Pauline Gaines wonders what makes some commenters feel they have the right to rip a blogger into teeny-tiny pieces.
Originally appeared at Perils of Divorced Pauline
I belong to a group of mom bloggers and it is not uncommon for one of us to Facebook the rest of us and ask for “nice comments” on a post to offset the vitriol being vomited upon the comment section by trolls.
Not sure what trolls are? They’re those shadowy internet lurkers who visit blogs seemingly with the sole intention of shredding the blogger. They take issue with the content, the POV, the writing style, sometimes even the gender of the writer. From a mere 1000 words or so, they assign twisted personality traits to the blogger and use the anonymity of the commenting forum to eviscerate a stranger.
They especially love to attack bloggers for expressing strong opinions on, God forbid, their own blogs! Here’s a love note Elizabeth Aquino received on her blog, a moon, worn as if it had been a shell:
“Elizabeth, I’m not in a position to judge your ‘niceness.’ But from your articles I can discern very clearly that you are a self-obsessed, self-absorbed, self-interested, narrow minded person. That is, if the case doesn’t assist Elizabeth in some way or improve Elizabeth’s lot in some fashion, Elizabeth isn’t interested in it. “
It’s worth mentioning that, despite her self-absorption and narrow-mindedness, Elizabeth raises three kids, one of whom has a severe seizure disorder.
An example from my own blogging life: in response to my essay that ran in Salon in March 2011, various trolls diagnosed me with an “Axis II personality disorder,” accused me of being a “divorced vaginate” and a “horrible mother” and urged me to get “non-supportive, challenging therapy.”
I’m confident about my writing, and I know, after a few cyber-public floggings, to brace myself before I scan the comment thread, but still. Watching people who don’t even know you stomp all over your integrity can leave you feeling like a frail kid cornered by schoolyard bullies.
What is it about cyberspace that makes some commenters feel they have the right to rip a blogger into teeny-tiny pieces? I’m not talking about those engaging in critical thinking, or respectfully disagreeing, or inviting civil dialogue. I’m all for that.
I’m talking about rabid, mad-dog commenters who hurl vicious, sadistic barbs at bloggers. Or trolls who stand atop their high, sanctimonious horses issuing judgments — judgments like these, received by my friend Jenny Heitz on her hilariously spot-on Beyond the Brochure post “Perfect Mommy Syndrome.”
“Sounds to me like you’re feeling guilty about your choices after seeing parents who might be making better ones. Maybe if you were confident in the way you’re parenting your children, you wouldn’t even notice what everyone else is doing…. A little soul-searching might be in order to figure out what the REAL issue is.”
Now, even if you did have some “soul-searching” to do, would snide spitballs spur your motivation?
The Psychology of Cyberspace
John Suler, a psychology professor at Rider University, has written extensively about the psychology of cyberspace in his online book called just that: Psychology of Cyberspace. Drawing from psychoanalytic theory and other psychological orientations, Suler breaks down the reasons why cyberspace invites conflict and what kinds of people and circumstances stir the maelstrom.
Suler believes that cyberspace is a “psychological extension” of a person’s internal landscape. Hours spent online trigger unfinished business and subconscious processes “that can alter sensory experience and can even create a dream-like state of mind.”
Suler has some interesting theories linking certain personality types with certain online behaviors. For instance:
– Do antisocial personalities exploit the wild west quality of the internet in order to hack?
– Do narcissists use the internet to gather throngs of admirers?
– Do dissociative people use the internet to create multiple online personalities?
– Do compulsives use the internet as a means to gain control over their lives?
– Do histrionic people see the internet as a forum for theatrical displays in order to get attention?
I’m a PhD or two short of being able to to grasp fully the more nuanced concepts of Suler’s theories — stuff about transferring unfinished business with parents on to the computer itself, which is then exacerbated by transferring unfinished business onto blog posts — but I think I can adequately convey a few of his basic ideas.
The Disinhibition Effect
Online, people feel less inhibited and more able to express themselves. This can lead to “benign disinhibition,” in which people display acts of generosity, for example, sending prayers or even donations to those afflicted by terminal illnesses.
