The context for this would take too long to explain, so I'll just throw it out there:
Can anyone think of an example of an Internet troll changing their opinions or behavior because of the savage wit of people responding to their comments?
I ask this because I spent a good seven years on rec.arts.sf.* before moving to blogdom, and I can't think of one, either on Usenet or in a weblog's comments. I can think of a few people who made flame-tastic debuts on one group or another and later turned into reasonable regulars (Tshen comes to mind, for the RASWR-J crowd), but they always had a spark of wit or intelligence from the start.
People who entered as bone-deep idiots or trolls, though, never really changed. Sometimes they wandered off to infest other corners of the Internet, but no amount of mockery or invective ever changed their basic approach, whether they were hostile jerks or cheerful innocents (Timmy-bot, anyone?).
Is there a counter-example that I'm missing?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I'm surprised you don't remember this example, Chad, since it happened on ScienceBlogs. I agree, however, in general, it doesn't happen.
I don't think fisking in general is designed to change the mind of the troller, but rather those who might be swayed by the troller's comments.
I barely manage to keep up with the posts on the rest of ScienceBlogs, let alone the comments. I dimly remember the "Gabe" thing, now that you mention it, but I wasn't part of it.
Yeah, neither do I. I only noticed this one because some of the other sciblings were talking about it. And of course, the fact that "Gabe" actually admitted he was wrong made it a rather unusual internet event.
Also, now that I read your post more carefully, I think this may actually be an example of a nice guy who got introduced to the medium in a "flametastic" way.
At least in the case of the cheerful innocent, heaping scorn and insult (as opposed to simply deconstructing their argument in a straightforward way) leaves the visitor no room to alter his position and still save face. This is basic human nature.
Conservation of Troll Number. By Emmy Noether, this is due to an underlying Troll symmetry. The random walking through the blogosphere indicates supersymmetry, and the high-energy sTroll-on.
As Dave Munger says, the only reason to fisk a troll or indeed a braindead denialist who wouldn't know scientific evidence if it took them out to lunch, is so that undecideds and lurkers know that the troll is indeed full of fertiliser. Or you can do so to let off some steam. It can shut up some trolls and make them go elswhere, and it is also a good way to separate clueless people from trolls from uninformed people.
There's probably a bit of revisionist history going on, too, in that those reformed idiots get white-washed in our minds as "having had a spark to begin with," once they've reformed.
My guess is that most trolls do, eventually grow up, but not (exclusively) because of being flamed, and most often they grow up to somewhere else because it's less effort than overcoming their own reputations and the animosity they've invested in other people.
I think the question is flawed to begin with, as trolls are basically being defined as stubborn, ignorant, and corrosive fools who never change their minds in light of evidence, while anyone who does change their mind wasn't a troll to begin with, but simply, perhaps, rough around the edges. As #8 said, revisionist history.
As Swift said, you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Some people are able to think critically and justify their own opinions, some people simply rationalize. Sometimes it also depends on the topic. Where you draw the line I don't know.
I think perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of troll mockery. A troll just about always is and will remain one; they won't change their tone whether mocked or reasoned with. They'll keep going until they give up or get banned.
But a troll - especially a particularly combative or dumb one - is an excellent straight man for (half)wits, punsters, couch comedians, debate-team wannabes and anybody else looking for a convenient outlet for some argumentation. When a forum happens to have several people that are actually very good at that sort of thing a troll can be a source of some great enjoyment. The troll is a troll and will go away; how much fun you can have with the dolt until he disappears is what counts.
The purpose of standing firm in the face of idiots and liars isn't ultimately to change their minds, but to prevent their lies and stupidity from going unopposed. Dependent upon how the Fisking is done and how fundamentally buried in their own reality they are, it can change their minds. Just don't count on it.
I think we need to clarify what we mean by 'troll'. By the old definition, someone sincerely expressing an unpopular position or opinion may or may not change their mind depending on what points are brought against them, but they're not trolls. A troll would be a person posting something controversial or inflammatory just to incite a flame war. No amount of counterarguments would change their mind, since they don't care about the subject, and flames are precisely what they want.
In the new definition, a troll is anyone expressing an unpopular position or opinion. Such people may or may not change their minds - and they may or may not be mistaken.
"I spent a good seven years on rec.arts.sf.*"
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?