Welcome to the New Virtual World Order!
Trolls, we were told by way of introduction to these supernatural beings, traced their origin to Norse mythology. They were not particularly handsome in their appearance, lived in mountain caves and had their own social code. Human beings steered clear of them as they did of human beings.
(Visual courtesy: http://hebreaksthecedars.blogspot.in)
The first time I
encountered the word ‘troll’ was in high school. That year, we had to read JRR
Tolkien’s fantasy novel, The Hobbit,
as part of our course for English literature. It was in the pages of that
fascinating book that we discovered amazing creatures, including hobbits and
trolls.Trolls, we were told by way of introduction to these supernatural beings, traced their origin to Norse mythology. They were not particularly handsome in their appearance, lived in mountain caves and had their own social code. Human beings steered clear of them as they did of human beings.
I read The Hobbit at the turn of the last
quarter of the last century. Although it’s a memorable book, hugely
entertaining at one level and profoundly meaningful at another, I had forgotten
about trolls and their strange ways. And I didn’t hear or read about trolls
till my foray into social media via Twitter.
I must admit that I
was clueless about the terms of engagement in Twitterdom. I learned the rules,
such as they are, as I went along, often through mistakes that I wouldn’t ever
commit again. Those were days of well-meaning innocence. I wish I had been
cynical.
Two terms I would
hear often is ‘troll’ and ‘trolling’. The Urban Dictionary, which too I
discovered via social media, defines a troll as someone who is deliberately
provocative, disruptive and abusive.
A ‘troll’ is someone
who “continually harangues and harasses others, has nothing worthwhile to add
to a conversation, thinks everybody is talking about him/her, and has multiples
monikers to circumvent getting banned”. Trolls also use anonymity as a shield.
And their online activity is what is known as ‘trolling’.
Meeting a troll in the misty mountains of Hobbitland would have
been a thrilling, if not delightful, experience. Meeting a ‘troll’ on an online
forum, especially an open forum like Twitter, can prove to be neither thrilling
nor delightful.
Yet, not everybody who is impolite to you, or does not shares your
views, or has a bone to pick with you because of real or imaginary grievances,
or simply has had a bad hair day and is nursing a foul mood, is a ‘troll’. Nor
does someone who pitilessly demolishes your argument, or calls you out for
being less than truthful with facts, or tells you on your face that you are a
charlatan and/or a philanderer (because you indeed are one), qualifies to be
labelled as ‘troll’.
I have no issues with such people even if they are labelled as
‘trolls’ by those who feel unsettled by them. On more than one occasion I have
defended them because I see them as subaltern sepoys who have at last found a
means of having their say and calling the bluff of those given to bluster.
Also I quite enjoy watching worms squirm. Those mortified by
‘trolls’ like these have had a free run till now. No longer shall they go
unquestioned; no more can they peddle their bunk without a quality check. That’s
social media’s biggest contribution.
A ‘troll’ is someone who intentionally harasses and abuses. A
‘troll’ is someone who deliberately defames and slanders you.
A ‘troll’ is someone who slyly stalks you, twists your words, and
seeks to denigrate your views by imputing slanderous motives.
A ‘troll’ is someone who can be confronted and charged with
criminal offence. At least that’s my interpretation of who or what is a ‘troll’
and his/her ‘trolling’.
The presence of ‘trolls’ as I see them is undesirable on an open
media platform where freedom of expression is often misconstrued as freedom to
abuse, to defame and to slander.
Individuals taking shelter in anonymity do so. Bots using monikers
also do so, perhaps with a degree of sophistry.
I would also add a third category of ‘trolls’: Individuals who use
their real names and are either brazenly shameless or secure in the knowledge
that prosecution for libel is not an easy option in our country.
They spit and scoot. They squat and stalk. They are possibly
sickos with twisted minds and darkened souls.
But we don’t live in a perfect world. In real life there are
‘trolls’ all around. Colleagues bitch about you behind your back at office. Relatives
say nasty things about you after dining at your home. Examples abound.
Hence, it makes sense to ignore ‘trolls’ who abuse, defame and
slander others, taking recourse to bazar language. It also makes sense to
ignore the posh ‘trolls’ who pretend to be socially, culturally and
intellectually superior and believe everybody else is a ‘moron’.
Some of these posh ‘trolls’ also happen to media stars, courtesy
their real and sugar daddies. We contemptuously ignore insufferable fools, so
should we ignore insufferable ‘trolls’ like these.
But that’s easier said than done. Often individuals take offence,
very serious offence, to ‘trolling’ by ‘trolls’. What invariably follows is ‘I
feel outraged’ or ‘I feel violated’. That’s silly.
In the virtual world of social media, it’s absurd to feel angry or
violated, not the least because the millions out there give a damn about your
feelings. Tough luck. Get real. Deal with it.
There’s a problem though. The easily offended, the perpetually
violated, find it difficult to get real and deal with the fact that not
everybody is a fawning admirer and an unquestioning toady.
News telly stars, who have till now talked down to their audience
from the safe confines of their studios, are alarmed at being confronted on
social media platforms, say, Twitter, for their glaring biases and for running
motivated stories.
Writers who have pontificated from their ivory towers, brooking
neither criticism nor correction, are horrified for being told on their face
that what they produce is bilge. That’s not what they are accustomed to
hearing.
The Bold and the Beautiful, the pretty people who blow kisses,
call each other ‘dahling’, and pretend to know all about wines and single malts
although anything but rum, the good old sailor’s drink, gives them indigestion,
at Dior-drenched Page 3 parties, are left speechless by the audacity of the
unwashed masses on social media platforms. Who let the dogs in?
The new digital order did. Social media isn’t the Gymkhana and
Twitter isn’t the IIC. By the way, Bharat speaks English too. And guess what?
Bharat has this terrible habit of questioning hypocrisy, exposing duplicity and
lampooning gasbags masquerading as intellectuals.
So what will you do? Write a pompous piece denouncing Bharat? That
will fetch much mirth and laughter – before you know, Bharat will be rolling on
the floor laughing his ass off.
Horrible ‘troll’ this, Bharat. But that’s what you get for
removing the digital divide. Welcome to the New Virtual World Order.
Super, excellent, sir!!!
ReplyDeleteDada who else but you could have given it straight back, where it hurts the most.
ReplyDeleteThank you makes for wonderful reading.
If u believe wht u have writte... u have to unblock me :p !! I was actually surprised when u did...mostly our views coincide
ReplyDeleteRgds
@ratigirl
Brilliant Kanchan Da. Especially enjoyed the last few paras - "Dior drenched et. al" truly ROFLAO stuff!
ReplyDeletenothing has shed light on this aspect of social media as this article....brilliant
ReplyDeleteAmusingly humorous and a fitting slap to all those **trolls** who honestly pollute various social networks particularly, Twitter.
ReplyDeleteThis will answer all discomfort and indigestion the so called self portrayed Royal Trolls have endured from your tweets till date an in future too.
Superb, KanchanDa!
Did you just refer to a well know rum drinking journalist dada?
ReplyDeleteBy the way somehow you blocked me on twitter without me even following you :D