The internet amplifies the awareness and existence of trolls, a kind of virtualisation of intent insulates people who don’t even try and hide behind anonymity any more, so captured by the game of attack that they are all caught up in.
This isn’t new, trolls gonna troll, but maybe the amplification power of the net is so great that we need to consider having the censure argument all over again and take into consideration just how toxic the environment has become, not least because it is creating and enabling psychopaths.
This kind of vapid psychopath whose whole reality is dependant on the virtual persona they have constructed for the virtual game of attack is exemplified in Milo.
I am not arguing that he is not a psychopath whose every nuance is a veil of contempt, the point I was trying to make is that the specific things he chooses to amplify in his game of attack are exactly those components of his constructed persona that should encourage one to respond with dispassionate criticism. The article suggests a re-consideration of some form of censure and that wouldn’t be outside the wheelhouse of considered criticism.
And in fact, the specific point I was making in that quote was that just because he was wearing a shit load of beads doesn’t mean he is putting on being gay.
ETA:
Ugh, just re-read that and it’s not clear. I thought I might have previously sounded as if I was giving Milo an out by saying his behaviour was an exaggeration, and when you posted that article about censuring sociopathic trolls, I responded as if you were saying “but he is a psycho”. I agree. He is a psycho-sociopathic troll.
If that’s what you were saying…
