Not when that ‘depth’ you refer to itself is just a name painted on the shell of a description for the behavior of someone who is just being an asshole.
There is no more content to the philosophy, intent or state of mind. Only the description of the behavior exists, labelling the void.
An important part of this equation is the addendum “…the rightful dominion of the white race by a self-appointed aristocracy of a few white men.” I know you didn’t mean to make the grammatical switch of by for of, but it still works, because these pieces of garbage think they own their “fellow” white men, too. It’s part of what makes white male culture so stiflingly obnoxious. You can be a politically moderate white male heterosexual and still be unable to coexist with these vermin.
No! No! Don’t eat me reply to my comment! I am skinny and scrawny and really do not taste good at all. Please, wait for my big brother the next commenter. They are tasty and juicy. They will be coming in just a minute. Please wait for them.
- Little Gruff
I think you are right. And this fellow (a former “for real” troll) agrees. From the article:
... trolling isn't really trolling anymore. The motive isn't sublimated. The rage is bare. Trolls don't expose the vanities of the world these days; the world exposes the vanity of trolls. I don't know if it will ever go back to how it was.
That last category you mention really needs to get a new label - something to reflect that it is a criminal harassment.
If it’s a non-speaking role, I’m fine with that.
This was a great link, and a really interesting breakdown of trolley history and impulses. The OP article talks about punching down:
trolley code totally supports punching DOWN
As if it’s a total 180 in trolley culture, and this link also supports that conclusion, except that both articles show evidence that there is a fluid transition between the outcast legitimately punching up at a silly authority, and the current generation of trollies are punching whoever they want to punch, and convincing themselves and everyone around them that they are punching up after the fact.
This seems like an important aspect of the koolaid equation, that the trolley re-legitimizes their hate by convincing everyone that they are a victim, and that the target is in fact overly powerful. In this light, it’s no surprise that weev became obsessed with so-called white nationalism, and paranoia that minorities are powerful, and white males are weak and under attack, in fact it’s the exact same legitimization of struggle process that happened with Sierra. I am vulnerable, this is punching up, I’m the heroic jester.
It’s clear that ignoring is for a certain class of trolley, but for a sociopathic harrasser who puts blood sweat and tears into twisting their narrative into a false David and Goliath has gone off the rails, and is something else all together. A wolf in Wile e. Coyote clothing. These kinds of trollies need to be dealt with like any other nutjob violent conspiracy theorist who believes that their “tribe” is under threat of anihalation. What that is, I don’t think we’ve figured out yet.
Why am I thinking about Fox “News” right now?
Yes, trolls often do play both sides, its called concern trolling, googling around I came across this fine explanation:
In this case a troll was outed, then hounded and badgered until she killed herself, and the other trolls are now accusing the news organization that outed her of being the bully. Even trolls have martyrs.
But I do think that internet trolls being killed seems almost inevitable at this point. They are relying on the fact that they are beyond the reach or the interest of justice - historically human beings have employed a more primitive form of justice which consisted of getting a mob together to get the bad guy. It’s rotten and it often targets the wrong people, but if no justice can be had through a better system, this is what it eventually comes down to.
“Just ignore it” for trolls is like “just don’t have it” for sex. I mean, sure, it can work, in some pure hypothetical way, but it ignores reality to such a gobsmacking degree that it is functionally useless advice. Worse than useless, because it stops us from addressing the reality of the situation by pretending that if we all adhere to some pure platonic ideal of behavior that this will solve all our problems, like pretending trolls and sex don’t exist is some sort of magical wish-granting faerie and if we clap our hands and believe hard enough that everything is going to be great forever.
It’s damaging. It’s counter-productive. We can do better.
