From c438421@showme.missouri.edu Sun Feb 9 12:40:07 1997 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 00:44:38 -0600 (CST) From: David Eisenstein To: Femrel-l list Cc: "Cheryl L. Hill" , Jeff Brotemarkle Bcc: Jonathan Speak , Lauren Boland Subject: Anatomy of a troll, was Re: Spirituality and trolls Hi Eddie and the rest of the list! Just wanted to thank you so much, Eddie, for your contribution entitled "Spirituality and trolls" as of Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:43:39 -0500. It was very thoughtful and human response to a problem that seems closely re- lated to "bullying." A friend of mine once said to me something like, "When we're acting our worst is when we need the most lovin'." I would like to think of people who troll (and I am not sure exactly what that word means -- but it connotes bullying to me) as people missing something -- missing some good lovin' or maybe live in a no-hug environment, or that have some kind of pathology that precludes feeling warmth and acceptance even when hugs and fantastic warmth and acceptance are available. Fearing love, or feeling unloveable? As Eddie said in his very thoughtful post: > People who *need* attention, therefore, very > often resort to negative attention (whether consciously or not). They > act out, receive negative attention, and they know they exist. They know > they are heard by the explosive reaction they get. Such people will > need to get this attention again and again and again. Giving them the > attention they so crave doesn't fill the emptiness they are trying to > fill; it only encourages them to try again, to try again, to try again. Provoking reactions in other people, it seems to me, is one way a person who is insecure with their own humanity can test their humanity, like Eddie says. Feeling anger ... feeling anger at the world, perhaps out of loneliness, perhaps out of some personal injury (psychic?) that won't heal ... well, one can lash out, say some things to get a reaction, and essentially say out of hatred by so doing (and pardon the french), "F*ck you, world!" And by doing so, can get some kind of reaction, albeit negative, that the one *is* alive, *is* real, *is* human, because one has the power to get reactions out of other people. It helps feed low self-esteeming people ... perhaps helps them to make others join them in their misery, which, in a strange twist, may be a sign of love? (See quote below). What I want to know is -- how does one reach out lovingly to people who might seem to be doing things denoting large chips on their shoulders, such as is my guess for that which motivates what we call "trollers," or "bullies"? If such trollers were little kids in a family you were raising, you might try a number of things to make them behave civilly. If these people were part of a tribal culture, the mores of the tribe might try the violence of ostracism or other social and nonverbal cues to help bring (or force) that person back "in-line" with the expected social norms. But here we are on an Internet (even if this is a fairly protected segment of it), an Internet which is framed by such magazines as "Wired" and many other ideologies that not only permit but encourage freedom of expression. When I walk down the street, thinking my thoughts, enjoying a nice walk in the sun feeling the cool spring breeze and watching trees bud, the last thing I want is to have my peaceful contemplations interrupted by a car driving by with sub-sub-woofers blasting out some kind of music using lyrics like "the cheap mutha' fucka' is a ...," and rattling the windows of every house it goes by in sympathy with my eardrums. And when the driver of the vehicle has passed and the boom-boom is gone, there remains a wash of anger for that driver daring to invade my space in such a blatant way. Is this driver, "trolling"? Is he/she hoping to invade my space and hoping to affect me? Or is he/she just exercising his/her freedom to his own kind of speech/music, revolting though I may find it? Should I be fighting for his/her right to play the thing as loud as he/she wants, even if I find it revolting? Eddie, you speak of removing trolls: > I'm not saying we shouldn't try, > or that we shouldn't remove known trolls. All I'm saying is that one > can expend a *lot* of energy trying to remove a troll, and all you'll > accomplish is getting exhausted. It's like an arms race. I feel a little guilty about wanting to just kick those who "troll" me out of my life, just like that. I was severely bullied as a child in the public schools. They made me cry every day. But is it, as one who tries to be a spiritualist, mine to shield myself from their pain, their anxiety, their hatefulnesses, if, by being patient