But the kind of disinhibition I’m exploring in this post is the toxic kind, what Suler refers to as “simply a blind catharsis, an acting out of unsavory needs and wishes without any personal growth at all.”
My blogging friend Lori Day, perhaps one of the most genteel and refined voices in the blogosphere, shares two of the particularly egregious comments she has received: “Lori, you c**nt,” and “wake up from your gynocentric stupor.”
I ask you: does calling a woman a c**t invite conversation or shut it down?
How Does Calling a Blogger a C**nt Happen?
The “you don’t know me” quality of the internet allows people to dissociate, to separate their words from who they are. “When acting out hostile feelings,” writes Suler, “the person doesn’t have to take responsibility for those actions. In fact, people might even convince themselves that those behaviors ‘aren’t me at all.’”
I Can’t Tell My Boss To Go F**k himself, So I’ll Tell You
Suler explains that the internet levels the playing field. Regardless of social status, race, and gender, everyone has a voice. It’s not easy standing up to an authority figure, and if you want to keep your job, you’d better mince your words. But online, says Suler, authority is “minimized. People are much more willing to speak out or misbehave.” Combine this with someone who grew up silenced by an oppressive or abusive parent, and the potential for unbridled trolliness soars.
Of course, if you want your insults to be taken seriously, be sure to check your spelling. My blogger friend William Quincey Belle devoted a post to the troll who responded to one of his posts with “Youran idiot.”
Personality Types
Suler states that certain personality types vary in their tendencies towards inhibition or expression. “People with histrionic styles tend to be very open and emotional. Compulsive people are more restrained.” Suler explains that the disinhibition effect interacts with personality variables, creating an online behavior pattern that is more exaggerated than one’s offline behavior.
The type well known to all of us who hang out on blog comment threads is the “oppositional personality.” These are the people who take issue with virtually anything that is written. “They struggle with underlying feelings of hostility that can be expressed passively or indirectly, via the act of disagreeing,” writes Suler. “They may also need to oppose others as a way to firm up their somewhat fragile identity or to boost self-esteem by proving themselves right and others mistaken.”
May I give you an example? From a Beyond the Brochure mommy troll to another commenter (when trolls are not sated after chomping on the writer, they go after their fellow commenters):
“How much did you research your CHOICE to inject toxins in your child’s blood veins? Trust me I know WAY MORE on the topic than you do! So yeah, I am a better parent if I took the time to research fully and not just take doctors (who are human and failable — um, that would be fallible, Madam Troll– and many are just as ignorant and ill informed as many parents they are leading on) on their word seeing as they have the pharmaceutical reps in their back pocket! ?And what do you know about homeschool? Except that you would be a terrible homeschooling parent.??Get a life lady, you have no clue about the world around you!”
Oh, what fun to be on the Hot Lunch Committee with her!
Dangerous Trolls
Suler states that oppositional types are drawn to the “intellectually contentious atmosphere” of online discussion. And in a chaotic, unmonitored environment where it’s impossible to read facial expressions or hear tone-of-voice, oppositional tendencies may ramp up.
While insult-hurlers are merely obnoxious, trolls who threaten may actually be sociopathic. I was stunned to read an article in The Guardian reporting on women writers who routinely receive rape and death threats from commenters. Several female journalists have gone public with the outrageous threats they have received in an attempt to get online discussion moderators to establish stricter commenting policies and boot those who are being abusive.
So How Do We All Just Get Along?
Psychotherapist Kali Munro offers tips to resolve conflict online. Here are some of them:
Don’t respond right away
Squelch that urge to fire back a response setting the troll straight. Wait 24 hours before responding.
Read the post again later
Sometimes your first reaction is colored by how you’re feeling at the time. Read it later and see if it could have been written with a different tone from the one you originally heard.
Choose whether or not you want to respond
If the post is inflammatory and the person appears to be a bully, the best strategy is to ignore him/her.
Use “I statements”
Anyone who’s been in couples therapy knows how to do this one: “I feel vs. “You did blahblah…”
Choose your words carefully
Because the person can’t see you and must rely entirely on what you’ve written, choose your words carefully. Imagine how the other person might “hear” what you say.
Start and end your post with validating statements
This one doesn’t need explaining.
