For me, this is an interesting case, primarily because it highlights one aspect of the 'troll' concept which I've always found problematic: the assumption (or, at least, implication) that the disruptive behaviour is at least partly consciously-motivated, and driven by the desire for attention. Simplistically, it's often assumed that an individual labelled a 'troll' is Bad rather than Sad or Mad - or, at least, more Bad than anything else. Trolls are viewed intentionally provocative largely because they enjoy provoking a response.
With ShadowSax, I don't think this is necessarily the case. It seems to me that, while abrasive, rude, limited in his repertoire of modes of online engagement and arguably misogynist, ShadowSax seems genuinely to believe what he's saying. The fact that what he's saying is frequently without an actual evidence base and he generally sees little need for one is slightly beside the point I'm making. Also, while he clearly views any online conflict in terms of attack and defence ("clearly" to me, anyway, through my attempts to get him to look at things in other ways), I don't think he actively seeks conflict for the sake of conflict. He is, to my mind, pathologically unable to entertain the possibility that he might be wrong and the other poster(s) right, but I don't think he actively seeks out such situations simply because he enjoys them. I think he puts himself in a particular position because he feels strongly about particular subjects - to discussion-warping effect.
In some ways, ShadowSax makes me think of Laila, one of the posters who used the shared ReformedRobotMan suit wayyy back in the Barbeday. As ShadowSax's preoccupation is the unfair advantages women enjoy in contemporary western society, Laila's was the 'fact' that paedophiles were near-universal, and society actively facilitated their predation. Any discussion of paedophilia - or which could be turned toward the subject - quickly became distorted by Laila's appearance in-thread. As with ShadowSax, Laila's confident assertions were usually lacking an evidence base (although, in fairness, Laila presented as more frankly psychotic). Inevitably, other posters called her on this, only to be met with more subjectively-intuited views presented as supported fact - plus a swift deterioration into ad hominem and, on occasion, accusation (the suggestion that posters disagreeing with her All The World's A Nonce statements might, themselves, be paedophiles).
Interestingly, I don't think Laila was actually banned (although I may well be misremembering), but eventually stopped posting here. Was she a troll? I'm pretty sure she strongly believed the veracity of her own statements and didn't go in search of conflict because she enjoyed it. There was the same inability to properly self-examine, though, and the same fundamentally antagonistic "part of the (my) solution or part of the problem" polarising of dissent. Self-doubt didn't feature heavily with Laila either.
So... I guess I'm wondering aloud about the 'attention-seeking for the sake of attention' dimension of trolling, as it's often perceived. If we're to consider the pattern of posting behaviour espoused by Laila and ShadowSax to be trolling, then it seems to me we ought to allow that trolling might be 'genuine' ie. motivated by factors other than the love of attention or victim status. |
