Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Sep 13, 2024, 06:28AM

Dealing With Online Trolls

Don’t engage with crazies.

Dealing with online trolls edited.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

Not long ago I made the mistake of stepping into the snares of an online troll. I was reading a Substack op-ed with an anti-Trump perspective when I decided to peruse the comments. The MAGA commentator accused the writer of being “stupid, ignorant and clueless.” Instead of addressing the content of the essay, the comments were personal insults. This galled me so I stupidly responded. I replied, “Since you’re happy with a convicted felon as president, why don’t we scour our prison system for an embezzler as Secretary of Commerce, a medical fraudster as Secretary of Health and an arsonist as head of the EPA. Please stop polluting the world with your deranged projections.”

The retribution came fast. In the next hour this anonymous entity lobbed digital IED’s, venomous hate speech and defamatory personal attacks in my direction. He (I’m assuming it was a man) called me an “utterly clueless imbecile,” “a totally pathetic excuse for a human being” and “a very ignorant writer with his head up his own ass.”

Once again I replied complementing the troll on his choice of adjectives but reminding him of Stephen King’s advice to avoid adverbs since they suggest amateurish writing. He hurled a half-dozen more insults my way. Over the next few days he disparaged several of my articles until I blocked him. A new commenter soon appeared with similar slurs on more of my stories. I blocked him too. He then disappeared, probably off to demean someone else.

Anyone who makes the decision to write online will sooner or later encounter a troll. In some ways it’s a rite of passage though it can be disturbing and scary. A troll goes beyond narrative criticism. He launches personal attacks often targeting a writer based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

I often write about my Jewish heritage and how it influences my life. Some of these articles have elicited anti-Semitic slurs from users accusing me of being a “fascist Zionist” or a “dirty Jew.” This leads us to the first rule of dealing with online trolls.

Don’t Engage. When I responded to the MAGA troll, I offered raw meat to a rabid wolf. Trolls, whether online or in real life, bank on your reply. This is their oxygen, their lifeblood. Trolls wake each day filled with vitriol. They want to spew their dark residue onto someone else hoping this will dissipate their internal pain. This doesn’t work, and only makes things worse for them. When you reply to a troll, particularly an angry one, you’re attaching a tentacle to their toxic energy field. You’re giving them permission and a means to attack you. Don’t reply, even if your instinct is to fight. As the 19th-century Indian monk Swami Vivekananda said, “Nothing has the right to act upon you until you allow it to do so.” Heed the wisdom of the Buddha and embrace non-attachment.

If you do engage a troll, hit the Eject-O Button. When I studied Taekwondo, my instructor taught, “The first rule of martial arts is when a fight breaks out, don’t be there. The second rule is if you find yourself in a fight, exit as soon as it’s safe.” I was bullied in grade school. I studied martial arts as an adult to learn to defend myself against bullies. My instructor taught us that fighting is wrong, that humans aren’t meant to be pitted against each other. He quoted Gandhi saying, “Non-violence is the weapon of the brave.” He placed a Bruce Lee quote on the wall saying, “The best fighter is someone who never has to fight because they control the situation.” When you fight, you run the risk of injury or death. Do everything possible to avoid confrontation and extricate yourself from a fight before you get hurt.

Filter and Block. When professional boxers choose their next opponent, they avoid the crazy ones. Muhammad Ali’s trainer Angelo Dundee told a reporter that Ali avoided lunatics since they were unpredictable and dangerous. This should be the online approach as well. If you encounter an unstable troll, block him. When you block a troll, they can no longer view your content, follow you or respond to your stories.

Do not write a story called “Dealing With Online Trolls.” This is a clarion call to the trolls out there as if you’re challenging them to a fight. I went back and forth as to whether to write this story. I decided to post it because I felt it was a way to fight online abusers by offering useful information.

It’s important to remember that when you deal with a troll you’re dealing with mental illness. New York psychologist Michael Nuccitelli created a website called ipredator.co to offer free educational services regarding internet predators. He writes that an “internet troll relies upon a fragmented unconscious and lives within a fantasy world of being powerful, in control and envied by others.” He adds that some trolls are narcissists, some are Machiavellian and others are outright psychopaths. Nuccitelli devised an Online Troll Profile.