My New Commenting Policy
While I cannot control the comment threads on other sites that run my pieces, I can control them on my site, Perils of Divorced Pauline, and writing this post has spurred me to do just that. So here are my guidelines:
1. This blog contains subject matter related to divorce and custody issues, two hot-button topics that may trigger some people. If you feel that divorce is just plain wrong, and that all divorced people are low-life vermin, you are kindly invited to go elsewhere.
2. Please keep your comments civil. Respectful disagreement and intelligent debate are fine, but remarks that are abusive and accusatory are not, and will be deleted.
3. Spelling and punctuation corrections are welcome.
One thing about my Perils of Divorced Pauline commenters: they are a smart, articulate, and well-mannered lot. I value all of you, my wonderful blogging and commenting community, more than I can say. I don’t think I’ve had to deep-six a comment yet.
But you never know who may be lying in wait…
I absolutely loved what you wrote in this article about trolls. Sometimes I can be so confusing what to do when you encounter one, and a lot of the times , what they say really get to me so I am always constantly restraining myself from retaliating.
Just out of curiosity , do you think its worth trying to identify a troll and referring them to a police or is it quite impossible? – J.Y
It’s all about engagement.
I REALLY think that the whole troll phenomenon has really much more to do with the fact that most people are really bored, to put it mildly.
It is a mistake to consider people labelled as trolls as at a distance and benign. I no longer use the term Troll – It is most appropriate to use the term “Netopath”. The advice derived from “Psychotherapist Kali Munro offers tips to resolve conflict online”, has some value, but unfortunately is also way off the mark when it comes to dealing with Reality. It has evidently instilled in some a false sense of security – and that makes it bad advice. That the OP was “stunned” by the article in the Guardian “Women bloggers call for a stop to… Read more »
Ok, I didn’t read all of that but I would make a distinction between unwelcome comments and attention from someone known to the victim in real life, or someone who’s purely online stalking goes far beyond the ordinary, and a once off angry comment on a youtube video.
Peter – some examples of supposedly innocuous One Off Troll Comments on blogs – in response to YouTube Videos etc. and some fall out for some none bloggers – just ordinary folks with little to no web presence. Over 25 years of dealing with the Psychology of Computing – coupled with having had to deal with some very, very, very nasty types does tend to change your outlook … and some wonder why I write under a Nome De Plume? P^) 1) You’re a paedophile and I have the proof. An interesting claim – given that it is generally impossible… Read more »
The Internet has opened up a world of writing possibilities for people, whether as bloggers or commenters. So people have access now whereas before they didn’t (well, they could write horrible things to the newspapers/magazines or leave threatening voicemails, but those would never go anywhere). But media outlets monitor comments carefully. All bloggers must also do the same and not take it personally — how can you; people do not know you and they are seeing your writing through their own filters. It says more about them than the blogger (although, true, some bloggers are truly self-absorbed and oblivious!)
Meh. I find it hard to be hurt by what some idiot has to say about my posts, especially if the threats start. Reason being? They’re not really threats, the people making them are in no position to carry them out and, in all probability, don’t intend to either.
Its easy to write a dramatic opinion piece about the commentators who “threatened to set him on fire,” or “promised to burglarise her home,” but weighty language aside, neither thing was ever going to happen.
The reaction to all of this which is going on at the moment reminds me alot of a scene from 12 angry men. The jurors are sitting in the deliberation room discussing whether or not the fact that a boy screamed “I’m going to kill you” to his father is evidence that he did murder him. One juror in particular is adamant that the words are only ever used as a genuine threat up until he uses them himself in anger. People say things all the time that they don’t mean. If we were to take everyone as literally as… Read more »
I like the 12 Angry Men analogy. Reading what you wrote makes me want to watch the film again, I have only fuzzy memories of it. Whether or not trolls actually intend to make good on their threats — and I would say 99% of them don’t — it still doesn’t justify their obnoxious, degrading, childish remarks. I think Julie has done a great job explaining how the subtle things — sarcasm, passive-aggressive sniping, various forms of verbal and tonal manipulation — can go a long way towards undermining constructive dialogue. Clearly, as evidenced by the comments on this thread,… Read more »
I wouldn’t justify it (depending on the context) but I don’t think we need to go as far as criminal prosecution. Given how many tools bloggers and owners of FB pages and youtube channels have at their disposal I’d be inclined to say that we have the power to deal with trolls at a community level.
