This is common sense for many who have posted online for a few years. Still, it is disturbing to see someone from either side of a political debate advocating, and being unapologetic, about "trolling" and tactically disrupting online discussions.
Republicans and their loony disciples keep stooping to new lows for a cheap political gain..
You can see what I'm talking about in this RedState article.
(I don't like visiting RedState, but someone on a Facebook page found this after we had to close off a Facebook event to fend off a barrage of trolls. Ugh!)
Here's the "strategy" that this is proposing (does any of this sound familiar to you?)
First, infiltratethe site. For this, you will have to avoid creating screen names like “GoPalinGo” or “Heartlandredstater.” Also, some websites may actually have you wait a week before you are allowed to comment or blog. Perhaps, they are investigating the e-mail address you give them against whether it is used for a conservative website. Be sure to avoid that tendency; if you use, for example, aol.com screen name for RedState, make sure you use a yahoo e-mail address for Dailykos, or whatever.
Once you are there, the second part of the strategy is to gain their trust. For this, you cannot be too overtly gung-ho conservative in your outlook. Instead, you sort of have to be the voice of a moderate liberal. This will take a lot of acting skill, but it could be done.
The third step is to move the conversation in the direction you desire. By doing this, you can then form the debate in terms you can win. For example, in the above story, although I said they were going too far in their comments, I moved the conversation somewhat by questioning whether the folks in Alabama would accept Federal funds to rebuild their lives. In other words, the subject was changed from a debate on global warming to one of fiscal responsibility. Once there, you can then highjack the thread. In effect, you have changed the subject and tenor or the conversation and the writer of the original post has lost their ability to moderate the conversation and that creates a free-for-all that gets the conversation far off the original mark.
Do you know what this is? A textbook definition of a
troll. Of course, for conservatives integrity is not a concern:
Of course, you will be accused of “threadjacking” or, worse (drumrolls please…) being a “troll.” To this I say, of course you are a troll and you should be proud of it. Embrace your status of being a “troll” on the liberal website and carry it through to its logical conclusion. To put it bluntly: Embrace your inner troll. If they realize what is happening and accuse you of being a troll or such, or if they try to block you and your opinions, remind them of their support for the Fairness Doctrine and their reasoning for it- to ensure that both sides have a say- should allow you to have your say. Force them to practice what they preach.
BTW, The "Fairness Doctrine" has nothing to do with letting trolls run rampant all over a website. How is it "fair" to let a discussion be deliberately taken off track, disrupted, and get people offended or upset? That seems less-than-fair to just let the people who want to have a legitimate, peaceful conversation have their threads stifled because of some troll posts. When a troll floods a thread or forum, the legitimate users' rights to post are lost through harassment and browbeating. That doesn't sound fair to me!
At least they admit that they are acting like spoiled children:
Yes, this seems childish, but there is a certain amount of self-satisfaction in being a child again.
PS: Yes, this Redstate article is a year old. Still, I think it is more relevant than ever right now, seeing how conservative trolls have been trying to stifle all positive LGBT discussions online since the Chick-Fil-A boycott & protests started.