—They are typically male, internet-addicted and are at risk for becoming internet dependent.
—They have few offline friends and their online friends also engage in online harassment.
—They are plagued by immense feelings of inferiority, isolation, rage, paranoia and jealousy for peers.
—They are seeking attention and retribution for some unknown perceived injustice.
—They are developmentally immature, tend to be chronically isolated and have minimal to no intimate relationships.
—The anonymity of the internet contributes to disinhibition effect leading trolls to behave in asocial ways with a lack of guilt or remorse for the harm they cause.

The moment you realize that trolls are mentally or emotionally disturbed, you understand the futility of countering them with rational or emotional pleas. The more rational you are, the more irrational a troll becomes. If you tell a troll he’s hurting your feelings, you reward him. He wants to inflict pain and misery. He’s an agent of chaos.

On the few occasions I’ve responded to a troll, I’ve tried to do so with humor or sarcasm. This is risky since a troll may view your effort at humor as a personal attack. Your readers might also see you as offensive, making you look like the bad guy. Also, sarcasm doesn’t translate well to the web.

The origin of the troll comes from Norse Mythology. A troll is a cave-dwelling being with an ugly appearance depicted as either a giant or a dwarf. Trolls have bad eyesight and their main weakness is an abundance of flammable fat that is vulnerable to fire. The best way to kill a troll is to expose them to white light that will ignite their fat reserves.

When I encounter a troll, I try to get in touch with white light. I guard my heart against bitterness so I don’t become like them. I may not be able to follow Jesus’ admonition to “love my enemy,” but I do feel compassion for them. It’s not easy being a troll. They have to live with themselves every minute of every day. This is a punishment I wouldn’t wish on anyone.

Discussion
  • How interesting that you claim to have had this interaction on substack when you recently had a similar interaction with me on this website when I corrected - https://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/let-s-talk-about-malignant-narcissism - a writer’s mistaken claim that Trump was convicted of sexual assault. My comment was, “Trump wasn’t ‘convicted’ of sexual assault. The link you provided proves that. This is false reporting,” to which you responded, ”Harold is correct, Mary. Trump wasn’t convicted of sexual assault. He was convicted of sexual abuse. Most of us would rather have a “sexual abuser” as president than a “sexual assaulter.’ Your false reporting is nothing but left-wing Trumpaganda.” The piece you just wrote here indicates that you made a one-time mistake in dealing with a “troll,” but the facts say otherwise. To me, you wrote about the public preferring a sexual abuser to a sexual assaulter, while on the alleged substack interaction you stated that we should have an embezzler as Secretary of Commerce. Notice the similarity in how you deal with your “trolls” on the exact same topic? There's also the general similarities of both of these stories, especially given the fact that our interaction took place so recently. I'm wondering which one took place first. Whichever it was, you must have enjoyed it because soon after you had another one that was almost the same. I pointed out to you that Trump was not “convicted” of anything in that trial, because it was a civil trial, where there are no convictions. The writer of the piece in question is Mary McCarthy, a staff member of some unspecified kind at Splice Today. She responded to your odd comments to me by calling you a misogynist and a Trump defender, which you did not deny, which is odd. She also called me a misogynist and a Trump defender for correcting her “conviction” error, so I think it was then fair for me to call her clueless. I did not cast the first stone. “Clueless” is, coincidentally, what your substack troll called another writer who was, coincidentally, railing against Trump. For the record, I did not call McCarthy either stupid or ignorant, which I mention because I believe what you have written here is actually an embellished, fictional version of our interaction, as I've outlined above. You wrote this to me: “The civil jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse. Does this satisfy your request to correct the record? I know it makes me feel so much better about Mr. Trump and his personal character.” No, it didn't satisfy my request because you don't understand the difference between being convicted and being held liable for something, just as you don't understand that I never defended Trump's character, which even his fans don't do. Trying to clarify the point you were so unsuccessfully trying to make, I asked you, “You are an adult who doesn’t understand what a legal “conviction” is? You responded with, “Yes, you are correct. Feel better now? Can you give it a rest.” So you admitted that you don't even understand the point I was trying to make, although you objected to it anyway. Embarrassing, right? But maybe you don't get embarrassed, instead choosing to make up a story that makes you look good and the other guy look a vicious online troll who stalked you like a predator. I will note that McCarthy hasn't bothered to correct her incorrect conviction claim in her article, even though she said she was sorry for the error. That's partially your responsibility because you went after me instead of addressing my point. It kind of sounds like you're the real troll.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment