Please Don’t Touch The Poisonous Toad
We can’t afford to repeatedly make the same mistake.
We will be continuing to have important discussions about what to do in a Trumpian America. The importance has only grown greater in the last week, in the last day, which made clear beyond any question who Trump and his willing instruments and allies are, and what they are doing. Therefore, we can’t afford to waste words.
Unfortunately, that’s what we’re often doing: wasting words.
I am, not surprisingly, talking about the trolls who pop up here and in other public forums. Their whole reason for being is to get all of us to waste our words, and by extension, our time, energy, determination, and hope. And yet many continue to play their game, with the same outcome every time: The troll doesn’t ever cede any point. We spend our time venting our outrage, instead of sharing insights into what is happening, and what we might do in the face of the direst emergency in our lives. Contributors like MarkedMan get tired of the pointless noise and give up participating. In other words, the troll wins.
The moderators of this forum have taken great steps to minimize the trolling. While the situation is vastly better, thanks to them, moderation can never be the complete solution. Because of the nature of comments sections, the door will always be open to someone who wants to, under some pseudonym, toss a flaming bag of poop into the room. It’s up to all of us, not just them, to handle that situation.
Let me switch metaphors for a moment to discuss what to do (or not to do). Instead of troll, a better moniker might be a poisonous toad.
In nature, toxic creatures can be venomous or poisonous. Venomous creatures inject their toxin into their victims, through fangs, stingers, or other delivery mechanisms.
Poisonous creatures use toxins more passively. Another animal has to come into contact with the poisonous creature — often by trying to eat it — in order to ingest the toxin. Poisonous frogs and toads are the most famous of these creatures. You see them in zoos and aquariums, and you read about infestations of them, such as the blight of cane toads in the Americas (including the US) and Australia.
Internet trolls are both venomous and poisonous. The venomous part is hard to avoid. They spew their toxin into forums like this one like the spitting cobra. Fortunately, the toxin, in that case, isn’t fatal. We can ignore it. Discussion can continue, as long as we wipe off the spew and continue with what we were doing.
The fatal toxin is the poison we ingest by engaging with the troll. Useful discussion ends. We thrash around in spasms of words, going nowhere. We lose attention to more important matters than trying to convince the unconvinceable. We willingly succumb to exactly what the toxin is designed to do.
We don’t have to touch the poisonous toad.
Eventually, other animals learn which toads are poisonous, and which are not. (Tragically, some don’t: a lot of dogs have died because of poisonous toads.) We are certainly smarter than other animals — that’s supposed to be our evolutionary superpower, after all. Once we learn that something, or someone, is poisonous, we can simply avoid them.
Poisonous toads, trolls, rejects from the felon’s anal droppings, whatever. I agree: ignore them.
I’m somewhat torn here in that I agree it is generally wise not to “feed the trolls,” but I’ve also personally found it enlightening to read the responses from OTB regulars as they call out and dismantle troll posts (which are often just regurgitated MAGA talking points). But usually only one or two posts are necessary for that. To your point, all too often the trolls succeed in drawing a pile on that derails the thread for a period.
A huge thank you to Dr. Joyner and Prof Taylor for all the thankless work they do to sweep the most egregious of the trolls off the bridge, and for creating this rare oasis of thoughtful ideas exchange on the interwebs. I’ve lurked and read the blog for years now and have been meaning to join in the conversation for a while now.
Here, here!
Agree, far too often we take the poisoned bait. May I suggest, if you simply cannot let the trolls comment go unreplied, don’t engage them, simply label them what they are “troll.”
Yes, it seems like a misallocation of resources to respond to trolls, Trumpian or otherwise. I certainly have expended time I can never get back doing so.
But “trolls” are not frogs in a tiny pond. Our entire shift in political discourse and alignment has been the insideous result of disinformation in the massive “social p̶o̶n̶d̶ ocean” we all inhabit. In that echo chamber many eyes see many things. That roiling soup is where one battle for hearts and minds is taking place.
I select opportunities to provide challenge and countermessaging to the disinformation. It is the very least any of us can do. I tend to pass, where comrades-in-arms have taken up the challenge unless to provide additional points.
Wack-a-mole? Yep. But why not reverse the situation and take deprogramming into the lion’s dens? Just be sure to do so securely. This is a war of messaging. It’s not going to end well if the trolls are unchallenged in their campaign for the “undecided” and uninformed.
There are less than a handful of people who disagree with the majority on Outside the Beltway. Once any of us comment, the remainder of the comment section is shouting and cursing. You rage-quit because of a few people who disagree. You even write articles about the “trolls”, which I’ve never seen another site do. Is 97% agreement too low? Stop treating comments you disagree with as personal attacks. People disagree with you. Respond to the point if you think it’s worthwhile, don’t respond to the “indignity” of someone disagreeing with you.
@Fortune:
Pot, may I introduce you to your neighbor, kettle.
That’s all Luddite’s got, so back to your regular programming.
