I belong to a group of mom bloggers and it is not uncommon for one of us to Facebook the rest of us and ask for "nice comments" on a post to offset the vitriol being vomited upon the comment section by trolls.
Not sure what trolls are? They're those shadowy internet lurkers who visit blogs seemingly with the sole intention of shredding the blogger. They take issue with the content, the POV, the writing style, sometimes even the gender of the writer. From a mere 1000 words or so, they assign twisted personality traits to the blogger and use the anonymity of the commenting forum to eviscerate a stranger.
They especially love to attack bloggers for expressing strong opinions on, God forbid, their own blogs! Here's a love note Elizabeth Aquino received on her blog, a moon, worn as if it had been a shell:
"Elizabeth, I’m not in a position to judge your 'niceness.' But from your articles I can discern very clearly that you are a self-obsessed, self-absorbed, self-interested, narrow minded person. That is, if the case doesn’t assist Elizabeth in some way or improve Elizabeth’s lot in some fashion, Elizabeth isn’t interested in it. "
It's worth mentioning that, despite her self-absorption and narrow-mindedness, Elizabeth raises three kids, one of whom has a severe seizure disorder.
An example from my own blogging life: in response to my essay that ran in Salon in March 2011, various trolls diagnosed me with an "Axis II personality disorder," accused me of being a "divorced vaginate" and a "horrible mother" and urged me to get "non-supportive, challenging therapy."
I'm confident about my writing, and I know, after a few cyber-public floggings, to brace myself before I scan the comment thread, but still. Watching people who don't even know you stomp all over your integrity can leave you feeling like a frail kid cornered by schoolyard bullies.
What is it about cyberspace that makes some commenters feel they have the right to rip a blogger into teeny-tiny pieces? I'm not talking about those engaging in critical thinking, or respectfully disagreeing, or inviting civil dialogue. I'm all for that.
I'm talking about rabid, mad-dog commenters who hurl vicious, sadistic barbs at bloggers. Or trolls who stand atop their high, sanctimonious horses issuing judgments -- judgments like these, received by my friend Jenny Heitz on her hilariously spot-on Beyond the Brochure post "Perfect Mommy Syndrome."
"Sounds to me like you're feeling guilty about your choices after seeing parents who might be making better ones. Maybe if you were confident in the way you're parenting your children, you wouldn't even notice what everyone else is doing.... A little soul-searching might be in order to figure out what the REAL issue is."
Now, even if you did have some "soul-searching" to do, would snide spitballs spur your motivation?
The Psychology of Cyberspace
John Suler, a psychology professor at Rider University, has written extensively about the psychology of cyberspace in his online book called just that: Psychology of Cyberspace. Drawing from psychoanalytic theory and other psychological orientations, Suler breaks down the reasons why cyberspace invites conflict and what kinds of people and circumstances stir the maelstrom.
Suler believes that cyberspace is a "psychological extension" of a person's internal landscape. Hours spent online trigger unfinished business and subconscious processes "that can alter sensory experience and can even create a dream-like state of mind."
Suler has some interesting theories linking certain personality types with certain online behaviors. For instance:
- Do antisocial personalities exploit the wild west quality of the internet in order to hack?
- Do narcissists use the internet to gather throngs of admirers?
- Do dissociative people use the internet to create multiple online personalities?
- Do compulsives use the internet as a means to gain control over their lives?
- Do histrionic people see the internet as a forum for theatrical displays in order to get attention?
I'm a PhD or two short of being able to to grasp fully the more nuanced concepts of Suler's theories -- stuff about transferring unfinished business with parents on to the computer itself, which is then exacerbated by transferring unfinished business onto blog posts -- but I think I can adequately convey a few of his basic ideas.
The Disinhibition Effect
Online, people feel less inhibited and more able to express themselves. This can lead to "benign disinhibition," in which people display acts of generosity, for example, sending prayers or even donations to those afflicted by terminal illnesses.
But the kind of disinhibition I'm exploring in this post is the toxic kind, what Suler refers to as "simply a blind catharsis, an acting out of unsavory needs and wishes without any personal growth at all."
My blogging friend Lori Day, perhaps one of the most genteel and refined voices in the blogosphere, shares two of the particularly egregious comments she has received: "Lori, you c**nt," and "wake up from your gynocentric stupor."
I ask you: does calling a woman a c**t invite conversation or shut it down?
How Does Calling a Blogger a C**nt Happen?
The "you don't know me" quality of the internet allows people to dissociate, to separate their words from who they are. "When acting out hostile feelings," writes Suler, "the person doesn't have to take responsibility for those actions. In fact, people might even convince themselves that those behaviors 'aren't me at all.'"
I Can't Tell My Boss To Go F**k himself, So I'll Tell You
Suler explains that the internet levels the playing field. Regardless of social status, race, and gender, everyone has a voice. It's not easy standing up to an authority figure, and if you want to keep your job, you'd better mince your words. But online, says Suler, authority is "minimized. People are much more willing to speak out or misbehave." Combine this with someone who grew up silenced by an oppressive or abusive parent, and the potential for unbridled trolliness soars.
