A Troll's Approach to 'Discussion'

Troll
Troll Computer Wallpaper

In a recent defense of free speech - "Yes, we have the right to insult!" - I made the following remarks urging solidarity with Charlie Hebdo against the Islamists who would limit our freedom to express ourselves:

That's why today I say, "Je suis Charlie," and I call upon everyone, especially all Westerners, to stand up in solidarity and express these words of identification: "I am Charlie."

Be brave. Speak out. Stand firm. The terrorists cannot kill us all.

In response came these words from an anonymous commenter:

disingenous rhetoric is no less disingenuous accompanied by a veneer of (in no way unjustified) indignation

Was this individual addressing me and my choice of wording? Was my 'rhetoric' dishonest? Was my 'indignation', though not 'unjustified,' diminished to mere 'veneer' on my 'disengenuous' 'rhetoric'? This ill-mannered manner of initial confrontation is what my friend Kevin Kim identifies as the first indication that one is dealing with a troll:

Trolls begin conversations in a posture of attack, which is one way to know they are trolls.

My anonymous troll thus began with an attack on my honesty, and I called the troll on it:

If anonymous meant that I am the disingenuous one, then that's hardly the way to initiate a discussion - starting off with an ad hominem attack calling me a liar.

The troll attempted a fine distinction:

what was called disingenuous was the rhetoric,, one's style of composition is hardly identical with one's own intentions

Unfortunately for the troll, that distinction doesn't work in this case, for I meant what I said, and the troll - being no one's fool - knew this fact quite well. The troll certainly knew that calling my "indignation" merely a "veneer" was insulting and that calling my "rhetoric" simply "disingenuous" was equally - if not more - insulting.

Thus the method of a troll: attack, deny; attack, deny; attack, deny . . .