One of these days I’ve got to write a forms criticism of blog posts in the political blogosphere. Most of mine are, in fact, newspaper columns but the majority of blog posts are either links, leitmotif links (a distinct form), fiskings, and diatribes and rants. There are also different forms in use in blog comments including the counter-post, the non sequitur, and the advertisment.
I find some of the forms in use in blog comments extremely irritating but none is so irritating to me as the cognitive dissonant troll. There are several different varieties of troll. The plain, ordinary garden variety is a comment made with the sole purpose of inciting a flamewar but there are other varieties as well. For example, a concern troll is a troll that poses as a serious commenter, frequently claiming to share the point of view of the original post but with certain concerns. The actual intent of the concern troll is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
The specific subspecies of troll I’m referring to is sort of the reverse of the concern troll. What I’m referring to as the “cognitive dissonant troll” is a commenter who responds to a post in angry, even offensive terms, e.g. “this opinion is so stupid that only an idiot could possibly hold it”. However, when the meat of the response is analyzed it’s clear that the commenter actually agrees with the opinion that’s being expressed but can’t bring him- or herself to say so but for some reason or other feels the need to agree in an angry and frequently offensive tone, making an essentially incoherent argument.
Recently, in one thread I made a mild suggestion of counter-evidence to the original author’s proposition, complete with logic, evidence, and all that good stuff. The angry response from another commenter was that I obviously didn’t know what the heck I was talking about (oddly, the commenter included no references, evidence, or facts, only assertions) then proceeded to accept in detail all of the points that I had made in my original comment.
It’s the sort of thing that discourages me from reading comments at all.
This is the stupidest post I’ve ever read. Clearly, sir, you are an imbecile.
Yes, your description of commenters is essentially correct, and I, too, find people like that very irritating, but this does nothing to improve my opinion of your opinion. Which is totally absurd. Your opinion, I mean.
You’re a damned communist is what you are. If you would stop being such a fool you could rewrite the above post exactly as it stands and I think I could manage to gin up some faint respect for you. Until then I will never read this blog again!
Michael,
LOL, well done sir.
Steve V:
How dare you!
I remain amazed at how often people still respond to trolls.
Steve
I don’t know that I fully agree, Dave. Maybe I’m just a prisoner of personal experience and two decades of “robust” investment decision debates, but I think taking “devil’s advocate” positions has its merits. Testing (some would say obnoxiously challenging) someone’s point to see how stridently they believe in it, and perhaps through the process arriving at a more refined view seems a worthy exercise.
Of course, there’s always blog debate as sport or comedic relief: “Jane, you ignorant slut…..”