Monday, October 03, 2005
(12:11 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Continuing the Troll of Sorrow Discussion on a Very Serious Level
Matt writes in comments to Crooked Timber:Seriously, (seriously…) perhaps there are a number of potentially serious discussions to be had about (in and beyond their undeniable trollo sacericity [ed: I had previously claimed that the Troll of Sorrow was "Trollo Sacer"]) the social construction and mitigation of “trolls” in a medium such as the internet. Which is to say, as wise or prudent as it may be to “bin” certain people as, say, redundant and bad faith dullards, egomaniacal whiny bitch friskers, or even alcoholics and occasional psychotics, and to therefore practice selective abstinence or better yet discreet acts of superseding brilliance, compassion and patience (after which of course it is necessary to promptly hang up). But as a wise man once said, unconditional hospitality either means hospitality on the part of The Weblog toward the Troll of Sorrow or it means nothing at all.I responded, being an asshole:
I mean after all, as hard as it’s citizens might try to recreate them, the internet remains an ungated community. At the further risk of making a mountain out of a crevice, perhaps neither should we be entirely immune to the humor value of such stark juxtapositions (say, the banal taunts of the lonely obsessive wretch vs. those who would eventually concoct elaborate fun at his expense, i.e. re-directed malice, and regardless of their attempts to mask a fundamental annoyance (perhaps justified) or hatred (hardly justified) by portending to be lighthearted. Not to get all moralistic (someone will undoubtedly scoff), but in the final analysis which figure is really the more pathetic?
However, this is a controversial view and I now put my tin hat firmly in place.
Simply outline the rules of unconditional hospitality (i.e., “allow the Troll of Sorrow to comment at The Weblog”), and I will gladly follow them to the letter.There are, however, plenty of non-asshole things to say in response to Matt's comment. What are we to make of the fact that The Troll seems to flourish at Alphonse van Worden's site? (AvW is, of course, a very different kind of site from The Weblog, Long Sunday, or The Valve.)
And certainly, we would have to take into account the Third -- namely, all those whom I would betray by being hospitable to The Troll. For instance, I know that some of my readers are Jewish -- how hospitable is it to allow a virulent anti-Semite to post his hate-filled remarks in forums which they read? The same would apply to gay readers. How much time do I devote to telling the Troll that we disapprove of such remarks, especially if such disapproval only seems to prompt more and more hate-filled speech? And what if we had pity on him because of these attitudes he holds, psychologizing him, turning him into a patient to be cured or at least comforted? ("He can't help it!")
Such considerations are, perhaps, "obvious," and it is not my desire to leave things at the level of the obvious. Yet they are valid considerations.
