Trolling

Not these trolls.

A lot of my free time seems to be spent arguing with random anonymous people on various issues on websites such as Reddit. I debate to a much lesser extent on Facebook. I blame this primarily on the format being much better designed on Reddit and the anonymity aspect. On Facebook, I know exactly who I am arguing with. My friends and family won't say or accuse me of something rude and nasty. On Reddit, I do not have that same privilege.

Especially prevalent with the gay marriage discussions, I find it extremely annoying when instead of arguing against my points, redditors will more often accuse me of being a troll or some other ad hominem attack. Ironically, I consider this sort of behavior much more trollish.

So an internet troll is basically someone who says something purely to be provocative and not provide any substance to a discussion. A good example would be if we were debating about whether Nazi soldiers were truly evil or just serving out of fear, and then someone comes around and says that Nazi's weren't evil because the Jews deserved to be in concentration camps. This obviously contributed nothing to the conversation in the example, and mostly served to simply tick off people. Now the troll could've tried to argue why Jews deserved die so horrendously, but they don't or they will simply resort to more horrible, unsupported statements. Now instead of having a thoughtful discussion on evil, we are now wasting our time explaining why this troll is a moron.

On the flip side, take the gay marriage discussion. Instead of arguing me on points of contention, I am usually accused of being a bigot. Now I have to explain how I have no animosity or hatred towards homosexuals instead of explaining the points I am trying to express. Simply because I don't agree with the majority, I am called a troll despite bringing up a legitimate point and giving valid reasons.

This is a huge problem in discussing important topics. Especially on topics that are very emotional on both sides. Maybe the antisemitic troll in my first example honestly thought he was bringing up a good point. The problem is that it's becoming a fundamental skill now to be able to identify logical fallacies such as ad hominems. If you aren't able to identify such fallacies, then a troll cannot truly be identified. If arguing the evil of Nazi's and the defense is that the Jews deserved it, then you have to be aware and able to point out that why such a statement is ludicrous. My example was a bit extreme and obvious, but there are plenty of instances where it is not obvious. Conversely, you cannot simply win an argument by being offended.

I think the best advice is to simply ask if the person is bringing up a valid point. That is probably impossible to define, but it can be expanded a little bit. Is the point honest? Is the point reasoned? Is the point purposely insulting? An atheist referring to Jesus as a zombie may seem honest and reasoned, but it is obviously insulting to a Christian especially since a christian would not characterize Jesus as undead but rather fully alive. I think these three questions may be able to better answer whether someone is trolling or not.