Well, we've already had the tone discussion many times, so I think we both know where we stand on that.
I define a troll as someone who deliberately picks fights on the internet. Normally, I suspect, because they felt frustrated by a previous discussion with someone else, so go around trying to find an opening to 'continue' the conversation so they can vent their anger. People who have been frustrated by feeling they can't get their point across in social justice discussions are therefore very much at risk of becoming trolls if they don't watch themselves, so it is hardly a surprise they are so common. That is after all exactly what the post you link to is describing - someone who has got so frustrated she no longer tries to keep her temper. If she advanced to the next stage of specifically going out to other people's spaces to 'state her case' she would probably be considered a troll by most of the peeps she landed on.
Whether or not you are willing to overlook and reclassify trolling presumably comes down to personality and the subject matter. There probably are subjects where I would overlook it, but I can't think of any off hand.
I have met a few left-wing activists who are non-aggressive so I assume the groups they chose to belong to are also non-aggressive. But I think the prevailing culture that believes criticising the behaviour of others is a good thing will always lead to a higher level of aggression.
Amongst right wing groups, being tolerant of the others within the group is seen very much as a virtue and a goal, never as a flaw. Excessive behaviour tends to only be criticised if it will run counter to the aims of the group as a whole, but even then there will tend to be an attitude of 'I can understand why you lashed out like that, but considering the long term view...' rather than direct condemnation of the person. So what you describe as a flaw of human nature under 'bias towards the ingroup' I would largely consider a virtue (providing the door is always left open for new people to join the ingroup if they wish).
I would tend to analyse a right-wing activist group by whether or not it has achieved anything, and whether those achievements are worth the effort involved. Actually I personally would judge a left-wing activist group on the same terms, but I am aware they themselves would probably not be happy with such a framework.
no subject
I define a troll as someone who deliberately picks fights on the internet. Normally, I suspect, because they felt frustrated by a previous discussion with someone else, so go around trying to find an opening to 'continue' the conversation so they can vent their anger. People who have been frustrated by feeling they can't get their point across in social justice discussions are therefore very much at risk of becoming trolls if they don't watch themselves, so it is hardly a surprise they are so common. That is after all exactly what the post you link to is describing - someone who has got so frustrated she no longer tries to keep her temper. If she advanced to the next stage of specifically going out to other people's spaces to 'state her case' she would probably be considered a troll by most of the peeps she landed on.
Whether or not you are willing to overlook and reclassify trolling presumably comes down to personality and the subject matter. There probably are subjects where I would overlook it, but I can't think of any off hand.
I have met a few left-wing activists who are non-aggressive so I assume the groups they chose to belong to are also non-aggressive. But I think the prevailing culture that believes criticising the behaviour of others is a good thing will always lead to a higher level of aggression.
Amongst right wing groups, being tolerant of the others within the group is seen very much as a virtue and a goal, never as a flaw. Excessive behaviour tends to only be criticised if it will run counter to the aims of the group as a whole, but even then there will tend to be an attitude of 'I can understand why you lashed out like that, but considering the long term view...' rather than direct condemnation of the person. So what you describe as a flaw of human nature under 'bias towards the ingroup' I would largely consider a virtue (providing the door is always left open for new people to join the ingroup if they wish).
I would tend to analyse a right-wing activist group by whether or not it has achieved anything, and whether those achievements are worth the effort involved. Actually I personally would judge a left-wing activist group on the same terms, but I am aware they themselves would probably not be happy with such a framework.