
Why Haters Hate: Kierkegaard Explains the Psychology of Trolling in 1847 - DyslexicAtheist
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/10/13/kierkegaard-diary-bullying-trolling-haters/
======
ythl
I troll a lot, and this doesn't describe me at all. For me, it's simple - I
like eliciting reactions out of people. I like saying controversial things to
see if someone will get upset or offended. It's fun. Same reason I liked to
tease my siblings when I was younger. For some reason manipulating people into
losing control of their emotions is very entertaining.

~~~
kordless
> I like saying controversial things to see if someone will get upset or
> offended.

It's unfortunate this brings selfish joy at the cost of other's suffering, all
without external attempt to solve the dissonance behind the disagreement.

~~~
lsh
Why unfortunate? this sort of 'suffering' is minimal and if a person saying
controversial things causes upset, then they can grow thicker skin, troll back
or find different company.

~~~
kordless
> Why unfortunate?

This is a leading question. Leading questions are obvious when the question
they ask cannot be answered with a simple statement. Leading questions are a
sign of dissonance and should never be answered, unless one desires the
dissonance for themselves. Dissonance itself creates suffering, which is an
inefficient process that attempts to resolve the dissonance in a way that
causes the holder the least amount of suffering in the near term. "Thicker
skin" is simple a reference to burying dissonance. "Troll back" is a reference
to spreading the dissonance to others. "Finding different company" is
impossible as the Internet now connects all of us. Better buckle up.

It's been my experience people will rationalize being an asshole until they
start accepting themselves for who they really are. What _is_ fun is to see
someone solve that dissonance on their own and realize the truth that willful
suffering is more efficient than offloading your suffering to someone else.

~~~
RGamma
A question is not a leading/suggestive question just because it "leads the
comment". Parent was merely picking up the grandparent's main claim
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question)
also doesn't define the term by whether it can be answered plainly or not
either).

That said "something being unfortunate" is a very subjective thing connected
to personal morals. Intuitively I don't have much empathy for "victims" of
(not outright criminal (by which I mean heavy scamming and the sort)) trolling
either, it's the natural rule of this place. You'll get bitten by it a couple
of times and move on. Nothing to see here.

~~~
kordless
> A question is not a leading/suggestive question just because it "leads the
> comment"

That's a highly conflicted argument which I do not accept.

------
panste
That part with the "casual remark" is something that I experienced myself. In
middle school I was bullied by a neighbour of mine. The weird part was that on
some days he was really nice to me and he acted like he was a good friend of
mine and on some days he was a total dick. I learned that when I approached
him in the morning and talked to him (about homework, video games, whatever)
he was nice to me the whole day, when I had nothing to do with him he became
mean and started bullying.

------
M_Grey
That explains very little of the most common form of trolling, in which the
target of the abuse is every bit as obscure as the abuser.

------
bsenftner
The writer needs to know Kierkegaard better to be writing such articles. That
was a puff of air. Whereas Kierkegaard is more like a rock against your head,
smarting with pain.

~~~
M_Grey
I'm curious, what aspect of this do you think missed the points which
Kierkegaard tried to make? I'm not sure that I understand your metaphor and
analogy.

------
Pica_soO
Its the certainty with which some people express there opinion as absolute
reality, dogmatism and fanaticism, that attracts the trolls.

If you would take a look at the "victims" you often discover that a meaningful
exchange of arguments wouldn't have been possible in the first place. If
someone runs with the -ism crowd, has his eyes opened by using the ideologys
inherent errors or has otherwise encapsulated himself in his own little
information cyst, any disturbance from the outside will be a troll. If you
dislike the troll, you just can starve him, by being reasonable, emotionless
and calm.

