Talk:Concern troll

	This Internet related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

I like it

I like it Kels.--Bob^{bing up} 14:07, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks. The "pox on both your houses" bit needs some work, maybe some links. Got any ideas? --Kels 14:12, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry about the double link. Turns out we don't actually have a "troll" article in the first place, so I tossed that in there. Should I take it out of the latter case and stick it into "See also"? --Kels 14:19, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I re-wrote a few bits. Feel free to zap them if you think they don't work.--Bob^{bing up} 18:04, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Looks good, I'd call it an improvement. --Kels 00:31, 23 December 2007 (EST)

A concern troll said this in the article so I CPed it here for discussion:

"In any case, why Rationalwiki has an article on "concern troll" is a mystery, since it is a term mostly internal to Daily Kos and is unrelated to Conservapedia which is usually the main focus here. Mission creep category, anyone?"

First, CP is not the main focus here. I don't see what Daily Kos has to do with this. But anyway, your concern is duly noted. ħuman 22:51, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Daily Kos has everything to do with this because this term was invented there, is mostly used only there, and reflects that site's raison d'etre which is Democratic Party apologetics (and not true progressivism nor antiwar activism, reference their vile response whenever a Ralph Nader or Mike Gravel or Ron Paul or Cindy Sheehan is mentioned.) Secret Squirrel 05:40, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't know. I wrote most of the original article, and I haven't read Kos since the late Steve Gilliard left. Mostly I see it used elsewhere, so I had no idea it came from there. In any case, it accurately reflects the common practice of showing up and claiming to be an ally while giving totally spurious advice. Further, "concern troll" is here on RW, because we've had them here, they're by far not limited to one site, no matter what you may think. --Kels 07:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

The only reason that CP appears to be the main focus is that they are so ridiculous & easy to perform urine extraction on. Otherwise I thought that it was established that we try to illuminate any wingnuttery around the Intertubes.   ^Contribs_Talk 08:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

And the phrase is so descriptive.   ^Contribs_Talk 08:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Token Concern Trolling

Seems like Faux, World Nut, and their ilk have become experts at combining tokenism with concern trolling. Scoop up a self-hating minority and use them to constantly concern troll their own group. E.g.:

• S. E. Cupp: Atheist concern troll, constantly talks about being "perfected" and how much she just wishes she could believe in god, goshdarnit.
• Michelle Malkin: Asian-American concern troll. Filipina who writes a book extolling the virtues of Japanese internment, spreads other racist wingnut talking points.
• Ann Coulter: Woman who thinks women should be denied the right to vote.

Now someone like Thomas Sowell is often accused of being a black concern troll (or "Uncle Tom"). While Sowell produces a lot of wingnuttery, I think he does make some legitimate points, and, for example, he was one of the first critics of The Bell Curve when it came out. The difference, I'd say, is that the token concern trolls like Coulter and Malkin always come down against their group's own interests. Sowell would have to be defending Jim Crow or something to fall into token concern troll territory.

Don't know if this concept is worth a damn, just throwin' it out there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I pulled out the reference to Cupp that was in the article - seems more like she's a useful idiot than a concern troll, maybe?--^talk 02:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Concern trolling - General observation: There appear to be aspects of this notion that involve what psychologists term "magical thinking". To positively identify a "concern troll", one must infer what ulterior motives are at play (i.e. "read between the lines"). Concern trolling as a label is rather broad and could potentially be applied to anyone who plays Devil's advocate or who posits a philosophical or rhetorical question. The concept also implies a set of unwritten rules governing what is deemed acceptable thought/engagement in a given context. As such, a perceived "over analysis" of an issue — or, for that matter, any contribution that suggests that a given subject does not merit a black-or-white conclusion — may be dismissed, summarily, as "concern trolling". Concern trolling as a concept is problematic, too, because it presumes an omniscient point-of-view on the part of the interpreter. In a community forum where participants do not know one another beyond what is offered by a screen name, differentiating "true intent" from "false intent" is at best subjective. Concern trolling may be part of the Internet lexicon but the concept is structurally flawed. ^{— Unsigned, by: NEWS2VIEW / talk / contribs}

There's an irony in that this definitely reads as a concern troll about concern trolls. That's not to say this argument or any like it can't be used unreasonably, but the idea that there are assholes on the internet(and real life) who would feign concern for an issue to undermine it is trivially true. The laziness with which some people hide it make it even easier to demonstrate. Actual documented neo-nazis concerned about the left's image from that guy punching Richard Spencer, e.g.. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Martin Luther

I see that we say:

• Historically, there have been many figures considered concern trolls, although generally the formulation of the label was rather more elegant; for example, Henry VIII called Martin Luther a "horrid and furious Monster" unleashing "Stings and Poisons, whereby he intends to infect the whole World."

