Saturday, October 15, 2016

Do Internet Trolls Have a Thing For Donald Trump?

One of the most unpleasant and tedious aspects of maintaining a blog is the bouts of the dreaded troll virus. There's usually a flair up when some particular issue surfaces that seems to resonate with the troll culture. Donald Trump is a case in point.

The trolls show up, hurl abuse (I guess they can't fling their pooh on the internet, must be frustrating) and then cast aspersions on Hillary, often on the blogger and other commenters as well, never responding when challenged to back up their claims.

I began to wonder why this apparent bond between these trolls and Donald Trump. I remembered, vaguely, a report I had glanced at some time ago, a psychological study of internet trolls. A bit of Googling and I found it, a report published in Psychology Today in September, 2014, "Internet Trolls are Narcissists, Psychopaths and Sadists." It seems they're "prototypical, everyday sadists."

Geez, that sounds a little bit like a candidate now running for the presidency of the United States of America. Is there some natural bond between these trolls and Trump based on their common behavioural disorders? Are they compelled to run to the defence of one of their own? I'm guessing when they look at Trump they do, indeed, see a lot of themselves.


Anonymous said...

Well Mound, it would seem the facile thing to call someone a troll just because they have a different point of view than yours.

Some people don't like facts and those that post them get shouted down.
You were a begrudging admire of Trudeau in the beginning of his mandate, only to see you sour lately. And that is when you have seen his defenders come here. It could be justified that Harper Lite is better than Harper...

You used to decry the lack of debate, progressiveness, democracy and the emergence of what amounts to a blending of all political parties into the same homogenous mass with the near same policies. Heck, even May is looking quite "the same" lately.

In the US, you have Trump who is clearly anti-establishment ( the Republicans though he would loose the nomination ), is abrasive, and likely believes his own lies. As with all populist candidates, some of what he spews is bound to resonate. Sure he is abrasive but that lack of polish could be seen as being honest.

Then you have Clinton who, if one is to believe her supporters, should be up for sainthood. Wikileaks has show her to be a liar, but her defenders will call her agile.
She was supposed to be this great feminist but given how she has basically covered up for her sexual predator of a husband, is she really more virtuous than Trump?

The only real troll that I have felt, if we go by the definition of your article, was around the time that you described your father and his pain. It was touching, and I'm sure, affected many that were reading in ways that you will never know.

Troy said...

Haters gonna hate. It's scientifically proven.

And Trump's really tapped into that. A can of worms was opened up, and it's gonna take a long time to close. It could and probably will continue getting worse.

What's worse is the Democrats aren't offering real solutions. It'll be more of the same for at least the next four years, although if Trump somehow wins (which I fear deep in my heart could happen because Hilary Clinton's the sort of loser who could easily pull defeat out of the jaws of victory), than the shit could hit the fan almost immediately.

I'd read a Cracked article the other day, which spoke of why there's so much support for Trump.

He doesn't actually offer any real solutions for these people, but what he is, is important to his supporters. He's a 'brick through the window' of the current elites.

There may be more bricks to come, too, when it comes down to it. Smarter people than Trump are out there, who wouldn't hesitate to tap into the same anger he has. And they may be better people, too, but with the same odious instincts.

The Mound of Sound said...

No, Anon, you miss my point entirely. It's so hard to tell one Anon from the next but that's what anonymity invites. I readily accept a difference of opinion, always have provided it's informed opinion and not just something pulled out of someone's ass that's contrary to all known facts. The trolls I reference are the gratuitously nasty swine, the true "internet trolls" that, of late, have blossomed. There is a rampant misogyny that runs through this bunch plus a very 30-ish fondness for taking points out of context, in isolation.

Be respectful, be thoughtful, and you'll have no problem with me. The trolls we've been getting around here lately are neither.

The Mound of Sound said...

One other thing you should consider, Anon, is that it's an easy setting change to simply disable anonymous comments. I thought of that, a number of years ago, but I realized there were those who had legitimate cause to require anonymity. That's why I chose not to block them. However it's also a device exploited by some real shits, the type referenced in the study. Ordinarily they lay low. It's only when something of the order of Trump comes up that they turn into an infestation.

Anonymous said...

Take a read of this

Anonymous said...

The Mound looks the other way on a mountain of easily-researched evidence of bribe-taking corruption among the Clintons which has netted them over $100-million direct into their bank accounts.

The Clintons have taken money from Wall Street, the private prison industry, the military industrial complex, Big Oil fracking, etc. and have done their bidding while in government. It's infantile to believe all these corp execs are paying millions to listen to Hill and Bill flap their gums.

This corruption has led to military interventions causing thousands of civilian deaths and a financial web of fraud that cost taxpayers and investors trillions of dollars tanking the economy in the process.

