Anatomy of Trolls and How to Deal with Them

[Roxy Couturier]

2 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

I really couldn't be less interested in silly quibbling about the definition of gaslighting, which is a distraction from the thread topic. 

The basic point is that people don't always react the same way to practical jokes and trash talk. Among friends, rules shift because we get to recognize each other's quirky behaviors.  We can poke fun at each other without being misunderstood. When we're with strangers, though, it's impolite -- and sometimes risky -- to play jokes.  If I snuck up on my sister and made a loud noise with an air horn, she would jump and then we'd have a good laugh. If I walked up behind a stranger on the street in, say, Chicago's south side and did the same thing, you can bet that the stranger would not take it as a joke. I'd be lucky to not get knifed.

It's really not a matter of whether I'm a "Serious Suzie". It's a matter of knowing your audience and accepting the social defaults that say we shouldn't do things that could well be taken as rude or hurtful.  The burden of being a nice guy is on the person doing the joking, not on his victim.

Except it's a part of trolling. 'You're too sensitive, lighten up.' 'It was just a joke.' It's a natural progression in a wider topic of trolling.

I've used that when trolling for sure. I use it on bullies, especially in the forums. I've found that they have no sense of humor when it comes to themselves. They tend to say those things to people they target (too sensitive, lighten up or my favorite 'this isn't about you so you shouldn't say anything').  That total lack of self-awareness and lack sense of a sense of humor is a devastating Achilles Heel to bullies. I admit, I enjoy making them as uncomfortable as they make others. Mea Culpa

But in a wider sense, you're correct. SL is world-wide, there can also be cultural differences, life experience differences, hell, even SL user knowledge differences.

For example, when i first started, someone gave me a deformer (or used one on me) and i panicked. It was a very real form of distress to me at the time. Friends came and walked me through fixing the issue. It was such a negative experience that I still remember those negative feelings. If it were to happen to me now, I wouldn't have the same reaction. Experience and stored knowledge would prevent that same response.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said:

Except it's a part of trolling. 'You're too sensitive, lighten up.' 'It was just a joke.' It's a natural progression in a wider topic of trolling.

I've used that when trolling for sure. I use it on bullies, especially in the forums. I've found that they have no sense of humor when it comes to themselves. They tend to say those things to people they target (too sensitive, lighten up or my favorite 'this isn't about you so you shouldn't say anything').  That total lack of self-awareness and lack sense of a sense of humor is a devastating Achilles Heel to bullies. I admit, I enjoy making them as uncomfortable as they make others. Mea Culpa

But in a wider sense, you're correct. SL is world-wide, there can also be cultural differences, life experience differences, hell, even SL user knowledge differences.

For example, when i first started, someone gave me a deformer (or used one on me) and i panicked. It was a very real form of distress to me at the time. Friends came and walked me through fixing the issue. It was such a negative experience that I still remember those negative feelings. If it were to happen to me now, I wouldn't have the same reaction. Experience and stored knowledge would prevent that same response.

I've discovered an attack people use when they perceive someone as a bully, or don't like their behavior. They softball a compliment, say they don't like the person's behavior, then ask, "are you ok?".

I think it fits into a lot of the patterns and definitions being covered.

Figuring that out was an epiphany for me!

 

[Roxy Couturier]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I've discovered an attack people use when they perceive someone as a bully, or don't like their behavior. They softball a compliment, say they don't like the person's behavior, then ask, "are you ok?".

I think it fits into a lot of the patterns and definitions being covered.

Figuring that out was an epiphany for me!

 

I only softball to people I genuinely like.

The rest get the hardball hand grenades..

[Roxy Couturier]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I think it fits into a lot of the patterns and definitions being covered.

This needed a separate response.

So do passive aggressive digs. But it's all fun and games until someone calls it out, huh?

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said:

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I think it fits into a lot of the patterns and definitions being covered.

This needed a separate response.

So do passive aggressive digs. But it's all fun and games until someone calls it out, huh?

Actually..I'm glad you asked! I was quite serious about this part:

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I think it fits into a lot of the patterns and definitions being covered.