Frankly I don't think this example is relevant, illustrative or even particularly acurate in terms of the article. I'm inclined to zap it but I'd like some agreement or, at least, a show of indifference first. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, Henry VIII adopted many of Luther's POV in his struggle to divorce Catherine of Aragon, and approved of the idea that monarchs were the heads of the church in their corresponding holdings, hence the CoE. So there's a certain hypocrisy there...-- Seth Peck (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

While this may indeed be historically interesting it does not seem to have a great bearing on the internet phenomenon of the concern troll.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It seemed to me that it was a good historical example; Henry was awarded the title Defender of the Faith for his heated attacks on Luther (mostly ghostwritten by Thomas More), which alleged that Luther's concerns were just an attempt to destroy faith, rather than true criticisms. But I am perfectly amenable to it being replaced with a different historical example. I tend to think that Internet phenomena like concern trolling are mostly just modern manifestations of long-established patterns, so I tried to include context with this example. I'm not married to it, though :)--^talk 22:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I was about to write a section on the Luther/Henry VIII thing, but found it was here already. Like the other objectors, I simply can't see the concern trolling here. It's an example of attacking (claimed) motives (somewhere between ad hominem and poisoning the well), rather than concern trolling. Had Henry been concern trolling, he would have agreed with either Luther or the Pope and then suggested something that would be detrimental to their religious cause. Possibly, it could be regarded as some sort of quasi-false flag operation vis-a-vis the Pope (playing the Defender of the Faith by opposing Luther while pursuing his own brand of Protestantism). I'll leave it until I (hopefully) come up with a better historical example. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Henry Viii because the king of England was not trolling Martin Luther, he was sucking up to the pope. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Calling someone a concern troll is an easy, lazy way SJWs try to silence people."

from /r/AskTrumpSupporters. Heh. FuzzyCatPotato of the Cut-rate Tooths (talk/stalk) 21:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't discussion of "Silencing" as a tactic fundamentally an approach to a question of social justice? Do they not realize the way they clad themselves in the language, but not the correct understanding, of their supposed enemies? Fundamentally, they're right. Calling anyone any sort of troll is to basically assert that their statements are of no value to a conversation and thus debase them. But that doesn't mean they're not trolls. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Caveat Lector

Wow I just stumbled up on this page, and the Caveat Lector section is spot on- the rest of the article is garbage. I'm sure there are people who have viewed genuine and rational comments I've made as 'concern trolling'. Even before I ever heard the term 'concern troll', I've noticed a trend (primarily on the left) of calling anyone who disagrees with them a troll, as a way to silence and discredit that person without actually engaging in the conversation. It is not only extremely disrespectful, it is manipulative and dishonest. I've been called a troll on occasion, despite being respectful, honest, and polite while making a comment based on reason and facts.

I'm guessing this comment will be deleted, but for those who see it, know that I have lost respect for rationalwiki based on the existence of this article. I was about to link to a rationalwiki page as a reference for a logical fallacy, but I will no longer be citing rationalwiki for anything, as there is apparently a strong ideological bent to the editors.. ^{— Unsigned, by: 74.71.196.167 / talk}

--Edict123456789 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just read this post from April 2018. It could almost be added to the page a an example of concern trolling!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I might just add it to the article.--Edict123456789 (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Creationist Concern Trolling

I might add, if just for the amusement value, creationists are enthusiastic concern trollers: "Evolution is bad science!" "Like you care about the science?" MrG (Greg Goebel) ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.29.49.245 / talk / contribs}

I feel like they're not the worst about it, because a great great many of them genuinely believe the stupid things they're saying, and think that somehow creationism really is science through a meticulous misunderstanding of what science is. Internet neonazis? Now there's a group that will absolutely concern troll without remorse. "What if antifa punches people who aren't Nazis by mistake" from people with swastika avatars. "What if blocking nazis from your site creates a chilling effect on free speech" from people who lead multiple dishonest mass report campaigns on social media.

Maybe it's just my pet peeve of the last few years, but it sure seems to be the star example in my mind. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)