I might make exceptions for trolls who actually know the poster and still threaten them though, especially if they do so repeatedly, it’s alot more credible dangerwise than a complete stranger saying they want to burn your house down.
“Meh. I find it hard to be hurt by what some idiot has to say about my posts, especially if the threats start. Reason being? They’re not really threats, the people making them are in no position to carry them out and, in all probability, don’t intend to either.” Yes, Peter. But you don’t live in the US. That puts you a long way away from some of our posters. When someone starts screaming at me online that I need to shut up and stop posting my ideas and I Google them and see that they are located an hour… Read more »
If you like 😉 It’s a bit cramped though.
If an individual constantly made threats specifically against me and had the means to carry them out I’d begin to take them seriously. But if it’s a once off tirade from an angry stranger… I’m not inclined to worry.
I also don’t make my actual street address easily available online, although I appreciate that there’s some who may have to for some reason or other.
Fact is, there’s lots of assholes out there. Heck, I’m an asshole from time to time and I think that if most of you were honest, you’d admit you are one too from time to time. It’s fun, it’s free and it can lead to great one liners. But for serious, reasoned debate, without good moderation (a fine and high art), it’s basically impossible on the Net. The best discussions I’ve ever found on a variety of contentious, seriously and high level issues (the ones where the most drooling morons come out of the woodwork) is at the http://www.theoildrum.com .… Read more »
Aside from just not having the time and being in the midst of a pretty major personal crises, one of the reasons I’ve stepped back from writing is because sometimes I find the anonymity of the internet makes people forget that there is a person on the other side of that screen, reading the comments. Productive conversation breaks down because they’re too busy hurling (thinly veiled) insults to actually focus on real issues or productive arguing. It’s pretty exhausting. Also, I appreciate that this article has a productive tone – not just how being stalked by trolls is a pretty… Read more »
When a troll desires evoking negative reactions and stirring up shit, the best thing to do is ignore, delete, and never feed them the attention they crave. It’s very easy to type some random words knowing it will cause discomfort to someone else, much harder to actually say them face to face. Any attention given to them will simply reward their bad behaviour, they want you to waste time replying, they want you to get mad or upset and leaving a blog would simply show that they won. It’s just a form of bullying but you can take measures to… Read more »
If someone resorts to personal attacks they are leaving themselves exposed, there is nothing stopping you from calling them out on their behaviour and explaining why it is unacceptable. Of course they probably won’t listen but they are revealing a serious inadequacy in their point of view if they feel compelled to sink to such a pathetic level. It cuts both ways, I’ve noticed a tendency to be over sensitive and take things personally that were not meant that way. After years of facilitating classroom debates I’ve developed a pretty thick skin and I sometimes forget people can feel attacked… Read more »
I don’t believe that a blogger’s choice to publish justifies an “anything goes” policy with comments. There are way too many abusive comments out there, to the point where bloggers receive death and rape threats. Differing opinions can and should be expressed respectfully. If someone really finds a writer’s work distasteful, or an entire publication distasteful, that person can choose not to read the writer/publication at all.
I have a simple solution to your question: And no I am not kidding. Over the next 2 months, instead of blogging, go to the main drag of whatever town or city you live in. And whatever you were going to blog, say it outloud. Do it over and over again to simulate your words on a blog being permanent. See what kind of reaction you will get. When you blog , you are really and truely shouting from the rooftop. Except people to challenge you on what you say. Recently I have been reading rabble.ca and specifically the feminism… Read more »
John, if you went out to a public corner and started speaking, you might be left alone. You might also be arrested for public disturbance. Because while it’s a public space people are not allowed to attack each other. A blog can be publicly viewed but it is also a private domain run by the owner. Sort of like a business on that street. I could come into the store I don’t like and start yelling at the owner about I hate his food/product and being all kinds of nasty. He’d be well within his rights to call the cops… Read more »
If you were out on a street corner ranting, no, no one would have the right to attack you, or create a public disturbance by ranting back, but they would be within their rights to fling insults and expletive s at you on their way past.