Without "naming names", there are "famous persons" who - when their accuser, critic, or opponent shows emotion, passion, or becomes critical - misinterprets, exaggerates, and attacks with statements regarding the other person's demeanor!   The "are you ok?" fits perfectly into that strategy.   

Here's an example (made up, of course):  "Did you see them? They were unhinged. They were so angry! Not normal for them at all. I hope they are OK."

I hope you can see the point I am making! 🙂

I suppose the best personal example I can give is this:  One time recently, someone who's not with us right now, interpreted my completely "unemotional" response to one of their posts as somehow being "out of character". To which their response included, "Are you having a bad day?"  While in fact, they were merely projecting if not "pulling a rabbit out of a hat".

So you see, there are cases where, the tactic / response of "Are you ok?" can, in fact, be used by someone when they are merely misinterpreting a statement, or even possibly are themselves projecting.  

I personally believe a much wiser response when someone is confused by another is something like, "I don't understand what you wrote, can you help by explaining"?   Otherwise, using the clearly "passive-aggressive" (good call!) tactic of, "Are you ok?" can be easily interpreted as bullying. (Where in this case, that would be "bullying as a form of trolling".)

🙂

 

[Love Zhaoying]

One interesting but controversial method I've read for dealing with "bullying trolls", is to call them out in different ways.

Unfortunately, many of those ways don't work in the Forums because people have a tendency to "double down" (and switch the subject, as we see from the discussions).

- One way that I often remember reading, is to "loudly" say, "That's the stupidest thing I ever heard!"; this can supposedly shame the bullying troll.  Unfortunately, I think the "calling someone's statement 'stupid' tactic" doesn't work here, because that tactic is over-used by certain of our Forum regulars.

- Another way that I remember is to ask, "Could you repeat that?"  This obviously doesn't work well in the Forums because you can always "quote" someone, and as I wrote above there's the tendency to "double down" (and change the subject, etc.).

 

[Luna Bliss]

3 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

A bit more info about 'gaslighting' even before the 1944 movie:

"In 1944, film audiences would be familiar with this classic villainous ruse. For well over a century at this point, memoirs, movies, and fictional stories depicted sane women being “railroaded” to asylums at the behest of scheming husbands. It was a very well-known trope. Beginning with Mary Wollstonecraft’s Maria: or, the Wrongs of Woman in 1798, readers had been treated to horror stories of “inconvenient” women getting sent away to horrid, dungeon-like asylums by husbands and ruthless male relatives.

In Maria, the titular character is entombed in a “mansion of despair” after trying to flee her abusive husband. In a “private madhouse,” she finds herself subject to listening to “groans and shrieks” through the wall, rotting away in her “dreary cell,” essentially “blotted out of existence.”

Wollstonecraft’s novel remained unfinished in her lifetime; she died due to complications of giving birth to her daughter Mary (who would herself create another character of interest to the asylum, Frankenstein). Published posthumously, Maria became the first of many tales, true and fictional, of women who thought they were in safe relationships with men, only to turn out to be monsters. The power dynamic in every case is clear—a woman has little chance against a patriarch who can ask a few doctors (also men) to have them declared mad and sent away.

Other books and short stories followed, using essentially the same plot device. To name a few, there is Elizabeth Stone’s A Sketch of the Life of Elizabeth T. Stone, and of Her Persecutions (1841), Lillie Devereux Blake’s Southwold (1859), Wilkie Collins’s The Woman in White (1860), Luisa May Alcott’s short story “A Whisper in the Dark” (1863), Elizabeth Packard’s The Prisoner's Hidden Life, or Insane Asylums Unveiled (1868), and Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper (1892). The trope extended throughout the twentieth century.

The strength of this trope lies in the disparity of power that underlies it—women finding themselves possessed of fewer rights and less social power, and thus becoming vulnerable to manipulation and mental incarceration. This made Gaslight a haunting and extremely powerful film. Indeed, the movie was nominated for seven Academy Awards (winning two) and was a big hit for its studio.

Gaslighting is a useful term that describes a common, malicious manipulation tactic. Understanding the historical, literary background of female mental incarceration helps us to see the source of its power".

Expand  

It's nice to see you're an expert! 

