Install Theme

People often make too much of “trolling.”  It can be funny, but it isn’t really effective at anything except being funny, and claims to the contrary seem to me like people’s attempts to justify or rationalize their pre-existing interest in that sort of humor.

As far as I can remember (and as far as my impressions about such things are actually accurate), when my beliefs about things have changed, they’ve changed on account of two types of things: first, academic arguments (including stuff like scientific evidence), and second, repeated anecdotal evidence of people’s passions and preferences.  By the latter, I mean that sometimes it’s not clear to me that something is important until I see how many people deeply care about it or how many people profess to be strongly affected by it.  There’s rarely direct scientific/statistical evidence of how many people are affected by X, and how strongly, but that’s an immensely important type of information for forming one’s worldview, and can usually only be obtained by seeing a bunch of people say “I care about X” or whatever.

I think the second type of evidence I mentioned can often come in the form of conversations that go outside the bounds of academic debate, and this is one reason why people who say that their views “can only be changed by academic arguments” are missing something (and are probably kidding themselves, anyway).  But the thing about trolling is that it is a uniquely terrible way of communicating that kind of information.  Trolls come off as inherently unserious, their actual views made inaccessible by a constructed, often shifting facade.  Trolling tends to work better the more extreme and seemingly absurd the troll’s opinions are – especially if those opinions are combined with some infuriating flashes of coherence or demonstrations of competence.  So there’s no way to distinguish a troll who actually cares deeply about something you think no one gives a shit about from a troll who is just affecting to care deeply about something no one actually gives a shit about, because plenty of trolls really do the latter.  As far as opening people’s minds to the spectrum of human experience goes, it is about as powerless a tactic as you could come up with.

genderfight:
“ girljanitor:
“ ghostdaddotcx:
“ Self reblogging to add a thing I found:
http://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-208/feature-malcolm-harris/
The account @Anti_Racism_Dog didn’t last long. Twitter suspended it quickly, a fate...

genderfight:

girljanitor:

ghostdaddotcx:

Self reblogging to add a thing I found:

http://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-208/feature-malcolm-harris/ 

The account @Anti_Racism_Dog didn’t last long. Twitter suspended it quickly, a fate reserved only for the most aggressive, abusive and hateful users. What could a dog – an anti-racist one, at that – do to deserve it? @Anti_Racism_Dog had one real function: to bark at racist speech on Twitter. The account responded to tweets it deemed racist with the simple response ‘bark bark bark!’ Sometimes it would send wags to supporters but that was pretty much it.

For the short time it lasted, it was amazing to watch how people reacted to @Anti_Racism_Dog. The account would respond mostly to what the sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva would call ‘colour-blind racism’, that is, racisms that are generally right-libertarian in orientation and justified through appeals to supposedly objective discourses like science and statistics. It’s a notoriously insidious white-supremacist ideology, a virulent strain evolved specifically to resist anti-racist language. Colour-blind racism defends itself by appeals to neutrality and meritocracy, accusing its adversaries of being ‘the real racists’. Although its moves are predictable, they’re hard to combat rhetorically since they’re able to ingest the conventional opposition scripts. Colour-blind racists feed on good-faith debate, and engaging with them, especially online, is almost always futile. But when they’re barked at by a dog, one whose only quality is anti-racism, they flip the fuck out. They demand to be engaged in debate (‘Tell me how what I said was racist!’) or appeal to objective definitions (‘The dictionary says racist means X, therefore nothing I said was racist’), but @Anti_Racism_Dog just barks.

@Anti_Racism_Dog inverted the usual balance of energy in online dialogs about race. Precisely because the dominant global discourse is white-supremacist, it is rhetorically easier to make a racist argument than an anti-racist one. Look at almost any comment thread or discussion board about race and you can see anti-racists working laboriously to be convincing and to play on their opponents’ ‘logical’ turf, and racists repeating the same simple lines they were taught (‘I didn’t own slaves’, ‘I’m just stating the facts’, ‘The Irish were persecuted too’, etc.) ‘Trolling’ as a certain kind of internet harassment is tied to time: the successful troll expends much less time and energy on the interaction than their targets do. It’s the most micro of micro-politics, an interpersonal tug of war for the only thing that matters. But have you ever played tug of war with a dog?

A true troll doesn’t have a position to protect because to establish one would leave it vulnerable to attack, and playing defence takes time. @Anti_Racism_Dog, by fully assuming the persona of an animal, was invulnerable to counter-attack. You can’t explain yourself to a dog and you look like an idiot trying. The only way to win is not to play but this is the colour-blind racist’s Achilles Heel: they’re compelled to defend themselves against accusations of racism. It’s the anti-racist argument that gives them content; theirs is an ideology that’s in large part a list of counter-arguments. After all, white-supremacists are already winning – their task now is to keep the same racist structures in place while making plausibly colour-blind arguments against dismantling them. @Anti_Racism_Dog was empty of anything other than accusation and so left its targets sputtering.

The account served a second purpose: as a sort of anti-racist hunting dog. @Anti_Racism_Dog quickly attracted a lot of like-minded followers who understood the dynamics at play. Whenever it would start barking at another user, this was a cue to the dog’s followers to troll the offender as well. There’s only so much one dog can do alone. Colour-blind racism is particularly dangerous because it isn’t immediately visible as such. It provokes good-faith discussion from liberals about what counts as racism, muddying the water. But @Anti_Racism_Dog’s strategy draws new lines about what constitutes acceptable discourse on race, placing colour-blind racists on the other side by speaking to them like an animal. What would be taken as totally insane in flesh space can be infuriatingly clever online. 

THIS ARTICLE HAS TEETH

A strangely prolix defense of lowering the standards of debate.

Yeah, pretty much.  These people already think they have the moral and intellectual high ground.  Isn’t it likely that what the article describes as “sputtering” was accompanied by the mental sensation of unequivocal triumph?  If it’s just comedy, that doesn’t matter, but don’t pretend it’s “politics” or “discourse.”  Anti-Racism Dog didn’t raise anyone’s consciousness.

I fully support (and often enjoy) this kind of thing as comedy or venting, I just don’t think it deserves this kind of grandiose pondering.  It isn’t that interesting and it doesn’t accomplish anything (besides immediate enjoyment for its audience).

(via genderfight)