Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

The sad state of Trolling

Trolling used to mean something.

Oh, trolls on this site- and the internet in general- used to believe in things. Honor. Respect. Look at you! What do you believe in, huh? WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN?

I suppose I should have seen this coming, though.

Let me tell you a story. A long time ago, when the world was young, I was on USENET. My friends and I were running the alt.comp.sys.ibm.flightsim board, and we were trying to convince the alt.comp.sys.ibm.pcgame folks that, while a niche board, we deserved to have a place with their larger group.

But our negotiations kept breaking down; a troll would interfere, obfuscate, crap in the threads. We went looking for the troll, to find his motives and his reasoning- for six months, we looked for him. One day, I happened across a humorous posting on alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die and boom- there he was. He didn’t even play video games.

So why troll our forum?

Because he thought it was good sport. Because some trolls aren’t looking for anything logical, like intellectual honesty. They can’t be bought except by major political parties, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with.

Some trolls just want to watch the world burn.


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 75 Comments

75 comments

  1. Peter Jukes

    …flips on its head. Because it posits anarchy and meaninglessness as a response to life, it ends up endorsing the status quo.

    The ostensible anti-authoritarianism of interference trolls suits authoritarians because:

    a) Trolls pose no threat to their power

    b) Trolls discourage and dismay those who seek change

    b) Trolls interfere with communication with negativity and therefore reduce constructive co-operation.

    And we’ve all seen where the co-operation, hope, and communication lead…

    Tahrir Square.

  2. DeniseVelez

    and bigfoot and other Usenet sites where trollery was celebrated.

    Had to spend too much time dealing with alt admins attempting to fend off attacks to my own alt. newsgroup

    Eventually got really tired.

    Not that it was just in the alt. hierarchy – gosh I remember an epic flame war in rec.gardens.roses.

    I switched from Usenet eventually and went on to IRC. Then the “bot” wars to control channels got totally crazy.

    So now we have blog trolls and comment section trolls.

    Still trolls.

  3. spacemanspiff

    Oh, trolls on this site- and the internet in general- used to believe in things.

    Where?

    Uh oh. The Moose is on to me.

    Trolls and the Broken Window Theory

    One of my favorites subset of trolls is one that does not fit this specific criteria.

    The “polite” troll. You know exactly what I’m talking about.

    These are usually the ones railing against opression and all about their right to spew whatever nonsense they are peddling that day. They usually offer up blisteringly polite, well written ‘snake under the rose’ posts that are perfectly within the bounds of decency, but create unrest and dissatisfaction with cutting accuracy.Disruptive people, who keep themselves just at the edge of acceptable behavior.

    They can drive away the sane people just as much as the loud and obnoxious obvious trolls. These are the posters all too often cry innocence and hide behind the very worthy excuse of  open discussion, but are frequently just trying to stir up trouble.

  4. Rashaverak

    on internet forums, directed to the issue of pay scales and benefits for public employees.  So the story goes, right-wing organizations that specialize in “astroturf” operations are paying people to call up liberal talk shows and to post on internet fora, and to make allegations such as teacher pensions and the like have sent the taxes through the roof and now the callers can’t pay their property taxes, etc.

    Thom Hartmann was talking about this yesterday on his radio show after a woman called up and went down that path.  She did seem more interested in hitting bullet points than in having an actual dialog.  He ended up terminating the phone call and stating his belief that she was not a genuine caller, but rather a paid shill.

    Meanwhile, in other news, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce seems to have been considering going Cointelpro on its opponents.  The Bank of America also seems to have been considering that option with respect to Wikileaks.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/…

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/…

  7. Stipes

    be coming to an end:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…

    New CPAC Head: ‘It’s Going To Be Difficult To Continue The Relationship’ With GOProud

    Al Cardenas is the new ACU chair and he’s apparently taking a look at GOProud:


    “I have been disappointed with their website and their quotes in the media, taunting organizations that are respected in our movement and part of our movement, and that’s not acceptable,” said Cardenas. “And that puts them in a difficult light in terms of how I view things.”

    Things got nasty right before CPAC:

    In the run-up to the convention, GOProud chairman Chris Barron called Cleta Mitchell, at the time the chair of the ACU Foundation, “a nasty bigot” after she pushed conservatives to boycott CPAC.

    Barron has since apologized for that comment: “For the past six months, we have watched as unfair and untrue attacks have been leveled against our organization, our allies, our friends and sometimes even their families. Everyone has their breaking point and clearly in my interview with Metro Weekly I had reached mine. I shouldn’t have used the language that I did to describe Cleta Mitchell and for that I apologize.”

    I wonder if the new director is making a financial/political calculation about potential boycotters next year, (which would be an interesting fight since it would pop up right in the middle of their Presidential primaries).

  9. Jjc2008

    what does giving up personal freedom have to do with being liberal?  It was my generation of liberals who protested against the draft, as many of us considered it an infringement on personal freedom, as in “indentured servitude”.  And today from what I can see, it is the “liberals”, not the conservatives who have been screaming long and loud protesting the invasion of our privacy from The Patriot Act to control of a woman’s uterus.

    So I really honestly do not see where any conservative, tea party or libertarian, has this rep for wanting personal freedom.  All I see are a bunch of folks who think owning guns, and the right to conceal them, use automatic weapons not even necessary for hunting (even a non-hunter gets the concept of overkill) is the definition of personal freedom.

    On the other hand, it is the conservatives with a few exceptions (Ron Paul) who are all about wanting to stop the building of mosques, wanting to invade countries, spy on citizens, torture them to get the secrets, and privatize roads, schools, and health care and take away a woman’s rights over her own body.  

    Most liberals are all about community, but none that I know want to stop the right to have a private road, or a private school.  We just don’t want our taxes paying for their privatization.  As well, liberals strongly believe the rights of others to worship any and all gods, or mythical creatures….just don’t shove those beliefs on others.  It is conservatives, not liberals who continue to insist that America is “Christian” nation, and that the ten commandments and their Bible should rule all of us while trying to make sure none of those other books, like the Koran, see the light of day.

    I have yet to have a liberal try to ban a book in my years as a librarian.  Yes, I know some liberals supposedly want to ban Tom Sawyer and/or Huck Finn or ban the “N” word from them.  But compared to the amount of Christian conservatives I have had to deal with who have wanted to ban, “The Hobbit”, all of the Harry Potter series….or any books that do not promote their belief system, the liberal requests for bannings are minimal (none locally…as a matter of fact).

    No liberal has come to school to get me to NOT teach science.  Tons of conservatives have, demanding we delete the teaching of evolution and instead teach creationism.  

    So sorry, I do not buy into what I consider to be a false equivalency.   To me, many centrists are playing that game of “the extremes” of either side are the same.  They are not.  No way is Michael Moore the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh/Glen Becl.  One uses facts to affect positive change, the others are insane/bigoted hate mongers.  How is that equivalent?

Comments are closed.