I didn't post that to demonstrate I'm an expert about anything -- I'm sorry (not) you couldn't connect the dots and understand.  Codex wanted to limit the definition of 'gaslighting' to what the movie uncovered for many people nearly 100 years ago.  I posted examples to demonstrate that 'gaslighting' is a psychological dynamic that has been in existence way before the movie that brought it to light and gave it the name of gaslighting. Therefore its definition goes beyond what was portrayed in the movie and extends into the common usage today as society comes to term with understanding this form of psychological abuse. Psychology is, as well, attempting to classify all types of abuse in hopes of minimizing such behaviors.  Trolling and griefing are also forms of psychological abuse.

[Roxy Couturier]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

One interesting but controversial method I've read for dealing with "bullying trolls", is to call them out in different ways.

Unfortunately, many of those ways don't work in the Forums because people have a tendency to "double down" (and switch the subject, as we see from the discussions).

- One way that I often remember reading, is to "loudly" say, "That's the stupidest thing I ever heard!"; this can supposedly shame the bullying troll.  Unfortunately, I think the "calling someone's statement 'stupid' tactic" doesn't work here, because that tactic is over-used by certain of our Forum regulars.

- Another way that I remember is to ask, "Could you repeat that?"  This obviously doesn't work well in the Forums because you can always "quote" someone, and as I wrote above there's the tendency to "double down" (and change the subject, etc.).

 

If you care to take a gander at my past posts, the only times I make 'trolling' comments is, in fact, in response to trolls or unneeded acrimony that's better used in private messaging. There's also only so much snark a forum can take before it bleeds participants.

I generally believe that we (the broad we of this and any other forum) can have a civil discourse. Snark, passive aggressive snipes, outright belligerence and provoking language DO NOT hold a place in that civil discourse. They're all ways to disrupt the flow of conversation. It's my belief as well that such disruption needs weeding out.

I've found that it's the ones that really really love disrupting that get the most bent out of shape by my tactics. (Also the lack of humor about themselves and lack of self-awareness that I've mentioned before.)

[Luna Bliss]

17 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I personally believe a much wiser response when someone is confused by another is something like, "I don't understand what you wrote, can you help by explaining"?   Otherwise, using the clearly "passive-aggressive" (good call!) tactic of, "Are you ok?" can be easily interpreted as bullying. (Where in this case, that would be "bullying as a form of trolling".)

I don't think it's passive-aggressive...it's flat out aggressive (to say "are you ok?" when clearly disagreeing with another).  Same as another common response these days, an instruction to "go outside and touch grass". Both of these sayngs are basically asserting that the person one is arguing with has totally invalid feelings or perceptions.

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

4 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

It's nice to see you're an expert! 

I didn't post that to demonstrate I'm an expert about anything -- I'm sorry (not) you couldn't connect the dots and understand. 

As usual, I was merely poking you - I thought that I was being gentle.

Was all of what you posted a quote? It appeared to start off as one, but was so long that I couldn't tell.

I was truly glad you provided additional information and history on "gaslighting"!  (Although possibly not the actual term, which as far as I understand, literally originates from "turning down the lights and telling someone they are going blind".)

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Codex wanted to limit the definition of 'gaslighting' to what the movie uncovered for many people nearly 100 years ago.  I posted examples to demonstrate that 'gaslighting' is a psychological dynamic that has been in existence way before the movie that brought it to light and gave it the name of gaslighting. Therefore its definition goes beyond what was portrayed in the movie and extends into the common usage today as society comes to term with understanding this form of psychological abuse. Psychology is, as well, attempting to classify all types of abuse in hopes of minimizing such behaviors.  Trolling and griefing are also forms of psychological abuse.

I totally agree that the movie somewhat limited the concept to "what was shown in the movie", but your additional information provided much-needed context.

It's kind of interesting though - to me at least - that some in the thread almost intentionally insist that "gaslighting" means something other than it does.  It makes you wonder, if they are a) afraid of being "called out for it", or b) as usual they were wrong once and are "doubling down", or c) even more confusingly, "are they 'gaslighting' by denying the basic concept of gaslighting"? 

If "c)", that's just totally unnecessary and silly but I wouldn't put it beyond some people.