ETA, Kingdaddy, thanks!
I have seen the discourse polluted and ultimately destroyed on other sites by commenters who appear to have this intention in mind.
“Flood the zone with shit” is the modus operandi here. I first heard that phrase in EVE Online, where it was used to jam the common communications channel, to make it harder for enemy forces to communicate and coordinate. They would just post a lot of random garbage. Of course, Steve Bannon has a history with Eve Online, so I think that is a clear lineage of the strategy, and evidence that it is definitely a strategy.
So, if we are to keep this blog/discussion/channel, we need to figure out how to do it.
And by the way, I am very uninterested in comments telling people what they should do.
I try not to respond to trolls. I know that I have in the past but I think that I’m getting better at ignoring them.
Michael Reynolds has stated that he will respond to trolls for the benefit of those who might be reading OTB and do not comment. I am not as skilled a wordsmith as Reynolds by a long shot so I’ll leave intelligent replies to ignorant posts to him and others.
Here’s what I know. Over the years, there have been people who claim to want debate/real argument/reasoned dissent who refuse, utterly, to have active arguments. Arguments, real ones, require evidence and real back-and-forth. They require conceeding points at times. They require a process.
Arguments are not just posting links without explanation.
Arguments are not poking at others and running away.
Arguments do not simply taunt people.
Real, decent conversation requires that the interlocutors be mindful when one is not being understood and strive to find ways to be understood, rather than assuming that everyone else is the problem.
Further, the regurgitation of talking points is not an argument, not a conversation.
@Steven L. Taylor: Yeah, if it sounds like you’re talking/writing from a script, you probably are, and thus engaging in bad faith.
BTW, I do understand why people engage with commenters who clearly show themselves to not really be worth the interaction. It is proxy warfare. There is frustration about a given issue, and someone appears who is defending that issue. And since there is no way to directly engage in the real object of frustration, a proxy war starts with the trollish commenter as the stand-in.
Sometimes, this is why there is a pile-on/why it is hard for some to resist.
But, pile-ons also happen when a given commenter is utterly unwilling to concede very simple points.
@Steven L. Taylor:
BTW, Dr. Taylor, I love when a perfect demonstration of the point you are making appears in a posting four prior to yours.
@Scott F.: I am always thinking about that sketch when it comes to some of these people.
One of the weaknesses of small-l liberals is the belief that fascists are simply in error, confused perhaps but otherwise sincerely seeking peace and human flourishing.
Examples would be any of the Beltway pundits who bury every action by Trump in obscure euphemisms trying to make it a both sides, he said she said equivocation.
Trolls likewise seek to cover hatred and bigotry with the cloak of sincere high minded principle even when it is transparently ludicrous.
The idea that Trumpists are freely choosing evil actions, that they are motivated by sincere hatreds and bigotries is categorically ruled out as un-possible and therefore unspeakable.
No, it isn’t the economy, stupid; No, it isn’t the price of eggs or inflation or economic anxiety.
They are people choosing to be evil and inflict cruelty upon those they hate.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I believe the posts most likely to provoke a response from me are the passive aggressive ones where the troll posits that a broad consensus amongst the OTB commentariat on a particular truth (typically backed by evidence or expert opinion) is held up as groupthink while their contradictory assertions (usually without evidence or credible corroboration) are boasted of a some kind of noble open-mindedness. That really chaps my ass.
I began reading OTB a decade ago because I was seeking out center-right bloggers who could provide more interesting perspectives than leftist echo chambers I might get siloed in. I resent the idea that this place is an echo chamber now, rather than the fact that most people interested in debate/real argument/reasonability have fled the propaganda-riddled, fact-free, simpleton’s idea of “common sense” cesspool that the Trumpist Republican Right has become.
As @Chip Daniels notes, all that is left over there is those who are “freely choosing evil actions[, that they are] motivated by sincere hatreds and bigotries” who don’t want to acknowledge their true selves so they feel compelled to venture out to feebly “argue” “I know you are but what am I?”
I’ve reduced my time here precisely because we were not doing that, we were doom-scrolling helplessly, and there has been shockingly little discussion of how to fight back. I’m not much interested in bemoaning the latest outrage. I don’t like surrendering the initiative.
‘Sometimes you take a beating,’ was the wise advice a waiter once gave me. (We were talking tips, not the destruction of our country.) But after you take your beating you don’t lie on the sidewalk whining as every passerby gives you another kick to the ribs.
Here’s why beating up on trolls is a good idea absent more forward-looking discussions. 1) They show up when they think they’ve got some kind of edge. It’s useful to remind them that they don’t. 2) More people read the comments than participate, and not all of them have refutations at their fingertips out in the real world: we are giving them those refutations. The headliners provide the reasons for outrage, but not the rhetoric.
Are trolls distracting? Yes. But distracting from what? From a pity party?
@Steven L. Taylor:
And many of us are simply querulous by nature.
