Hacker News Reader

Comment by Goronmon | Hacker News Reader

If we define "troll" as anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content, then the entire class of authors of the genre of news article decrying trolling and harassment are themselves trolls.

Isn't that a bit of a tautology? "If I expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling' then authors who decry trolling become 'trolls' themselves."

It's not an exceedingly convincing statement to me personally.

Though you've used one of the adjectives I think best describes the nature of 'trolling' and that's "bad faith". Personally, I feel the most useful definition of 'troll' is someone who argues/antagonizes/insults others not because they are trying to make a point or start a conversation, but merely to provoke a negative response.

View on HN

>Isn't that a bit of a tautology? "If I expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling' then authors who decry trolling become 'trolls' themselves."

No, it's not tautological.

The parent doesn't propose to "expand the definition of the word 'troll' to include 'authors decrying trolling'". He proposes defining trolls as "as anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content".

Which is as (or close) to how it has always been defined, and how the authors of TFA use it.

So what the parent suggests is not some "expansion of the definition of trolling", much less one to include "those who complain about trolling", and in no sense a tautology.

If you assume that the word troll does not mean "anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content" then someone claiming it does is pretty clearly expanding the definition of the word.

Which is as (or close) to how it has always been defined, and how the authors of TFA use it.

I actually disagree with both of these assertions. Sometimes people expand the word troll to encompass too large a group, but that doesn't necessarily change the definition and I definitely don't see how the article uses it in that manner.

Though, I can definitely understand the desire to expand the definition of the word 'troll' into usefulness. It does make it easier to dismiss other's complaints.

Most of these authors label people who are not trolls, btu rather just disagree with them.

> If you assume that the word troll does not mean "anyone who posts inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive content" then someone claiming it does is pretty clearly expanding the definition of the word.

I don't think the OP is advocating for any particular definition, but pointing out that the authors of these articles seem to be using a definition of "troll" (whether or not it's expanded is irrelevant) which would encompass said authors.

That's why "flame war". There's positive feedback.

Yes, trolls=keyboard kowboys/girls=flame-baiters.

Astro-turfers, shills and disingenious actors are an entirely separate class. And, they are winning.

It would be possible for "authors decrying trolling" to do so in a way that isn't "inflammatory, bad faith, needlessly aggressive, insulting, false, or otherwise unproductive". So it's not a tautology unless you insert an empirical assertion that every single one of the "authors decrying trolling" is exhibiting one or more of the abovementioned qualities. And that assertion sounds like a substantial point, not logically empty at all.

In the trolling game, there's the concept of triggering the "inner troll" of one's opponent. So they start trolling too, rather like a puppet. Puppet count is part of scoring.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com