And in a business? I see blogging more like…getting a little business spot. You purchase a domain (some are free), you advertise (or not) and you are purchasing your own internet access. If someone comes to visit and causes problems, I think you have the right to ask them to leave.
Agreed! Also: insults tend to shut down meaningful dialogue, not open it up. Although if the intent is to shut down a blogger, then I guess the insults are effective.
Julie, you analogy would be 100% correct if the blog was honest about comments. Some are. If you go to Feministe they openly state that they will delete any comments that oppose feminism. It’s unquestionably a form of censorship, but certainly one they are within their right to exercise. The problem is that very many blogs are inherently dishonest about comments. They say they want to “start discussions” and “see some dialogue” but all they really want is an endless stream of sycophantic praise. To take your analogy a step further, this is like someone opening a clothing store, and… Read more »
I think the issue is in the tone of the comments, not whether or not differing opinions are allowed. This post is not about censoring, it’s about taking a stand against normalizing comments that are abusive and insulting and degrading. Bloggers should not be expected to tolerate abuse. Period.
If you take out the “tolerate” part – should bloggers expect to receive abusive comments? The answer has to be “yes”, because it goes with the territory. The part about tolerating it is optional, however. I think blogs and sites have every right to decide how much abuse they will or won’t tolerate, and to moderate accordingly. That may range from disallowing comments altogether, to enforcing a clear comment policy as neutrally as possible, to deleting and banning at the whim of the site owner as suits their fancy. I think there’s a misconception on the part of both site… Read more »
Bingo. So well said, Marcus.
Pauline, I think my real issue has to do with how the idea of “abuse” is defined. On the one hand, sure, a comment that includes no content beyond saying “The author is an [expletive]” is abusive, and there should be no expectation that a comment like that, which really does not add to discussion, would ever be posted. The problem is that very many sites (and I would include this one) expand their definition of “abuse” to encompass rational arguments which the author disagrees with. In a recent thread here, the editors posted as an example of an “abusive”… Read more »
This is really interesting. I think for me that’s where tone comes in. Have you ever lived or dealt with someone that could make a mundane sentence feel like a dagger? And then, when you confront them about it, they accuse you of being “too sensitive?” So I see some of these comments like that. Embedded sarcasm, passive aggressiveness, sniping. And if this was a person I was dealing with in real life and they were treating me a) badly with their tone and words, and b) blaming me for having feelings I’d find that at minimum emotionally manipulative. So… Read more »
YES! Brilliant, Julie! And the internet tends to intensify tone, since you can’t read someone’s face and body language. I also think the “you’re too sensitive” stance of some commenters can be victim-shaming. I hesitate to use the word victim, but I think you know what I mean…
Yeah, I do. It’s akin to gaslighting and both genders do it. I actually have the most personal experience with women behaving that way to me and so I can identify the dynamic. I see it the majority of comments I see that have to do with politics, especially polemic issues. There will be dialogue, then a derail, then an attempt to re-reail, then sniping, then complaints about sniping then passive aggressive tone about being sensitive, which effectively rerails.
Thing is it’s hard not to respond, isn’t it! We either a) want to clarify and understand or b) argue!
Julie, Because of my background (law school) and my social circle (also law school), I cannot really understand where you are coming from. I expect the things I say to be attacked, so it doesn’t really bother me when it happens. The biggest issue here, and maybe I’m not clear, goes to whether a blog is going to be a place of discourse or an echo-chamber. It really seems like many blogs out there claim to want the former while actually promoting the latter. I do not believe that echo chambers are good environments, virtual or otherwise. If someone is… Read more »
Neither do I. But I also don’t believe actual dialogue happens in well between a group of people if there are folks yelling into the group all the time. Same thing goes for an online space. I’ve seen many conversations and arguments here that were great for dialogue. People disagreeing. People actively disagreeing! Information exchanged. And I’ve also seen people take pot shots, manipulate, twist words, derail and get in the way. I prefer the former even if I am in disagreement with the person I’m conversing with.
And I do think the law school thing gives you a completely different perspective…I’m not a lawyer, but someone who seeks conflict mediation, communication as connection, more than sparring. So we might have very different POVs.