The Mound is taking the absurdly sanctimonious position that looking the other way on corruption (that could very well threaten the survival of civilization) is virtuous. Just another empty-calorie liberal.

If Trump wins we get a New Deal in 2020. (The president is 1/3rd the government. Trump wouldn't be the first imbecile in office. Reagan and Bush Jr. beat him to the punch.)

If the bribe-taking Empty Husk wins, the New Deal gets put off by probably 8 years. By that time the eurozone will have collapsed into fascist revolutions; or another global financial meltdown does the same; or the economy falls into a deflationary death spiral easy money won't do jack shit to stop; or Hillary plays chicken with Putin unleashing some fresh hell on the world. HILLARY IS IN THE WAY. (Just like the Baby Boomers.)

Owen Gray said...

Empty barrels make the most noise.

Anonymous said...

The Mound is taking the absurdly sanctimonious position that looking the other way on corruption (that could very well threaten the survival of civilization) is virtuous. Just another empty-calorie liberal.

In a way, part of what you say is what has irked me about Mound lately - but his position has been explained.
In a way, I remember that with Harper, people would disagree with his position except on one point and that would be enough for them to be swayed.

Clinton is a terrible candidate but a polished turd that seems palatable either by ignorance or partisanship. In fact, she is what Mound has been decrying on this blog for months.

Trump, at lease seems to be fighting the establishment.

To me, it just shows how humans are stupid.

rww said...

It is interesting that at least 50% ff trolls have the same name.

Gyor said...

Or by realizing Trump is even worse. Both choices suck, but sometimes you just have to pick the least objectionable choice.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that when you try to debate ideas, there is always an assmonkey that decries those with the name "anon".

I care deeply about leaving as few traces as possible.
Privacy is becoming such a rare commodity and we are being conditioned to freely give it away.

@Gyor, you are certainly correct.

Dana said...

The Mound of Sound said...

@ Anon 3:08 - another disparaging comment. You really can't help yourself. Dana has provided a link to a Washington Post story that pretty much dismantles your arguments.

There's an old and wise rule that "he who propounds must prove." You're making the same allegations, again and again, and expecting someone else, in this case me, to prove your case. That's your job. You put it out there, offer your proof. But make sure it's proof, something probative and convincing, not just another of your drive-by smears. Memes such as those you cling to are usually boring and almost always empty. It's about as meaningful as someone writing that Donald Trump drinks a pint of baby's blood every morning.

And, please, realize that, while you're free to post here anonymously, that's your choice and it means you don't get the benefit of any doubt. You make a statement, back it up. Otherwise you're just another anonymous voice on the internet.

Dana said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dana said...

And here's Matt Taibbi at his finest. Warning: many words - not for the lexically intolerant.

Dana said...

Aw jeez...more coffee.

Anonymous said...

@Dana, so you don't like Trump.

Is Clinton any less vile? Is she really an alternative?

I'd say she is worse because she is more sly.

The Mound of Sound said...

Yes, Anon, she is "less vile." She's not a misogynist, racist, all round bigot, pathological liar, serial sexual predator. Provided you're not also all those things that means you too are less vile than Donald Trump. Congratulations.

She's not my choice either but my choice won't be in the running on November 8. My choice won't become president. One of these two will. One of these two will fill at least four vacancies on the US Supreme Court. One of these two will be given America's nuclear codes.

You like some things Trump has said, believing he will do the things you support. You don't like other things he's said, believing that, if you don't like them, he won't do them. You've become a mental contortionist. You take this bit, omit that bit, and that bit, and that bit; take this bit, omit that bit and that bit and that other bit, and then you think, by erasing everything you don't like, that you have a handle on what this deviant is really all about.

Dana said...

For thirty years the American right has been spreading infamy about this woman. There has never been a shred of evidence presented to a court of law because there are no prosecutors willing to take the whack job theories and innuendo before a judge. They all know they stand no chance and would quite possibly expose themselves to action from the DOJ and ABA for bringing false charges.

Trump's history of scandal, fraud, bigotry and malfeasance doesn't appear to register with you as being as severe. Even though he's been brought before many judges and been found guilty of various things over the years. As compared to Clinton who has never been found guilty of anything at all.

Yet here you are, spewing the same shit the American right has been chanting for thirty years and yet somehow trying to pretend that you are not a creature of the bigoted, misogynistic assholes but rather you are principled, knowledgeable and righteous.

You're either profoundly stupid and a naive dupe.

Or you're just another asshole. There's no middle ground here.

You choose.

The Mound of Sound said...

Hi, Dana. Thanks for the Taibbi link. Very well stated argument.

Dana said...

And in case you're curious about the Trumpet: