Not everyone who disrupts a thread with questions that derail rather than further discussion means to be disruptive, but most feminist blogs soon learn that many disruptive posters are simply throwing anti-feminist monkey wrenches around: they have no genuine interest in substantive debate, they just want to bury the forum in sidetracks because the discusssions make them uncomfortable (that’s why they have to let us all know how irrelevant and passe feminism has become!). It’s worth reflecting on how to distinguish between the sincerely curious and the saboteurs, and how to deal with the vexatious disrupters without making comments threads such hostile places that other readers are repelled or intimidated.
A couple of good posts written a while ago:
Thinking Girl: Feminism Friday – anti-feminist trolling and responses to such
Ladyfest Romania: Dealing with Trolls (a round-up of links about coping with deliberate trolls)
I also highly recommend Roy’s recent post about one particular kind of derailing behavior, the “What About the Menz?!” type.
I have this post that explains my aggressive moderation policy: Moderation and Free Discussion
Basically, I engage with people who I think are sincere but clueless as long as they stay within my discussion rules and I think that the conversation is going somewhere. If they keep saying the same things over and over again, I tell them to go get better informed on the issue because I won’t be publishing anything else that rehashes their argument. Usually they try to post one more time and then go away — either temporarily or permanently.
My personal feelings is that useful discussions aren’t fostered by constantly addressing the same basic sexist (racist, transphobic, etc) arguments that people who are excusing privilege put out. There’s only so much educating I want to do, and I make no secret that, for the most part, my blog is not a “beginner” blog. I’m a little more lenient on posts that are specifically targeted towards people not in anti-oppression movements, but even then I have a limit.
I’ve gotten some shit for it, but ultimately I get very few trolls and there’s been (in my opinion) a lot of constructive conversation that happens on my blog.
The Catholic apologist Mark Shea makes a useful distinction between two types of questioners: “hiders” and “seekers.” The latter are genuinely asking questions because they want to understand the answers; the former are seeking to disrupt and to obscure the topic. I find this distinction quite useful.
Here is a great example of troll-wrangling I’ve just found.
The troll wrangler is the great Sir Henry Casingbroke of LP.
Here’s the troll:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/10/31/blessed-are-the-pure-at-heart/#comment-415835
Here’s Sir Henry’s response:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/10/31/blessed-are-the-pure-at-heart/#comment-415865
Indeed, Helen, taking a troll’s arguments to the ridiculous extreme as a parody works very well at times, particularly when done so nicely in this Swiftian fashion.
(For those not up to date on the current Australian electoral politics scene, Abbott and Roxon are potential Federal Ministers of portfolio in the next government, and the quoted excerpts detail their current PR jousting efforts)
[...] part of this amazing screed that seems particularly relevant to FF101, and posted on a thread about anti-troll tactics? A slightly different take on gender essentialism. Any tactic/temptation that is targetted[sic] to [...]