptom of disharmony, but the correct solution to the disharmony may be a shifting of the status quo, rather than a stamping out of the dissident voices. The path of least resistance to reducing conflict is to silence dissident voices, but that removes a valuable source of constructive change that reduces conflict in the long run.
My default assumption is that trolls attacking any sort of "leftist" activist are either alt-reich channers or corporate astroturfers. I don't assume good faith on the part of trolls, but instead always suspect an ulterior motive.
> Trolling, to me, just aggravates the actual problem: deep socioeconomic/racial/sexual inequities.
Do have to bring that into everything? Online trolling is hardly about inequalities if you can manage minimal information hygiene. The authors analyzed CNN comments which I assume have no realname requirement [I don't actually see any comment section on their page]. Which means you can act with out much identity-signalling at all.
Only when people choose to bring their real-life identity to the table others can bring discrimination into the game. If they don't then "trolling" is just a range of non-constructive or self-serving behaviors that may serve as amusement to some parties while bothering others. It's not like it is unfairly targeting any particular group, because anyone can be a troll and anyone can be a victim.
> anyone here willing to argue that trolling has possibly positive transformative benefits, similar to political satire?
Trolling and satire seem closely related to me. If the target does take it seriously and is mislead by the satire performer then it is both at the same time.
https://i.imgur.com/eivlSBa.jpg
I'm not sure that the solution is to completely prevent trolling rather than to inoculate ourselves against it.
Part of 'trolling' (in the sense being talked about here) is knowing what to use against the victim for maximum shock value or impact. I don't think Pao was hated because she was a woman or asian. I think that she was hated, and therefore they found an easy way to disparage her by throwing slurs about her gender and race. It's shocking to see such words and that's precisely why people use them.
I don't think that the world would be a better place if it we cloned it as is and scrubbed all negative references for race/gender/other protected characteristic. I think people will be just as nasty. They'll be nasty using different words to strike at different vulnerabilities. The problem isn't "racism" or "sexism", it's people being plain, old-fashioned mean.
Certain communities are extremely sensitive to disruption through trolling, especially if the group inherently places high importance on highlighting differences between members and in-groups.
"Modern left" leaning groups are so easy to disrupt and destroy it is child's play. Trolling is an exceptionally powerful weapon if targeted communities have a particular outlook. It has been a full on blitzkrieg the last 12 months and until fundamental issues are addressed by targeted groups, they will be vulnerable.
An interesting area of research would be the relationship between individual trolls, collective trolls and emergent behaviour of these.
edit: A group defined by division, will divide and die.
I feel like this used to account for nearly all trolling, whereas now a significant portion of it crosses over into an expression of hatred, if the troll perceives the target to be of an opposing ideological group.
The good trolls are basically self-sacrificial. A good friend of mine makes the racists on Stormfront look like idiots by trolling them without them realizing it. It can be a weapon of good. However, I agree with you; everybody these days rushes to call what they're doing trolling when it falls apart in their face, but the post under discussion here is what a troll should look like, IMO.
Yeah, no, that excuse stopped working around six years ago. “Online trolling” is now part and parcel of political action and can be separated only through naïveté or disingenuity and no, there is no third option. The shitlord who chased my friend from her home was cheered on by that faceless mob of “online trolls” and encouraged other people to do likewise and worse. Similarly, Elliot Rodgers and the like got their book from “online trolls” who happened to also be virulent misogynists who were ecstatic that somebody took what they advocated and put it into action.
What you call “extreme” is the reality for people less privileged than you being subject to these fucks’ weird jollies. What’s your just-ignore-it stuff going to do for them?
"Trolling the trolls" is a very stupid euphemism. The mainstream media is losing all credibility built in the past decades and seems to not be able to figure out how to halt the proccess (while changing nothing about the "values" [and people] they protect).
We've tried "Don't fee the trolls" for years: it has only lead to them becoming more vicious and egging each other on. It means the only thing they hear is how awesome they are from their friends.
It is time to engage: people with patience could engage them in good faith: instead of asking "how do you justify it?" ask "what is your life like that you feel the need to do this?" There are a number of violence-intervention programs that could be adapted.
Alternatively, we can drive them to ever-greater heights of rage by armchair psychoanalyzing them and bombarding them with ridicule: laughing at fear can make it go away. We could shun them, alienate them, mock them and otherwise make trolling unpleasant to engage in. Right now the incentive to troll is there and there is no disincentive: we need to create one.
In real life, the disincentive is that someone will take a fully-justified swing at the troll or they will be arrested for harassment, stalking and verbal assault. We need to enforce the internet-equivalent of getting punched in the face, since the government doesn't appear to enforce laws against harassment and assault online.
Trolls always try to wrap their attacks in semi-agreeable contexts so it doesn't get immediately dismissed and can enter mainstream channels. That's the whole idea. Similar to how activists try to wrap everyone who disagrees with them as mere sexists/racists/etc to give their arguments weight and credibility in those same channels - usually using the troll's purposefully provocative behaviour as their evidence and justification.
It's an increasingly popular phenomenon that we need to be conscious of as a culture and not give credence to the trolls while also not using examples from the fringe to pigeonhole the whole.
For example: It was common for alt-right speakers to find and doxx trans people at universities they would be invited to. Of course, allies would try to protest these speakers coming to universities because they would doxx trans people at them. But trying to keep them off campus plays right into the "we're being oppressed, academia is a leftist hivemind hellscape" narrative that the very same doxxers try to spin. So the only option is to let them come on and doxx trans people? I don't really know. It's nasty.
reply