Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Troll blog

we are the trolls, we are the trolls, we are, we are, we are the trolls.
First, a disclosure. When MM and AA discuss how similar their experiences with "trolls" are, there's a reason. For the most part, they're talking about me, and if not me, S,N!, though I'm not sure they recognize the connection. I'm the one who made a fake Facebook profile of Ann and freaked her out so (it was just so she'd be listed as a Friend of S,N!, sheesh), and I am very much a part of the horrible name stealing at S,N! that also upsets Ann, though I didn't come up with the idea. I don't mean to be egotistical and say their troll conversation is all about me, but I certainly feel flattered.
Now, a condensed version of their conversation about me.

Ann begins by naming us specifically as a troll blog. Ann wants FMM to succeed, having linked to us in the past, but she doesn't produce much added traffic. Links from HTML at S,N! are worth thousands of hits, but Ann only produced maybe a couple dozen extra.
Megan pretends not to know our name, and responds by saying she now has two troll blogs. I doubt Megan is really that unaware, more likely she doesn't want to flatter us with acknowledgment. Plus the two ladies, I suspect, think that discussing us trolls like that will set us off, as we're all angry, impotent little people who just like to get mad. More on that later.
Anyhow, they then offer their views on our motivations here, which are just wonderful. Ann thinks we're "jealous", whereas Megan ascribes this blog to a "dark fury", which, of course, really has nothing to do with her. The good news is all the criticism really did bother Megan at first, until one Saturday afternoon a bunch of folk started criticizing a recipe she posted. Then she realized it was all ridiculous and stopped caring. No suggestion that maybe bland recipes aren't the proper material for a fucking economics blog on The Atlantic, no recognition that maybe the overwhelming shoddiness of her work is too much for a great number of people to tolerate. It's that a bunch of grown men are impotent little haters and want to revenge themselves on women. Odd that Megan rejected this hypothesis to explain anti-abortion activists, but has no problem applying it to people who have a low opinion of her work. Wait, did I say odd? I mean typically self-serving.
Megan and Ann go on to present a portrait of me that I wish included a drawing, so I could print and frame it. Megan sees me "sitting in my bedroom" (Ann: "in his underpants") thinking I'm going to "get her". It's true, I do wish I had the raw popularity and sexual charisma of the Simpsons' comic book store guy, but I just can't stay that thin. I could join WoW to get some exercise, but I hear there are real girls there sometimes. That scares me. Safer just to rack up the experience points getting Megan with my sooper powars here. I sure do put that woman in her place. Go me!

And then, a moment of sublime beauty. Apropos of nothing, Megan segues into that NYTimes magazine piece on online trolls, thus confirming that she was thinking of us when she read it. Sure, the piece was actually about griefers, though the writer didn't know that, and what we do here has no relation to those kinds of activities, but we make Megan feel bad, so we're actually worse.
Megan takes a strong, controversial stand on the the griefers' documented activities ("those things are evil") and says that all us trolls just make her feel sad. After all, calling Megan stupid really is comparable to manipulating a young teenage girl into suicide because she was mean to your daughter. I'm such a monster, but I don't know how to stop.
You see, the criticism is totally unjustified and unfair. Megan says so. At 48:50 she says "I think I'm cool. I enjoy spending time with me", so we're just wrong. She goes on to say "Fundamentally, I think the great thing about blogging is it's about you". (I'm being slightly unfair in where I cut that quote, but too fucking bad.) Megan's point is that the criticism coming at her isn't actually about her; it comes from the massive reserves of hate that apparently fuel me. She explains that "being angry is fun ... but as a way of life it's unsatisfying". I'll come back to this moment in the semi-serious post, but I gotta say now that no, Megan, being angry isn't fun, though it tells me a lot about you as a person that you think it is. It also helps explain why you can't distinguish between hate and loathing, but I digress.
Megan follows up by once again claiming "I'm fairly good at being sarcastic and bitchy", which is wrong, but by this point Megan and Ann are really beginning to bond over dismissing their critics dishonestly. Ann is even actually paying attention to Megan at this point.
They go on to discuss what drew them into blogging, which we'll take up in the next post. I need a break. It's hard being this hateful, I need blood sugar.


FGFM said...

Funny that no one ever established a successful anti-Althouse blog. She and her commentators certainly provide plenty of material.

clever pseudonym said...

I loved the "they're just jealous!" defense. Um, ladies? No. Not in the tiniest way. Jealousy implies envy, and believe you me, I do not want to look, act, think, behave, write, argue or live the way either of you do in the slightest fucking manner. Got it?

brad said...

Thers of Whiskey Fire had Altmouse going for a while, but most likely got tired of having to pay attention to what Ann was doing.

NutellaonToast said...

Yeah, I'm envious as hell. I go to graduate school for chemistry solely for the purpose of one day being a some-what popular blogger.

Also, she said jealous but she didn't mean jealous. She meant envious. A writer would know the difference between the two.

Susan of Texas said...

Am I the other anti-Megan blog? Megan, dear, it's not about you. It's about my disbelief that after a lifetime of reading great American literature, this cretin has wormed her way into the Atlantic. It's not hate, it's incredulity.

M. Bouffant said...

brad: At what time does talking about us start? I dare not waste a minute watching/hearing those two discuss anything but us, or even zipping through it.

Much as I wish I could, I just can't type in my underwear at the library.

And who is the other hater? Susan, or...?

Susan of Texas said...

I make fun of K-Lo almost as much as Megan. I even have "The K-Lo Chronicles," a running glimpse into the story of a devout young woman's quest to have her heart's desire fulfilled by God. It's not an erotic journey from Milan to Minsk, but it has its moments.

spencer said...

Much as I wish I could, I just can't type in my underwear at the library.

Wow - if there was one place where I would have expected that to be permissible, it's LA.

clever pseudonym said...

What I find amusing is that they have to convince themselves that anyone who criticizes them is just some obsessed nerd-boy in underwear with no life. That's such an unthinking, knee-jerk response. They are so perfect and correct that there is no merit whatsoever to anybody who would fault them. Whatever it takes to get you through the day, ladies. I think it's pretty obvious sites like this aren't exactly a full-time job. Hell, they're barely a part-time hobby.

Susan of Texas said...

What's their excuse for female critics? Just Mean Girl hijinks?

clever pseudonym said...

We're jealous at how much better and smarter they are than us, naturally!

Anonymous said...

[... ] is one another nice source on this issue[...]