Sometimes I feel like the comment threads on various blogs feel a bit like the “Town Hall” meetings held to discuss health care. There were a number of people who had come out to voice their opinions, pro and con, and then there were a handful who decided the most effective strategy was to shout down everyone. They called it “spirited” debate. I call it assholery. Fortunately no blog commenter can shout another down, but they can make it tedious to engage with them or poison a discussion such that no one really wants to engage. The type to which… Read more »
Mike, you’ve touched on a nuanced issue. One person’s definition of abuse can be another person’s definition of spirited dialogue. I do think, in general, that labels shut down conversation. While “racist” and “sexist” are certainly not in the same camp as “c**t,” they do reduce the writer to a polarized image.
Mike, you are absolutely spot on.
The distinction between calling someone a “c**t” and simply pointing out that words like “racist” and “sexist” can be used to shut down discussion is as clear as night and day.
Name calling is abusive, pointing out the way words are being used most definitely is not, it’s a valid observation.
Which specific thread were you referring to? This is a very interesting matter and I’d like to investigate further.
A blog is more akin to opening up a storefront, booth, or stand, where people can chose whether or not to come and look at what you’re saying. It’s not like a city square where everyone has to walk by. Say a booth a at a college fair. If you don’t agree with what my booth is trying to champion (say, gay marriage), you can come in and say that. Drop off a few of your own flyers. On the other hand, if you start getting in my face and calling me a faggot, threatening to rape/harass me or find… Read more »
But that’s not the same as saying “I want only positive and thoughtful comments.” You only get that with a closed community, not a blog. Expecting only favorable feedback from an open publication to humanity at large is a sure path to disappointment, as any author can tell you. Did we read the same essay? I’ll be damned if I can find that sentiment expressed in her piece. Looking at her commenting policy I get the impression that she’s going to delete ad hominems and other abusive comments, but comments that otherwise disagree with her point of view expressed without… Read more »
I agree with Nick. I didn’t see entitlement at all. Look at this site. Lots of people disagree, but very few trolls get through the cracks of the great moderation. Trolls are people who act in cruel, miserable ways–not people with differing opinions. In the divorce example, a troll isn’t someone with a differing opinion on the way divorce should be handled, but rather someone who seeks out divorce blogs to tell divorcees that they’re sluts going to hell. I remember the incident of a simple food blogger who got comments that her toddler daughter should be raped. Another got… Read more »
I’m not sure how to describe the tone of what I’m reading here, but at least of it comes across as “entitlement.” You do realize that when you blog, you’re not just writing in a journal, right? You’re publishing–announcing your opinions for the whole world to see, and inviting commentary and criticism. Yes, some trolls are simply tiresome and repetitive noisemakers, and some are even dangerously unstable. But that’s not the same as saying “I want only positive and thoughtful comments.” You only get that with a closed community, not a blog. Expecting only favorable feedback from an open publication… Read more »
Yes, the entitlement of your average blogger. This is a group that self-selects for big egos and a belief that what they have to say is more important than what anyone else has to say. They also tend to be educated at more ‘prestigious’ schools, and often have some level of authority in their own lives. They think they get to keep that authority online, and generally dislike finding out that they don’t. I think there’s a real problem in the recent shift of what the word ‘troll’ means. Historically, a troll was someone who shows up just to disrupt… Read more »
Did either of you actually read the article? The kinds of posts and comments that end up hurled at the authors of blog posts everywhere is incredible — maybe your semantic argument that “trolls” intentionally do this to derail topics or what have you are right. But there’s not really another word for people that read an article on-line and make extreme value judgements about authors.
It’s not really “entitlement” to request that you not be threatened with physical violence by total strangers for voicing your opinion on home schooling.
Yes. Hence why I threw some of the stuff he mentioned back in his face.
Did you read the post? Because it’s not titled ‘I’m Only Talking About My Friends Here’. It’s titled ‘Is Your Blog Stalked By Trolls?’ and then uses the example of his friend’s blog to offer wider advice.
I’m having a hard time believing you read the post since you twice referred to the author as he or him and the author is clearly a women who, more than once, mentions her status as a woman, a mommy, etc.
Your troll act would improve if you read the article.