It's more likely that some people love arguing for the sake of arguing.  They got quiet once we shifted from "trolling is bad" to "trolling is bullying"..

I think @Rolig Loon's comments helped more than anything.  It's hard to argue with "plain truth". Yet people still do!

 

[Roxy Couturier]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't think it's passive-aggressive...it's flat out aggressive (to say "are you ok?" when clearly disagreeing with another).  Same as another common response these days, an instruction to "go outside and touch grass". Both of these sayngs are basically asserting that the person one is arguing with has totally invalid feelings or perceptions.

For context, I said it wasn't the only comment of theirs that was snarky or downright mean. I meant when I said the 'meanness' was something new, at least to me. I did not drag examples of that behavior from other threads to that thread.

I'd also like to say that I did not drag this topic from that thread to this one.. Which is a form of attempted bullying, is it not? Certainly it's trolling at the very least as it's derailing this thread that has nothing to do with the other thread.

I'm open to discussing it privately, but will certainly respond if it continues to be a thread topic.

[Luna Bliss]

24 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

It's kind of interesting though - to me at least - that some in the thread almost intentionally insist that "gaslighting" means something other than it does. 

If we believe as a society that abuse is confined only to the most severe form of bullying/trolling/harassing then it allows those who do the lesser form of abuse to continue their egregious behavior as they label the offended as "snowflakes".
 

Edited May 27 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

28 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said:

40 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't think it's passive-aggressive...it's flat out aggressive (to say "are you ok?" when clearly disagreeing with another).  Same as another common response these days, an instruction to "go outside and touch grass". Both of these sayngs are basically asserting that the person one is arguing with has totally invalid feelings or perceptions.

For context, I said it wasn't the only comment of theirs that was snarky or downright mean. I meant when I said the 'meanness' was something new, at least to me. I did not drag examples of that behavior from other threads to that thread.

I'd also like to say that I did not drag this topic from that thread to this one.. Which is a form of attempted bullying, is it not? Certainly it's trolling at the very least as it's derailing this thread that has nothing to do with the other thread.

I'm open to discussing it privately, but will certainly respond if it continues to be a thread topic.

I wasn't aware of anything you'd written or any other threads when I made the above comment in an attempt to label such behavior as 'aggressive' as opposed to Love calling it "passive-aggressive". It just came to mind there are many 'sayings' in common usage today that are abusive, and I've heard both of the above 'sayings' on this forum for sure, although i don't recall exactly where. I can probably think of more insults people use these days used in an attempt to devalue another's feelings/perceptions, but nothing comes to mind at the moment.

Edited May 27 by Luna Bliss

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said:

For context, I said it wasn't the only comment of theirs that was snarky or downright mean. I meant when I said the 'meanness' was something new, at least to me. I did not drag examples of that behavior from other threads to that thread.

I'd also like to say that I did not drag this topic from that thread to this one.. Which is a form of attempted bullying, is it not? Certainly it's trolling at the very least as it's derailing this thread that has nothing to do with the other thread.

I'm open to discussing it privately, but will certainly respond if it continues to be a thread topic.

Oh, dear. I wasn't referring to our previous exchange at all! I tried very hard to make that clear. None of my example was referring to that exchange.

I apologize if you thought I was referring to some similar interactions - but I wasn't. Since you seem to want to discuss this - I don't - I will unblock you in case you want to message me.

How awkward!

[Istelathis]

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Oh, dear. I wasn't referring to our previous exchange at all! I tried very hard to make that clear. None of my example was referring to that exchange.

Bad Kittah!  You should know better than to take these kinds of threads seriously, people will drag you in, then I have to come and try to save you!  

/me pulls kitty from thread.

Stop playing with loose threads  😋🪿

 

🧵🐈

 

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

Bad Kittah!  You should know better than to take these kinds of threads seriously, people will drag you in, then I have to come and try to save you!  

/me pulls kitty from thread.

Stop playing with loose threads  😋🪿

 

🧵🐈

Loose threads and loose wom..*ahem* men shall always be my downfall.

In the eponymous "Bad Kitty" episode, is Kitty trolling Cartman? Or is Cartman trolling Kitty?