Even in this case, the troll seems to have seen herself as as fighting the power. I don’t know anything about this case, but one commentor on the daily beast went off at great length about the McCanns’ alleged negligence, as well as their wealth and influence giving them the power to cover up the crime and get away with it, scoring worldwide sympathy and a multimillion dollar book deal in the process. I assume that this commentor’s claims at least resemble the conspiracy story that said troll was fueled by. It also matches up nicely with the false narrative that weev constructed for himself, that he was actually in the rebel alliance, and that Sierra was the Dark Side, currying undeserved fame and sympathy from followers while enacting her secret, evil plans. The old chestnut of “question authority” certainly has a dark, obsessive side. We’re gonna need a bigger DSM…
The McCanns…
They live right around the corner from my parents. I was back visiting around the time this all happened and walked through the village square where people had put all the yellow ribbons. Really weird to see it for real after seeing it all over the TV news.
That woman was nuts. But there are a lot of people convinced the McCanns killed their daughter, just like the Amanda Knox case (which is interesting to observe from a presumption of guilt in the UK, to one of innocence in Seattle, kinda like the Louise Woodward case in reverse).
The McCanns aren’t really wealthy, just decently well-off, but they are beneficiaries of the way that people who are perceived as a bit posh are presumed innocent by the media, whereas people who are a bit, well, rougher, are generally seen as guilty.
Yeah, the “trolls” in that case most think of themselves more as vigilantes, I think. They think some people got away with murder and they are seeking justice because society’s system of justice had broken down.
But then the woman in this case became the victim of exactly the same phenomenon.
Unfortunately, like unlike Sierra’s article, it’s not always easy to spot the brilliant, misogynist, racist, psychopath responsible. But in this case I wonder if it couldn’t be traced back to some media outlet that decided they could make a lot of money by spinning the story a certain way.
I think we need to stop talking about “trolling”, because it’s a mere tactic. The revelation that Andrew Auernheimer is a Nazi, in communication with other Nazis and fascists, is critical. We’re dealing with people who are deliberately organizing to reinforce sexism, racism, and oppression. We’re dealing with fascists, and we need to organize ourselves to fight them.
EDIT: I should emphasize that, in the context of this Internet forum, we need to work out how to do that.
Worse, “Trolling” is only vaguely defined. Most people think it’s about people being jerks online and trying to get a rise out of people by saying intentionally inflammatory things, but I’ve seen the term used to cover everything up to and including physically stalking a person and harassing them until they commit suicide.
I agree, the term gets painted over a lot of what, in other realms, would be in less ambiguous categories, and would be recognized in a way that is deeper than the medium and method.
Exactly. I feel like this is analogous to how stories about anything that happens to occur via Facebook or Twitter, no matter how much the story is really about the complexities of human interaction, still tends to get filed under “technology” in news website hierarchies… On a normal day this is just silly laziness, but with serious issue like this, it is a distraction fro the root of real problems.
Behaviors do not come out of the void. Actions are informed by ideas about the world. The fact that these assholes regularly select certain kinds of targets over others evidences that they have motives behind their attacks. A contentless asshole form would just rage at everything and everyone equally. When I say the problem lies deeper, I’m talking about things like sexism, that are socialized from birth, which allows society at large to excuse incredibly destructive behavior as mere assholism.
There is no content insofar as philosophy matters, just a description of the way in which rich (which is commonly mistaken for 'charismatic), manipulative individuals take advantage of the basest, instinctual and tribal, reactionary group-think amongst the peer group of assholes.
They are encouraged to drape their assholery in some cause or another but this is just a ruse to motivate their basest instincts. For the good of the people. The rich and powerful people.
So when I say there is no content and that any depth that may be attributed to their motivations is just a ruse, I mean that they are the most desperate and empty marionettes, dancing to the masterminders movements, all the while calling themselves by some creed which serves only to distract from the painful truth. They are wretchedly empty and their hollow contorted whining about causes is an affront to the content of actual philosophies such as nihilism.
Yeah, and that’s where we need some new terminology. Some demarcation between evil assholes and assholes who are doing it for shits ‘n’ giggles.
What that term is, I don’t know.
Now we just need to start hounding rich people who think they are above this whole “democracy” thing.