If you demand special protection rights for your opinions, and are unwilling
to rebut attacks with good arguments you disserve to be trolled else you could
damage the public.

~~~
rustynails
That creates a difficult balance. I agree with everything you said (except he
instead of they). Where we are let down with that approach is if businesses,
media or government don't take responsibility to manage prejudice and
bullying. Imagine being Jewish in Germany just before WWII.

Now my argument may sound like political correctness, but it's not for a few
reasons. You avoid prejudice by avoiding topics of gender, race, etc. You
ensure people have the opportunity, which doesn't guarantee an outcome. You
don't need equal numbers, just don't alienate. These 3 things encapsulate my
beliefs and are the antithesis of political correctness.

So, you are right in that individuals should have the right to their views and
should expect them to be challenged. Also recognise that Facebook and co will
magnetise these marginalisers to each other, giving them a collective voice
which can easily turn into a mob (as it often does). If you don't have
responsible leadership (and we don't), these mobs become vicious and
destructive. Compound this with political correctness and you have a toxic,
self righteous and highly prejudiced mob of hate and bullying!

With policies of both US candidates being so openly prejudiced (eg. Trump on
Mexicans, Clinton on her gender card), the future for more hate and bullying
looks certain.

~~~
pavlov
_... both US candidates being so openly prejudiced (eg. Trump on Mexicans,
Clinton on her gender card) ..._

From a European perspective it's hard for me to understand this. It seems like
a textbook case of false equivalence.

I watched the last debate. Trump talked about "very bad hombres". If Clinton
were equally prejudiced against men, I'd expect her to have said something
like "men are selfish shitbags". Of course she said nothing of the sort.

How do you see Clinton playing the gender card? On the abortion question, she
talked reasonably about the difficult situations that women face, while Trump
was yelling about "ripping babies out of the womb one day before birth". The
rhetoric of the two is so different, I just can't see why you equate them as
hateful bullies.

~~~
dom0
> From a European perspective it's hard for me to understand this.

From a (my) European perspective it's hard for me to understand _any_ of the
Trump/Clinton ... thing.

------
mangeletti
It actually seems that Søren may have been tripping over his own ego while
falling prey to a false consensus of his own shortcomings. Perhaps, he was
just socially awkward. That's not such a bad thing, once you admit it to
yourself.

He referred to his community as "petty". This is much like somebody who
disagrees with what other are saying (e.g., in an online forum like this), and
thus dismisses the community as a group of idiots, rather than using the
disagreement as an opportunity for introspection.

~~~
trestles
honestly, since this is in translation, a word like "petty" raises numerous
issues for negative connotations that might not be in original.

------
kordless
"Hating" is a strange thing. It's the trustless communication by an
individual, or group of individuals, JUDGING another individual or group in a
way that SPEAKS for the other individual or group. For example, if I was
telling Alice a story about Bob, and I were to say something like "Bob doesn't
know how he feels, he is sad most of the time and everyone here hates him for
it" then I would be blaming Bob for not knowing how he feels, rationalizing my
own thoughts about how he feels (sad) and then presenting "his" emotions as a
shared truth for Alice and others that would listen. As long as I did that in
a way that corroborates other's external observations of Bob nobody will know
any different, other than Bob of course.

Haters use simplified terms, leading questions, "thoughts of others" and
visualization seeds to transmit their internal blaming views onto others.
Those seeds are then propagated by those who don't know these recursive
thoughts are dangerous to play with, as they lead to increasing blame,
judgement and speaking for larger groups over time. I say "dangerous" here,
but what I really mean is "increasingly inefficient" given everyone involved
in the hate has to start rendering future realities that don't exist. ISIS,
for example, does this quite well using Armageddon (a foregone conclusion) as
their excuse to be involved in massive suffering. Gandhi observed that our
thoughts become our words, our words become our actions, our actions become
our character, our character becomes our destiny. Causality happens somewhere
in there, even if we don't want to admit it.