and kind I can lead them to a new plane somehow? Even if they hurt me? Is there really such thing as "incorrigibility?" > If someone insults me and I respond to that insult, I have given them > energy. I have given them *my* energy. How does one know one is not giving them some energy of God channeled through onesself? > We might find it useful to examine the question, "Why are we vulnerable > to trolling?" I'd say because we are human, and we are responders; we like to trust that other people sharing are sharing out of genuineness and love, but sometimes people *do* share out of hatreds and confusions. > Certain epithets seem to draw blood. There are reasons for > that. But living in a world where some people are going to attempt to > draw blood, isn't it prudent to learn to heal our own wounds so those > who attempt to draw our blood can't find anything within us with which > to grapple? I feel compelled to share with you some paragraphs from a book I am reading that seem quite relevant to this discussion. "There is in every weak, lost and isolated member of the human race an agony of hatred born of his own helplessness, his own isolation. Hatred is the sign and the expression of lone- liness, of unworthiness, of insufficiency. And in so far as each one of us is lonely, is unworthy, each one hates himself. Some of us are aware of this self-hatred, and because of it we reproach ourselves and punish ourselves needlessly. Punishment cannot cure the feeling that we are unworthy. There is nothing we can do about it as long as we feel that we are isolated, insufficient, helpless, alone. Others, who are less conscious of their own self-hatred, realize it in a different form by projecting it on to others. There is a proud and self-confident hate, strong and cruel, which enjoys the pleasure of hating, for it is directed outward to the unworthi- ness of another. But this strong and and happy hate does not realize that like all hate, it destroys and consumes the self that hates, and not the object that is hated. Hate in any form is self-destructive, and even when it triumphs physically it triumphs in its own spiritual ruin. "Strong hate, the hate that takes joy in hating, is strong be- cause it does not believe itself to be unworthy and alone. It feels the support of a justifying God, of an idol of war, an avenging and destroying spirit. From such blood-drinking gods the human race was once liberated, ... [omitting a description of Christian crucifixion which may offend some here -dde]. In conquering death He opened their eyes to the reality of a love which asks no questions about worthi- ness, a love which overcomes hatred and destroys death. But men have now come to reject ... and they are consequently returning to the old war gods, the gods that insatiably drink blood and eat the flesh of men. It is easier to serve the hate-gods because they thrive on the worship of collective fanaticism. To serve the hate-gods, one has only to be blinded by collective passion. To serve [a] God of Love one must be free, one must face the terrible responsibility of the decision to love *in spite of all unworthiness* whether or not in oneself or in one's neighbor. "It is the rankling, tormenting sense of unworthiness that lies at the root of all hate. The man who is able to hate strongly and with a quiet conscience is one who is complacently blind to all un- worthiness in himself and serenely capable of seeing all his own wrongs in someone else. [Can anyone say 'Rush Limbaugh'? :-) -dde] But the man who is aware of his own unworthiness and the unworthiness of his brother is tempted with a subtler and more tormenting kind of hate: the general, searing, nauseating hate of everything and everyone, because everything is tainted with unworthiness, everything is unclean, everything is foul with sin. What this weak hate really is, is weak love. He who cannot love feels unworthy, and at the same time feels that somehow *no one* is worthy. Perhaps he cannot feel love because he thinks he thinks he is unworthy of love, and because of that he also thinks no one else is worthy." --Merton, Thomas. _New_Seeds_of_Contemplation_, Chapter 10, "A Body of Broken Bones," pp. 72-74. By the way, I wish to thank Cara Young for her re- sponse in this thread talking about feeling misunderstood, and then *blamed* for it. It is my belief that people blame to avoid taking responsibility for the love and devotion of time it would take to understand whatever it is they are blaming. Unlike what police say when they arrest you, I like to hope this is a "safe" place where "everything you say can and will be used lovingly *for* you." Well, this is enough rambling for one post. Thoughts, anyone? Sincerely, David Eisenstein