Yes, thank you, Quirrell. Trolls are very easy to spot, and often not too intelligent in fictional, magical wizarding institutions (taken down by a couple of first years? I mean, come on...). The Internet, however, houses some very intelligent trolls (and their counterparts), and identifying them can be somewhat trickier (i.e. they aren't large, greenish creature dressed in a burlap skirt/loincloth/diaper and carrying a club–well most of them probably aren't...the beauty of the Internet is that we'll never know).
So where to start? A working
Here are the terms that I find particularly interesting:
fishing
victim, cyberbullying, harassment, abused, shock
blatantly
intentionality
emotional, interesting, flaming
popular, success, interested
provoke, controversial
#PubRhet's Twitter experiment yielded an interesting discussion about trolls and intentionality. It seems like we're not the only ones with questions given that "intent" and "intentions" both show up in the Wordle. Can you troll accidentally? If someone knows you're trolling, are you doing it correctly? According to the popular peer-reviewed academic journal Urban Dictionary, a crucial aspect of trolling is deceiving. One Webster wannabe implies that if the trolled recognizes the troll, the person isn't actually trolling, or at least s/he's not doing it properly. However, trolls still manage to elicit the desired reactions from users who just can't help but respond, even when they have good TrollDar. Others seem to have no idea whatsoever that they're being trolled. But regardless of awareness, a second question is this: If you acknowledge and respond to a troll, do you then become a troll?
Example A:
1. Most importantly, everyone was okay. Apparently the plane nearly landed in the water due to an icy runway.
2. Multiple reporters from various news agencies asked for permission to use the photograph. @virgiltexas grants this permission; the number of "Thanks!" tweets is alarming. Poor @islepoy, Encyclopedia Brown she is not.
3. @UmJammerEmmy is clearly outraged and offended by @virgiltexas' grossly immoral granting of rights that do not belong to him. This alarming lack of integrity significantly affected @UmJammerEmmy especially because [I assume there's a reason, but I haven't found it]. I mean, we're talking Twitter Joke court; this is serious.
So who's the troll? Originally @virgiltexas seems like the clear winner. However, his tweets aren't exactly examples of cyberbulling; he harass an individual and the nature of his tweets aren't what I would call abusive. Is he doing this deliberately? Oh, for sure. It seems like he thinks it's funny, and to some degree it really is. Not just the absurdity of a random guy granting permission to use a photograph that clearly isn't his (look at the handle, people), but because multiple reporters from well-known, reputable news agencies believed he could grant permission. Perhaps he did it to highlight the public's naïveté regarding the Internet or to make a larger statement about intellectual property. I don't know @virgiltexas so I couldn't tell you.
In the 2nd image, @virgiltexas is clearly the troll. However, in the 3rd image, @UmJammerEmmy initiates the conversation with @virgiltexas; he throws the first tweet, so to speak. He starts the insults and uses the harsh language. @Um's comments clearly didn't ruffle @virgiltexas much; throughout their banter, his tweets are less aggressive and have a more relaxed tone.
Next up in the hot seat is none other than the great mind who created the stuttering, Dark Lord-housing, Defense Against the Dark Arts professor pictured above: JK Rowling. That's right, Rowling's been trollin! (those rhyme, FYI...apparently all of America says her name incorrectly).
I'm fairly certain that I don't consider this trolling, but holy reactions, Batman. It's not all LOLs and "Aww shucks," people got mad. Please note the "hateful," "DON'T DO THIS TO US," and "HOW DARE YOU." And these are just the most recent comments. The Harry Potter fandom is very large and sort of crazy (mostly in a good way). But Rowling is notoriously private; the tiniest bit of information about the world of HP or new projects drives devoted HP fans into a frenzy (What?! There's a patch of dandelions 200 ft NW of the Quidditch pitch? Let's over analyze and create a wiki!). Again, Rowling isn't harassing anyone; she's not trying to deliberately cause an uproar. I think she was just trying to have a laugh (though in all fairness, she's not often "funny" on Twitter so perhaps her fans were confused).
Troll Call:
@virgiltexas–deliberately trolling, but not offensive (Intentional)
@UmJammerEmmy–the troll police becomes the troll (Debatable)
@jk_rowling–she's still learning Twitter (Intentionally trying to get laughs, Unintentionally causing rage)
@virgiltexas–deliberately trolling, but not offensive (Intentional)
@UmJammerEmmy–the troll police becomes the troll (Debatable)
@jk_rowling–she's still learning Twitter (Intentionally trying to get laughs, Unintentionally causing rage)
Just to end on a nice even number, here's a fourth kind of troll. When I looked at memes, I talked about how sometimes images look like meme, but they don't function like a meme. Sometimes users don't quite seem to understand why or how memes work. In a similar passion, I think sometimes unintentional trolling occurs when there's a similar misunderstanding of genre and/or comedy.
Drunk History is a show aired on Comedy Central. The premise is this: comedians get hammered and explain a historical figure and/or event. Think Saturday Night Live meets Ken Burns. And on reality TV, as in life, not all intoxicated people act the same. Some can't remember their historical event, others get very passionate about specific details, and a few just lay down on the floor or start playing with the microphone. All of these clues combined signify to most people that this show, while somewhat educational, is not meant to offer an objective, politically correct account.
The Case of wetlazer
Due to the acknowledgment that the show is supposed to be humorous, and the use of the word "problematic," I don't think s/he's deliberately trying to elicit a reaction or cause discord. I think, burdened by his/her own heightened awareness and intellect, wetlazer simply must explain that calling the Lakota women "hooker wives" is just not okay. Perhaps we can classify wetlazer as an altruistic, unintentional troll. wetlazer isn't here to cause conflict; s/he's here to help us learn. The real issue might be that wetlazer doesn't actually understand the premise of Drunk History...
1. wetlazer starts this particular section of YouTube comments by explaining that s/he totally understands the nature of the show, but that this clip is still "pretty racist." mtstatehk14090914–perhaps sarcastically–comments, "I didnt[sic] hear one racist remark," which results in one of my new favorite questions, "What didn't you hear that was racist?" Eventually wetlazer explains that she "think[s] calling the Lakota women hooker wives is problematic" (<--wetlazer might currently be enrolled in an English graduate seminar...). mtstatehk14090914 then fabulously explains what hookers do, that all women are not in fact hookers, and that calling someone a hooker does not make that person a hooker.
Further Reading (i.e. the play-by-play troll-by-troll commentary continues)
2. mtstatehk14090914 then fabulously explains what hookers do, that all women are not in fact hookers, and that calling someone a hooker does not make that person a hooker. Furthermore, s/he, on behalf of "us" (<-the entire Internet? people who "get" comedy? Idk), explains that Drunk History is a comedy show and accuses wetlazer of being ultra sensitive, condescending, and politically correct.
4. Phew. Thankfully Mautiks is an expert on all things Native American and has studied "native languages." That is interesting, Mautiks. whitespruce26 gets bonus points for using today's buzzword, "trolling." S/he writes, "I wasn't expecting someone trolling for a response on a comment like that." This again goes back to the intentionality issue. whitespruce26 outright accuses Mautiks of trolling, which, according to the definitions that emphasize deception, might mean that Mautiks isn't trolling effectively.
So I ask yet again, who are the trolls?