If we choose to judge and speak for others, the expectation is that others
will continue to increasingly judge and speak for us. Or as Erlich put it best
: _" Richard, if you're not an asshole, it creates this kind of asshole
vacuum, and that void is filled by other assholes, like Jared. I mean, you
almost gave him shares. You need to completely change who you are, Richard. A
complete Teutonic shift has to happen."_

~~~
zc75
Tectonic?

------
Swizec
There is also another form of trolling, common on the internet: the person is
bored and looking for entertainment.

Or my favorite form of trolling where I merely use the thing I am commenting
on as a sort of plot device, a writing and thought prompt even, that helps me
think through a thing. Like right now. This comment is more for me than it is
for anyone else, it lightly disagrees with the OP, perhaps even trolls, but
it's not for OP, it's for me.

The upvotes and downvotes then help tune me to the community and/or society.
Yes, I troll like this IRL as well. Just say something outrageous, see what
happens. The resulting debates are often great fun and tell you a lot about
the people around you.

------
ddrum001
Is this post equating trolling with bullying?

------
mentos
I'm pretty sure there are videos on YouTube of chimpanzees playing with tigers
in the forest. Swinging down from trees just to smack them over the head and
back up into cover...

------
rustynails
I don't think this article adequately captures the problem. I'll try to
illustrate.

I explained to my children about the 2 US candidates. I described both of them
as bullies and said they promote a culture of bullying. We discussed how they
set a bad example for the broader community and how media condones this
behaviour.

I was picking up my children from school when one young boy called me by my
first name in a mocking tone. I approached him and asked how his day was and
took a moment to ask about him. When I now see this boy, he goes out of his
way to say hello.

I recently went to a computer club open day. The rules were "we will only
allow the same number of boys in as girls". I looked around and saw about 20
boys and 1 girl. I went to this girl and her mother and said "good on you for
giving it a go, a variety of experiences is essential to helping you find your
true self". The mother went on a sexist rant about patriarchal societies (the
usual politically correct thinking) and I said "why would you deny any child
the opportunity? Why would you force the same numbers of girls and boys?
What's gone wrong in such basic thinking?" She stopped the hardcore feminist
routine and apologised. She was big enough to say "no one has ever put it like
that, that really makes sense".

The problem with hate is that the Internet has given it a collective voice of
monumental proportions. Our community leaders have let us down by selectively
promoting prejudice (eg. Emma Watson is glorified for hypocrisy) while
aggressively condemning others, especially passive people like Matt Taylor.
What's worse is that most people don't recognise hate and bullying when they
see it, or they are apathetic to it.

My simple rule: if someone promotes one group over another, they are as bad as
someone who excludes or vilifies a group (especially politically correct
people who are huge bullies). These people who marginalise are the true haters
and bullies. The article really misses the breadth of hate and bullying.

Thought for the day. Do a search on breast cancer websites. How many of these
sites do you think alienate men who suffer from the condition? Why do you
think many of these sites quote percentages of male victims?

~~~
gizmo
Why do you think feminists like Emma Watson glorify prejudice? She does no
such thing. To the contrary: she is painfully nice to everybody.

Why do you equate the meanness of Trump and Clinton? In what world are their
personal faults comparable? Donald Trump is petty and vindictive to an unusual
degree. Clinton is a normal politician.

You cannot change society without criticizing it. Social justice activists
spend a lot of time pointing out injustice in society, in the hope to persuade
people to become less discriminatory. This doesn't make them mean or bullies.
The problem is that any time sexist, racist or otherwise nasty behavior is
pointed out people tend to get angry, and they want to lash out at person who
criticized their behavior instead of reflecting on the merits of the
accusation.

It's embarrassing to see your post at the top of this thread. And people
wonder why there aren't more women and minorities in tech...

~~~
mafribe

       nasty behavior is pointed out
    

This trivialises the discussion because there is _no_ agreement on what is
sexist, racist or otherwise nasty behaviour. For example a certain form of
radical feminist thinks all heterosexual intercourse is rape. Plenty of people
think affirmative action is racist.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, the communist tradition has murdered
millions of people in the name of social justice. And older people who still
remember the communists often can't help but see that eerie similarities ...