Of course, if you want your insults to be taken seriously, be sure to check your spelling. My blogger friend William Quincey Belle devoted a post to the troll who responded to one of his posts with "Your an idiot."
Personality Types
Suler states that certain personality types vary in their tendencies towards inhibition or expression. "People with histrionic styles tend to be very open and emotional. Compulsive people are more restrained." Suler explains that the disinhibition effect interacts with personality variables, creating an online behavior pattern that is more exaggerated than one's offline behavior.
The type well known to all of us who hang out on blog comment threads is the "oppositional personality." These are the people who take issue with virtually anything that is written. "They struggle with underlying feelings of hostility that can be expressed passively or indirectly, via the act of disagreeing," writes Suler. "They may also need to oppose others as a way to firm up their somewhat fragile identity or to boost self-esteem by proving themselves right and others mistaken."
May I give you an example? From a Beyond the Brochure mommy troll to another commenter (when trolls are not sated after chomping on the writer, they go after their fellow commenters):
"How much did you research your CHOICE to inject toxins in your child's blood veins? Trust me I know WAY MORE on the topic than you do! So yeah, I am a better parent if I took the time to research fully and not just take doctors (who are human and failable -- um, that would be fallible, Madam Troll-- and many are just as ignorant and ill informed as many parents they are leading on) on their word seeing as they have the pharmaceutical reps in their back pocket! 
And what do you know about homeschool? Except that you would be a terrible homeschooling parent.

Get a life lady, you have no clue about the world around you!"
Oh, what fun to be on the Hot Lunch Committee with her!
Dangerous Trolls
Suler states that oppositional types are drawn to the "intellectually contentious atmosphere" of online discussion. And in a chaotic, unmonitored environment where it's impossible to read facial expressions or hear tone-of-voice, oppositional tendencies may ramp up.
While insult-hurlers are merely obnoxious, trolls who threaten may actually be sociopathic. I was stunned to read an article in The Guardian reporting on women writers who routinely receive rape and death threats from commenters. Several female journalists have gone public with the outrageous threats they have received in an attempt to get online discussion moderators to establish stricter commenting policies and boot those who are being abusive.
So How Do We All Just Get Along?
Psychotherapist Kali Munro offers tips to resolve conflict online. Here are some of them:
Don't respond right away
Squelch that urge to fire back a response setting the troll straight. Wait 24 hours before responding.
Read the post again later
Sometimes your first reaction is colored by how you're feeling at the time. Read it later and see if it could have been written with a different tone from the one you originally heard.
Choose whether or not you want to respond
If the post is inflammatory and the person appears to be a bully, the best strategy is to ignore him/her.
Use "I statements"
Anyone who's been in couples therapy knows how to do this one: "I feel vs. "You did blahblah..."
Choose your words carefully
Because the person can't see you and must rely entirely on what you've written, choose your words carefully. Imagine how the other person might "hear" what you say.
Start and end your post with validating statements
This one doesn't need explaining.
My New Commenting Policy
While I cannot control the comment threads on other sites that run my pieces, I can control them on this site, and writing this post has spurred me to do just that. So here are my guidelines:
1. This blog contains subject matter related to divorce and custody issues, two hot-button topics that may trigger some people. If you feel that divorce is just plain wrong, and that all divorced people are low-life vermin, you are kindly invited to go elsewhere.
2. Please keep your comments civil. Respectful disagreement and intelligent debate are fine, but remarks that are abusive and accusatory are not, and will be deleted.
3. Spelling and punctuation corrections are welcome.
One thing about most of my commenters: they are a smart, articulate, and well-mannered lot. I value all of you, my wonderful blogging and commenting community, more than I can say.
But you never know who may be lying in wait...




Salon.com
Comments
I just figure there are a lot of passive-aggressive types out there who have a lot of vitriol bottled up, for whatever reason.
If comments get nasty (I've not had that problem, but then I don't post much) at least at OS we can always delete.
You go girl! (Or is it, "You go, girl!"
Keeper.
Send to Michelle Obama etc.,
Sam Kass. . .
I heard the author interview.
I like the woman who wrote:
Title of the book`The Obamas.
I took note but got a tummy ache.
Now, I am getting a headache.
It's not your fault. It home-brew.
I forget the name of the woman.
The notes are in my P.U. truck.
The author has a pleasant voice.
Thank you for another great post, and some excellent advice, as well!
With the exception of Paul O’Rourke and Jonathan Wolfman’s blogs, Open Salon is one of the few liberal leaning websites that doesn’t systematically delete comments by trolls. It truly is “open” and provides me the opportunity to keep fighting the good fight.
Thanks for this smart, thoughtful essay.
""Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances."
Rated♥
This staffer also said that they only replied to about 1 in 5 emails with a personal response, because of exactly these issues.
