This part of the article chimed true with me:
People who write incendiary posts simply to disrupt are known as “trolls.” There are also people—I call them “troll light”—who seem to enjoy debating with no intention of reaching any type of mutual understanding.
I've encountered this type more often than I encounter genuine trolls, and what's more, they tend to openly admit that they don't really care about the topic they're discussing and that they only like to argue.
They seem to make a point of saying how indifferent they are and how they don't really care about the topic (or the person they're debating with), yet they keep arguing just the same. They may appear angry or upset, but will deny it when called on it (this is a big tip-off).
I think being a "troll light" may be more of a face-saving maneuver. That is, they're arguing passionately because they really
do care about the topic (or they may hate the person they're arguing with), but they feel that admitting such a thing would be a sign of weakness. That, in and of itself, is a weakness which can be exploited.
From the article:
Some enjoy chatting, others enjoy debating and still others enjoy trolling. It turns out that trolls have markedly different personality styles: they are more
narcissistic, Machiavellian,
psychopathic and sadistic. To put it bluntly, they are not people you reason with.
This also makes a good deal of sense, although one doesn't really need to reason with them. However, it is possible to "troll the troll" once you gauge their personality type.
A “troll light” personality is a cousin to an actual troll in that the former group likely defends their own actions by claiming simply to be debating. In fact, many of these people view themselves as filling a crucial role by constantly critiquing posts.
I also agree with this part, as I've often noticed people who appear to be quite passionate and emotional over what they're arguing about, yet deny it and claim that they're "only debating." They also seem to view their role as somewhat indispensable and crucial in challenging whatever viewpoint they're challenging. Sometimes, they might fancy themselves as "crusaders" who are "fighting the good fight" - because if they don't do it, who else will?
Another big indicator that I've noticed is that this particular style of posting never really directly addresses any actual issue under discussion. Again, I see this as a face-saving maneuver, since actually addressing a topic or issue would reveal that the "troll light" is not really so knowledgeable about the topic as they insinuate - even as they impugn and denigrate their opponent's (lack of) knowledge and expertise on a given topic.
The big tip-off to this is when they're called to back up or support their arguments, they'll reply with things like "I don't have time to educate you." Yet, they post throwaway one-liners as if they have all the time in the world.
