Don't Feed the Trolls!

It is both a written rule of the internet and a lesson that every user must learn on his or her own: do not feed the trolls. These "trolls" being the people who take to the internet in hopes of intentionally agitating the people they come into contact with through the use of inflammatory arguments, politically incorrect language, or just a complete lack of logic. Being raised in an internet-wary world, I have long since learned to overlook the arguments of people trying simply to get under my skin. It wasn’t until I was reading Serkan Gorkemli’s “This is a Redneck Argument!” that I actually considered how I might have to handle the situation if a troll, or really anyone I strongly disagree with, wrote a paper that I had to do a consultation on – especially if that paper offended me.

I’m a highly opinionated person at times. I try to keep an open mind about the arguments people present to me and I try to remain academically neutral, even when personally or politically opposed. It hadn’t really occurred to me, though, that I might be faced with a paper, potentially written simply to shock (to “troll”), that I could not choose to just ignore.

In this case, choosing to confront the writer can be as much a mistake as confronting the common internet troll. While trolls feed on the confrontation and thrive from the tension and irritation they cause, confronting a writer about a potentially offensive paper could have an even worse consequence: offending the writer.

I guess the important thing for a consultant in this situation would be to remain neutral and focus on other issues identified in the paper, but also to note that the argument made could offend someone. The advisor in Gorkemli’s article suggests counterpoints and a need for evidence on several of the writer’s generalizations, and that seems like the only role the consultant really can take: to remind the writer that claims need evidence and to try to use the need for evidence to get them to consider other points and claims. If the writer manages to support their claims with evidence and recognizes the risk that comes with writing a potentially offensive paper, yet still chooses to continue with the argument, there doesn’t seem to be anything else the consultant can do.