Welcome to the whimsical world of online debates and digital drama. Today, we're diving into a curious phenomenon that happens more often than you’d think: the “Troll That Cries Troll!” This elusive creature is a master of making the inquisitive nature of others seem like a ghastly plot of online villainy. Let’s unpack the absurdity of calling someone a troll simply because their questions make you uncomfortable.
The Troll Trap: When Questions Become Dangerous
Ah, the internet—the land where emojis and hashtags replace face-to-face conversations, and where questions can sometimes feel like they're being asked with a sword and shield. Picture this: You ask a straightforward question or raise a valid point, and suddenly, you’re met with accusations of trolling. “How could this be?” you ask yourself. “I was only curious!”
Here’s where things get a bit sticky. The reality is that when your questions start making people squirm or feel uneasy, it can trigger a defensive response. This reaction often leads to the classic “Troll!” accusation. But why? Is genuine curiosity really so dangerous?
The Emotional Response: Defensive Reactions
People are emotional creatures. When someone feels overwhelmed or challenged by a question, their defense mechanisms kick in. Instead of addressing the inquiry, they sometimes choose to label it as trolling. It’s a knee-jerk reaction—a way to protect themselves from feeling exposed or uncomfortable. After all, it's easier to dismiss someone as a troll than to grapple with the possibility that ones views might be questioned or scrutinized, and found wanting.
The Persistence Annoyance: When Questions Go Too Far
There’s a similar intellectually dishonest trend of labeling any persistent questioning as sealioning, especially when those questions expose hypocrisy, lack of understanding, or misinformation. This name-calling tactic is often used by those who are unable to engage in thoughtful discourse or who feel threatened by scrutiny.
Genuine inquiries that seek to explore and understand are often mistaken for trolling or sealioning simply when they persist. When someone feels questions are pushing them into an uncomfortable corner, where their values or judgments might not hold up to scrutiny, lashing out with hostility is not untypical.
Sealioning is a type of online harassment where someone aggressively asks questions or demands answers without a genuine intent to share thoughts on a topic. The goal is usually to annoy or exhaust the person being targeted, derail the conversation, or create a false appearance of a genuine debate. The term comes from a comic strip where a a sealion continually asks for explanations in an intrusive and annoying manner. However, labeling genuine curiosity as sealioning is a lazy and dishonest way to avoid engaging with challenging ideas.
The Troll Paradox
In many conversations, trolls often try to preemptively label the 'other' person as a troll, believing that getting in first validates their claim and shields them from similar accusations. This tactic is a classic example of projection, where the troll projects their own disruptive behavior onto the other person. By doing so, they seek to discredit their opponent and deflect attention from their own intentions. This maneuver not only muddies the waters of the discussion but also attempts to manipulate the perception of onlookers, making it harder to discern who is genuinely engaging in good faith and who is there to derail the conversation.
Often, people label others as trolls simply because they don't agree with them, getting angry when their perspective is not accepted. They may even call their adversely obtuse for refusing to align with their viewpoint. Ironically, this stance embodies a double standard: they accuse others of being obtuse for not agreeing with them, yet do not consider themselves obtuse for not agreeing with their opponents. This hypocrisy undermines the integrity of the debate.
The troll that cries troll frequently claims that the person they are labelling a troll is asking irrelevant questions. The name-caller labels inquiries as off-track, because they reveal a weakness in the name-callers argument. They refuse to answer the question because they know their answer will incriminate them, or expose a weakness in their argument. Once someone is labeled a troll, discussions frequently devolve into personal derogatory statements and attacks. Instead of attacking others, effort should be made to dissect and challenge the ideas presented, focusing on the topic at hand rather than disparaging the individual presenting the ideas.
Pointing Fingers
In the end, calling someone a troll because their questions make you uneasy is like crying wolf. It’s not that questions are inherently bad; it’s how they’re perceived and how they make us feel. We’ve all been there—feeling uncomfortable when our beliefs are challenged or when a question hits too close to home.
Next time you find yourself labeling someone as a troll, take a step back.
Ask yourself if your need to cry "Troll!" stems from discomfort in the face the questions behind asked - and how probing questions are making you feel.
Maybe, just maybe, the troll you’re pointing fingers at is simply a curious soul trying to navigate the murky waters of online discourse. After all, in the grand circus of the internet, everyone has a role to play—sometimes as the clown, and sometimes as the curious investigator.
Keep your answers honest and direct, your questions sharp, and your accusations fair.
The digital world is vast, and we’re all just trying to make sense of it—one question at a time.
Dubious Tactics When Faltering in an Online Debate
Crying Troll! : Labels genuine, persistent inquiries as "trolling" or "sealioning" to avoid engaging in thoughtful discourse, especially when exposed to their own hypocrisy or misinformation, or inconsistent values.
Double Standards: Accuses others of being obtuse or dismissive while not recognizing they are unable to bend their own view and stick doggedly resist and dismiss opposing opinions.
Avoidance of Debate: Shifts focus from the topic to personal attacks and insults once someone asks a question they are unwilling to answer, derailing constructive discussions.
Cryptic Responses: Insists have previously answered a direct Yes or No question in a rambling rant, whilst being unwilling to directly answer yes or no, when a choice is binary.
Dismisses points: Dismisses questions, points and observations as irrelevant or off-track when they reveal weaknesses in their own arguments, refusing to engage with or acknowledge questions, points, facts, experiences and opinions.
Misreading and Misrepresenting: Intentionally or mistakenly fails to grasp with what was actually said, instead responds to a distorted version of the argument, even imagining a false or ridiculous version of what was written in preference to what was actually written—thus putting words in another's mouth.
Irrelevant Expertise Claims: Asserts authority on a topic based on outdated or irrelevant subjective experience, such as claiming expertise in Chinese history following a brief visit to China decades ago, then dismisses recent objective data.
Displays of Anger and Hostility: Shows passive-aggression, anger and hostility when challenged, often as a defense mechanism to avoid further discussion.
Switching to Personal Attacks: Gives up on discussing the issue and resorts to personal attacks after failing to establish their position.
Patronizing Advice: Frequently gives unsolicited directions or advice, saying "You need to stop doing A" or "You need to do B," often in a condescending tone.
Psychological or Emotional Evaluation: Comments on the psychological or emotional state of the person they are debating, labeling them as sad, lonely, lost immature, etc., suggesting they have a problem and need help; all this is an underhanded way to undermine their arguments.
Creates Irrelevant Connections: Brings up other individuals who the opposition is supposedly like, even though they have no connection and nothing to do with the current discussion, or mentions the person’s reputation from previous posts that are unrelated to the current conversation.
The "You're trying to trap me" complaint: Protests that a line of questioning is tailored to reveal their hypocrisy, because it will! They're more upset about an attempt to expose their hypocrisy than they are about their actual hypocrisy!
Switches to Using a Nickname: Begins referring to the other as, Dear, Love, Boomer, Millennial, Skippy, Toad and so on, as an intentional passive-aggressive put-down.
Cries of Racist, Sexist, Communist, Fascist, etc.: uses inflammatory labels to discredit others, often as a way to avoid addressing the substance of the debate.
Comments