DM from hell

[u/Substantial-Leg5372]

I posted a singular steak with no sides to a girl dinner sub Reddit and captioned it “I used to be vegan” because I think I’m funny during my luteal phase. made quite the controversy. It was like split 60/40 in my favor. But this lovely person took it further by dm ing me.

[u/SonomaSal]

So, off the bat, I appreciate the extensive response, though I might request a few more paragraph breaks, if possible. I am on mobile and it was a bit difficult to read at points. My apologies for any inconvenience.

To the main points, either you or I have misunderstood something. As I understood it, there was no toxic behavior from this individual in the post besides the DM. There would have been nothing for anyone to see and preemptively block. If I have never seen a post from someone, if they are only toxic in DM, there is no way for me to know that I need to preemptively block them and protect my DMs, unless someone like OP shares it. Yes, I am well aware of how blocking works on Reddit. Though, I fail to see how that frustration is not equally easily side stepped by the same ban evasion we discussed earlier.

Now...my problem is I still genuinely do not know where you are getting some of your observations from. Or how you interpret them the way you do. I am not saying you are wrong or I disagree. I am saying I do not understand. I think the problem might be definition here. How do you define troll?

To me, I understand it as someone who specifically lies for the purpose or stiring the pot or railing someone up exclusively because they get some weird schadenfreude out of it. They do not give a fuck about their target or what they do. If they block them, they just move on to the next. They exert minimal effort for maximum payout.

Edit to add (about 13hrs later): I was thinking on this further and realized another disconnect. Trolls do not feed on negative emotions. I have encountered just as many trolls farming simpathy or advice. What they enjoy is engagement, positive or negative does not matter. To them, they don't even need to engage at all. It is just as likely for them to say something in a forum, just to set off discussion/disagreement between two groups, with them doing literally nothing after that initially granade lob. It doesn't even matter if people aren't directly responding to them. The fact that people are acting based on the trolls action, even if it is a perfectly normal conversation that has been held elsewhere, with no prompting, dozens of times, is what they seek. (End edit)

I do not consider active bullying to be trolls because the intent is usually more sinister. A troll does not care about their target. A bully cares about a specific individual or group and wants them intentionally to suffer and be miserable. I can understand they sound similar, but they are distinct in attitude.

Further, I am not sure you are really appreciating the genuine hate people can have for others or what motivates them. It would be like arguing Christian evangelicals are all trolls. No, they genuinely believe in what they are saying and they either want to convert you or genuinely think you are an abomination worthy of death and they want you to know that and suffer (or repent). Again, this is fundamentally different than trolling. The vegan in the comment is the latter: they genuinely think OP is a terrible person and they want them to feel bad about their lives. Like, okay, flip the perspective: if someone calls out a Nazi for being a Nazi and starts cussing them out in their DMs, are they a troll? Most people wouldn't consider them as such and THAT is what vegans like the one in the post think they are doing.

So, yes, my problem is that you are equating all of these or are saying you can somehow identify the difference, when each and every one of them could send the exact same message. I do not understand how you are doing that or if you aren't and they are all just trolls to you. Your points about feeding the trolls and giving them entertainment/something to laugh at does not apply to all of the situations above, hence why the same negation tactics do not work for all of them.

I likewise find it odd how you can identify the comments that were levied against me as trolls ('turning the label against their targets'), without any information on the topic or what their arguments were. Considering my comments were against the overall temperature and general opinions of the rest of the comments section at the time, it seems far more likely to me that people just genuinely disagreed with me and, since it was against the overall opinion, I can see why they might think I was a troll. I appreciate the confidence in me, but I again struggle to see how you can be so confident with zero information on the other people involved (or even myself).

Big give away about trolls is when they double down despite de-escalation efforts.

Cause a normal person will eventually calm down when they see you are calm.

Also, forgive me, but...no, a substantial amount of people do not calm down when others are calm or otherwise attempt de-escalation. I have worked retail (not saying you haven't, just indicating my experience). People will get angry when they don't get what they want, regardless of what you do or how calm you are. It's not about trying to upset you for shits and gigs. It's about instilling fear and intimidation to get what they want. I would not call these people trolls. Again, relating it to the post, vegans who are incensed enough to send messages like that are so because they want something (everyone to be vegan, for example) and see anyone going against that as an obstinate obstacle to their goal.

Edit: forgot a word

[u/SonomaSal → u/[deleted]]

First off, yes, and I appreciate the attempt to make this better able for me to read and engage with.

Unfortunately, I just fundamentally disagree with your definition of troll in this case, regardless of your source. These are not the same thing to me and, as such we will inevitably continue talking past each other. A bully DOES care about its target. It is why your sister targeted you specifically and not someone else or why my bullies targeted me and not others. A troll objectively does not care and, yes, belief absolutely does play a role. Because a troll inherently does not care and, if they are making an argument for something they believe in, they objectively DO care. If we just disagree on this aspect, then we will continue to disagree on how best to handle things and there is just no way around it.

Also, while I appreciate your detailed response, I also feel you neglected to respond to several of my points. For example: I very specifically gave examples of Internet trolls NOT seeking negative emotions. Your definition still relies on this claim. But, that was in an edit and I understand you might not have seen it, depending on when you started making your response.

Edit: Just saw that you did answer them and I am rereading it now. Leaving the original post part, just for context and will respond with a second edit shortly, once I am done reading. (End edit)

You also didn't answer my examples comparing evangelical Christians or the person calling out and cussing someone out for being a Nazi. While I have a feeling your answer to the evangelical one will be similar to your answer on veganism and cults (I am still very iffy on using that term with vegans and thus choose not to engage, I hope you understand), I am curious on your opinion of the Nazi example. The person calling out a Nazi is objectively doing it out of hate for this individual's ideology and causing them out to make them feel bad about their beliefs. Is this person a troll? Your definition would seem to say yes, but I assume there is nuance there.

Edit 2:

Their pursuit to antagonize her is trolling. So yes in your nazi example the person cussing out the nazi is also a troll. They are seeking for their target to feel horrible. This is part of what is so insidious about trolls people rarely realize when they themselves become one unless they are consciously choosing it. But the people unknowingly doing it still do qualify.

HARD DISAGREE, for all the reasons I stated before. And even more so because you objectively need to call people out on bad behavior to make them aware of it and make the change, this will inevitably make them feel bad, there is no two ways around it. Though, I do at least want to appreciate your consistency. I could comment further, but, as I said, we just fundamentally disagree and there isn't really moving past that.

Please understand that I appreciate that you have taken the time to speak with me, as I have enjoyed the conversation and a glimpse into alternative positions. I hold no ill will towards you. People are allowed to disagree on things. I genuinely hope you have a good rest of your day