~~~
gizmo
The parallel you draw to communist purges is illogical. When you look at
historical conflicts all parties think their actions are righteous, no matter
where they fall on the political spectrum. Purges are justified (rationalized)
by the need to solidify power for the greater good. In other words: it's about
expedience. It doesn't matter whether the purges are committed by communists,
fascists, or religious zealots.

~~~
mafribe
A lot of contemporary SJWism follows Leninist, Trotskyite and Gramscian
scripts. The boots on the grounds don't realise this, they are young and
naive, but their leaders know exactly what they are doing.

------
whack
_Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer._

The idea of constantly surrounding myself with enemies sounds nightmarish, but
I can understand why it works.

~~~
wott
It ain't bad if you can take a breath sometimes. Enemies do not betray you,
unlike friends.

------
swayvil
An extremely gentle moderately chummy word to break the ice. I'll try that.

I'm assuming that I haven't tried that. I may have. I seem to recall the troll
taking even that as an opportunity to lunge for my soft spots, but I could be
mistaken.

------
throw2016
Trolls are sociopaths. As long as they can get some satisfaction or happiness
for themselves they don't really care about other people who are reduced to
objects of amusement.

Try to impress on them the concept of other people and out will come a litany
of excuses that seek to dehumanise their targets and paint themselves as self
appointed arbiters of fanatism, intolerance or 'holders of valid opinions'.

Are other people triggered by trolls or is it the trolls who are triggered
merely by others holding opinions they don't agree with?

The dissonance does not even register, because that requires self awareness,
self examination and empathy.

There is a context for humour, comedy, satire and deception that outside the
context can quickly become cruelty and reflect some sort of sadism in taking
pleasure in others pain.

------
chinese_dan
'Trolling' has changed definitions over the years. It used to mean someone
that intentionally stirs things up to make people angry, even though they
don't actually believe what they are posting/saying.

Now, it's used to classify anyone that has an opinion other than the current
liberal narrative and has the purpose of silencing all opposing viewpoints.
Once a person is considered a 'troll', all horrible and inhuman behavior
against that person is acceptable and even encouraged.

Edit: haha, I guess we aren't open to any discussions here on HN?

~~~
qb45
Not only liberal, nowadays trolling is any behavior you dislike on the
Internet. Having weird opinions, harassment and death threats, shilling, spam
- I've seen each of these being called trolling by noobs.

~~~
misnome
> noobs

And thus the cycle continues.

~~~
qb45
Heh, you think I'm trolling noobs by calling them noobs? It wasn't my
intention and I think people here don't react to this to begin with.

------
known
Rejection can dramatically reduce a person’s IQ and their ability to reason
analytically, while increasing their aggression
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2051-rejection-
massiv...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2051-rejection-massively-
reduces-iq/)

------
losteverything
The pic looks like the $20 US note of Andrew Jackson.

------
PeterWhittaker
tl;dr: It is the only way the troll can participate in the
greatness/fame/notoriety (as the case may be) of the trollee.

FWIW, YMMV.

------
nsaslideface
I feel this article tries to make plain-old masculinity interesting and
complex, but it just isn't. Bullying exists on a spectrum of violence. There
is no reason to assume there must be a categorical separation between
verbal/text-based bullying and physical aggression. Internet bullying
(trolling, whatever, we all know what is being discussed without having to
argue semantics) is a manifestation of masculinity, no different from how
boys/men bully in person. It's another sort of male violence, socialized in
young boys by their slightly older peers and the adult world (something I
observed as a boy, growing up). Young girls also bully, but the
objectification of human beings is more alien to teenage girls than boys, and
I think this explains why women tend to "troll" less, meaning, they tend less
to see fellow human beings as toys.

If learned trolling starts early in life, the most efficient strategy to
defeat trolls permanently is to donate to organizations with explicit stances
against the socialization of masculinity in boys (Feminist Current, Stop
Patriarchy, WoLF, etc.)