Excellent points. Maybe trolls need more bridges to hide under.
tHe aUThor pRoClameS soMEthInG tHat is unSUBstaNtiAteD as a fAct
twO coMMenTerS challEnGe JoNNie"s assERtiOn suGGeStinG thAT thE reSeRCh stUdy is fLaWed. tHE bLOg auTHuR anD soME pro-pOSItion coMMeNTeRs diSpuTE anD tHeN deLEte aNY conTRaReAn coMMeNteRs whO R suRELY laBELLed tROLLs nOW.
sO mUSt wE alWAys emBRaCe thE bLoG auTHur"s poSItiON tO aVOid beInG caLLeD tROLLs?
I will delete trolls depending on their "trolliness." I can tolerate stupid comments done once, ridiculed once, but the serial idiots demand a tax on my time that I'm not willing to pay.
In the case of Johnny Fever, we have a serial idiot -- I use the word in its original Greek meaning of "one too stupid to participate in politics" -- whose politics are on an adolescent "what Mom and Dad-as-the-RNC tell me" level. This is bad enough, but the kicker is Fever tends to preface his most stupid statements with the assertion he's educating somebody, which, by implication, is to elevate his ignorance above others knowledge. After discrediting himself with one glaring factual or logical error, he trolls on "as if" his credibility can be restored by repetition.
As much as others enjoy watching me reintroduce a fool to his natural habitat, it can get tedious, so I booted Fever off of my blog. If I wanted to relive my HS sophomore year of demolishing political simpletons, Fever would be the first one I'd invite to comment.
I told Fever, at least twice, that his problem isn't so much that he has no thoughts of his own, or that he's a cut-n'-paste GOP slogan-slinger. His problem is he's aggressively idiotic, has no sense of even pseudo-intellectual shame, so doesn't know when to shut up.
There are plenty of people who will engage Fever "as if" he's a worthy adversary, and it's in that battle of base rookie politics where he should wield the awesome power of his extremely dull butter knife.
In his defense, if you, like I, sometimes enjoy watching the orphaning of reason, abandonment of logic and scarcity of knowledge by somebody comically convinced he possesses all 3 in abundance, Fever puts on one hell of a show.
well if the woman truly is in some "gynocentric stupor", then no, not even a rude comment is gonna wake her up, is it?
all excellent points but on the other hand, if you just want your commenters to agree with you, thats clearly a narcissistic attitude, isnt it? what about a post where you say, "take the grain of truth in everything people say"? I dont really hear you saying that. I hear you saying, "if people say something in a way that offends me, the content of their message is irrelevant". which reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by wm james, early psychologist. "a great many ppl think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
I think people, not this author here, but some here at OS and other places too I'm sure, tend to call people "trolls" just because they disagree with them.
I also found it very amusing that Markinjapan once wrote a blog about me - at least what he thought I was - and asked a series of questions OF ME and then deleted all but one of my responses.
Johnny Fever makes some good points in my view. If you don't like them Paul, argue them. Of course you are free to delete them as well, but I hope if you do you are not someone who then complains when others delete YOUR comments.
Enjoy your debate guys.
"Introducing Empress Helena the 5th, Vaginate of the Eastern Islands!" - something like that? Magnate? Potentate?
I think the anonymity encourages the expression of what are usually hidden feelings, mainly involving jealousy or expressions of self-hatred that come out as hatred of just about everyone. I believe in ignoring it sometimes and calling someone a turd the other half of the time. And I delete at OS or close comments if I get tired of it. But, I'm amazed at some of the really vicious stuff. For example, while I don't really follow her often, Heather at dooce and her husband are going through what appears to be a divorce. While looking for something entirely different, I ran across a blog where the people there are rejoicing in this news and actually hoping the blogger kills herself. (She has a problem with chronic depression.) It's completely horrific. I was stunned by the joyous vicious cruelty, of wishing someone dead and their family sans a mother and wife. It was ... really stunningly disgusting. It made me sad for human beings, that some of us enjoy the pain of others.
Good post.
But one thing that also needs to be said is that people should be very careful about investing too much emotion in Internet socializing. People don't (in most cases) really know each other the way you know people in person. If you allow yourself to be drawn in too far emotionally, if your interactions on the computer start to stand in for real-world social validation and emotional support, then you are vulnerable to an environment where people can too easily hurt one another and engage in deceit under the cover of anonymity.
What we learned as children, that words can never hurt us, remains true. I think it is wise to keep a stoic detachment regarding on-line interactions, so that anger, hostility, hatred, or vicious insults can roll off like water from a duck's back.
Trolls will never go away, but discounting their words from a detached point of view and ignoring them is probably the best way to deny them their reward if they strike. To respond is exactly what they are hoping for; it energizes them and validates their existence.
After that Troll image I scared.
I may burp and hiccup in bed`gin.
I may turn the back porch light on.
I may order a frozen pizza pie too.
`
tease . . .
`
On Mom's front lawn. . .
elves, penguins, Baby Jesus
all in neon
`