(Bonus: From Season 1, Episode 1!)

 

[Roxy Couturier]

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I've discovered an attack people use when they perceive someone as a bully, or don't like their behavior. They softball a compliment, say they don't like the person's behavior, then ask, "are you ok?".

Apologies for misinterpreting, but I think you can see why I would think that, since they are the exact words I asked you in that other thread repeated back, referenced as an attack, in a direct reply to me.

59 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Here's an example (made up, of course):  "Did you see them? They were unhinged. They were so angry! Not normal for them at all. I hope they are OK."

I'll say this.. if a RL friend or acquaintance had a sudden burst of out of character anger, I would absolutely ask if the were okay. Empathy is not passive-aggressiveness. Maybe something like saying flat out "Must have woke up on the wrong side of the bed" would be pretty passive aggressive, but checking in and asking if everything's okay is caring. I'm sorry that you don't see it as empathy. Truly that's what it was.

[Love Zhaoying]

19 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I wasn't aware of anything you'd written or any other threads when I made the above comment in an attempt to label such behavior as 'aggressive' as opposed to Love calling it "passive-aggressive". It just came to mind there are many 'sayings' in common usage today that are abusive, and I've heard both of the above 'sayings' on this forum for sure, although i don't recall exactly where. I can probably think of more insults people use these days used in an attempt to devalue another's feelings/perceptions, but nothing comes to mind at the moment.

I agree - restating, if I may, that many things which were once thought of as merely "aggressive", are now labeled as "passive-aggressive".  I guess society favors trolls and bullies! 

It seems we get on that slippery slope by "parsing words", trying to intuit what a troll "really means", and often believing them since somehow, that's the right thing to do. 

It can be made more difficult by, for instance, some groups claiming "ownership" of words.  Not that long ago (maybe 2 years), I was accused of "trolling" by using the word "triggered" - in context, the way I intended, not sarcastically, not mean, etc.  Because, those who came to feel they "own" the word "triggered" felt that anyone "else" using that word MUST be "trolling"!

So, there are lots of examples where "trolling" (subject of the thread), or accusations of "trolling", starts with just a few words (or even one) .

 

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said:

I'll say this.. if a RL friend or acquaintance had a sudden burst of out of character anger, I would absolutely ask if the were okay. Empathy is not passive-aggressiveness. Maybe something like saying flat out "Must have woke up on the wrong side of the bed" would be pretty passive aggressive, but checking in and asking if everything's okay is caring. I'm sorry that you don't see it as empathy. Truly that's what it was.

Hey there, I thought you wanted to take it to PM's.  I won't be responding here.

I know you MEAN well. I take your word for it. But since I can't respond, it's not fair. 🙂

 

[Luna Bliss]

12 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I agree - restating, if I may, that many things which were once thought of as merely "aggressive", are now labeled as "passive-aggressive".  I guess society favors trolls and bullies! 

Being passive aggressive is just being aggressive in an underhanded way. Say you make an agreement with someone to complete certain tasks you didn't really want to do, and instead of confronting and saying 'no, I don't want to do that' you sabotage and don't do the tasks correctly or hand them in late.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Being passive aggressive is just being aggressive in an underhanded way. Say you make an agreement with someone to complete certain tasks you didn't really want to do, and instead of confronting and saying 'no, I don't want to do that' you sabotage and don't do the tasks correctly or hand them in late.

 

Unfortunately, I think the Trolls we deal with aren't normally the "passive-aggressive" type.  That would be "too nice"!

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Unfortunately, I think the Trolls we deal with aren't normally the "passive-aggressive" type.  That would be "too nice"!

I wonder how we'd classify the 'baiting' behavior we sometimes see. It seems passive aggressive to me, but then forum rules generally only allow a more underhanded type of aggression.

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I wonder how we'd classify the 'baiting' behavior we sometimes see.

Possibly as different types of logical fallacies, such as "begging the question".

We used to have a couple Forumites who would catch people using logical fallacies and call them out for it.

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

[Luna Bliss]

Ok now I'm on to gaslighting from the year 1590 in Shakespeare's plays!   Yes, I'm avoiding Blender again...

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=shakespeare+and+gaslighting