Sunday, November 20, 2011

Three Responses to Blog Trolls

5 comments:

TC said...

That responder on the lower right looks awfully familiar.

Our household posse of furry responders (exterminating angels with muddy paws) have a way of boxing the troll about the ears just a bit, before the final deletion (application of amnesia).

A tad cruel maybe, but it's nature's way.

David Grove said...

I don't have to worry about trolls at my blog because almost no one reads it. An advantage of anonymity. Like an advantage of proledom: you needn't worry about conforming to correct bourgeois deportment at all times.

A dictator may have a lot of fun, but he always has to worry about some treacherous minion garotting him while he's feasting on chicken cordon bleu.

Your drawings are charming.

ACravan said...

It sounds naive to find the existence of blog trolls surprising, but still I do, even after staring various nasty scrawlings in the face. Of all the forms of minor fame one might pursue, blog trolling must be the most minor. Still, a couple of years ago I found myself in conversation with a couple of college students who I like (their parents were friends of ours in college) who passionately defended anonymous/pseudonymous posting in "letters to the editor" columns -- who said that they would never sign their names to their opinions and felt that doing so was unnecessary and somehow wrong. There was no point in continuing the conversation over a pleasant dinner, but I wondered what kind of adults they would become and why their parents didn't step in? Although this isn't the same as blog trolling, these kids are already walking the same paths as the troll and some of them will certainly take his turn-off. I love your drawings also. Curtis

Nin Andrews said...

I totally agree with your point here, Curtis. I think there is something about not being willing to stand behind your words that is both wimpy and creepy. I also think it creates a platform for sociopaths.
But then sometimes I am not even sure if the trolls are real.
I am reminded of those bots that people meet and date on dating sites.

ACravan said...

My first lawyer job was as an Assistant District Attorney in Brooklyn. On that job I saw the many terrible things people do to each other. Most of the time, you could make sense of them, but sometimes you couldn't at all. I think your comment about sociopaths is astute. I understand the possible utility of dating sites and have spoken to some acquaintances you have used them, but I'm glad I'm not in that particular market. As for the anonymous comment question, I wrote a short letter to the online newspaper published by my college a couple of weeks ago suggesting that they return to a policy of requiring all correspondents to sign their (real) names to letters. Under their current system, letters like mine could be voted "up" or "down" by the mob. Enough "no" votes and your letter is masked -- literally hidden from view. My letter proved insufficiently popular. I'm really disappointed in those kids, but more so in the faculty and administration who are supposed to guide them. As you may know, Swarthmore was originally a Quaker school and they exploit the Quaker connection whenever and to the extent it suits them. Sending anonymous correspondence is SO un-Quaker. Curtis