[slips out side door…]
@Fortune:
But here’s the problem with your pushback, Fortune: your posts and positions never seem to be offered in good faith. You may in fact, not be aware of that, or perhaps you are, but there is no way for others to know your intent except to be instructed by your pattern. Maybe some self review/reflection is called for, that is if you are truly interested in being taken as partner in good faith discussion. One bit of advice: drop the rightwing meme talking points and low brow reference links. There’s no traction for that in this crowd.
@Michael Reynolds:
Exactly. See my 1st comment on this thread
@Rob1:
Narrator: “He is fully aware of that.”
From Fortune’s comment:
Of course, Fortune never, ever made a point backed by anything even resembling an argument.
He knows what he is doing, which is exploiting the fact that most people here want to be perceived as reasonable and intellectually honest.
As to the OP:
Appeasement never works with people acting in bad faith.
@Fortune: Thank you, Toad.
@drj:
Honest question: how is ignoring someone appeasement?
And, further, to what degree is engaging a person who is obviously dealing from a position of bad faith not, in some ways, validating them?
Note: I struggle with the appropriate response, so am not trying to high-horse this.
@Michael Reynolds: Serious question: what is it that you want the site to be doing?
@Fortune:
I disagree. From what I’ve observed there is a spectrum of opinion expressed on OTB leading to debate. It’s all relative though, right? None of it tends to reach into the realm of rightwing meming that you and Connor typically offer as debate.
But that’s only the “debate” part of the expressed opinion here. A good amount of exchange can be categorized as “discussion,” expanding and analyzing a topic in collaborative. Maybe I have missed it but I don’t recall much of your participation in those sidebars, if any.
@Rob1: I’d like to think I’m smart enough not to get into a debate about whether I’m a troll in a “don’t respond to trolls” comments section…but here I am doing it. Look over Wednesday’s daily thread. As far as I know, the Tax Foundation is credible and $2 trillion in tariffs isn’t a right-wing talking point, I wish more people were talking about it because I’m not confident in it. Look over the thread, did I respond in good faith? Did you?
@Steven L. Taylor: “I am always thinking about that sketch when it comes to some of these people.”
If only there were a way to send them down the hall to abuse. Or being hit on the head lessons…
@Steven L. Taylor:
A lie not refuted stands. There is a real harm in that, IMO.
That wholly depends of the manner of engagement (again IMO). The worst thing to do is taking them seriously after they showed themselves to be shit stirrers. Better to beat them down.
Also, “Don’t feed the trolls” has been around forever. It never works.
I certainly don’t envy you. The first thing, though, is that you just have to accept that there isn’t some magic bullet or rule. In the end, it comes down to judgement calls.
Having said that, I would ban the obvious bad faith actors (and let’s not pretend that we don’t know who they are). Give them a couple of chances and then just ban them – or accept that other commenters will respond to them.
The tricky thing is where you want to draw the line. If you’re too strict, you’ll end up with an ideological purity party. Too lax, and the comment section will die.
But it is also not impossible (despite the fact that I personally would be stricter) that you’ve already hit the right balance. Again, I don’t think so, but I could very well be wrong.
But perhaps in times like these, our tolerance threshold for bullshit should simply be lower.
@drj:
That’s because no one feeds them to alligators.
@drj:
Which is where I am at as a moderator. Indeed, the rest of your comment describes my approach.
@Fortune: I did notice that exchange. And that is the only one such in my observation. (Although your narrow argument did not support the breadth of yout implication.)
All this talk about trolls, poisonous toads, etc. reminds me of a tagline popular in the old BBSes back in the 90s: It’s unfair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
@Steven L. Taylor: “@Michael Reynolds: Serious question: what is it that you want the site to be doing?”
Hey, he already came up with the idea of doing something, and now you expect him to fill in all the little details as well? Do your part, man!
@Steven L. Taylor:
Speaking only for myself, I have decided to no longer engage on their terms but instead call them out as liars.
For example, the current Trumpist stuff about Zelensky disrespecting the Oval Office by not wearing a suit.
Plenty of people have fisked that by pointing out the multiple times the lack of suits have not bothered them.
But I prefer to just reject the premise and say they are lying.
Just straight up bullsh!tting, lying their asses off.
No, they aren’t bothered by Z not wearing a suit. They hate him because he stands up to Trump but aren’t willing to say that so they invent a line of BS.
Ditto with every other lie they spin, about cutting the size of government, protecting children from sexual content, to protecting female athletes to protecting the border…Its all just a series of lies top to bottom, in service to rank bigotry and hatred.
I toad you so?
I like trolls.
Because I like to play with trolls.
Like a cat with mice.
😉
@LongtimeListener:
Sorry for the delayed reply–first, thanks for decloaking and your contributions for the last couple of days.
Second, this is honestly why I will engage trolls from time to time. I have no illusions about changing their perspectives (especially with anyone I’ve been around the block with more than once). And I also know we have a lot more readers than commenters–so part of my goal is to reach those folks when I can. Thanks for confirming that it’s appreciated!