[www.slate.com]

"In the past few years, the science of Internet trollology has made some strides. Last year, for instance, we learned that by hurling insults and inciting discord in online comment sections, so-called Internet trolls (who are frequently anonymous) have a polarizing effect on audiences, leading to politicization, rather than deeper understanding of scientific topics."

Then I guess all the Global Warming Alarmists are Internet Trolls

Isn't that comming from an anti climate change alarmist?

A troll post about trolling.

LOL

HH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A troll post about trolling.

it is a study about trolling. Click on the link

To make us feel good about ourselfs like we pose some threat to present govt or corp America, Just flatering ourselfs trolls want you to go to walmart nothing else.

Regarding the OP --

"SCIENCE Confirms: Internet Trolls really are narcissistic, psychopathic and sadistic"

I just happened to read the same article that Panchito posted above on Mother Jones website -

New Study: Internet Trolls Are Often Machiavellian Sadists | Mother Jones

[www.motherjones.com]

************

And beneath the Mother Jones article are three other related articles - supposedly about 'Internet Trolls' - previously also written by Chris Mooney -

Why Conservatives Can't Resist Snow Trolling | Mother Jones

[www.motherjones.com]

"In another MSNBC segment with Ari Melber yesterday, The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg and I tried to get at the answer to this question. We mainly talked about motivations: e.g., conservatives are driven to deny climate science out of allegiance to a set of values that broadly can be described as "individualistic." They don't want the government getting involved in the economy or in people's lives in general. And that's really a moral principle to them, one that drives their beliefs about the climate issue."

The Science of Why Comment Trolls Suck | Mother Jones

[www.motherjones.com]

"Everybody who's written or blogged about climate change on a prominent website (or, even worse, spoken about it on YouTube) knows the drill. Shortly after you post, the menagerie of trolls arrives. They're predominantly climate deniers, and they start in immediately arguing over the content and attacking the science—sometimes by slinging insults and even occasional obscenities."

(Oh, yeah, they cite "The Study" of Internet Trolls and link The Study to "Climate Deniers" -- )

"It was reasonably obvious already that these folks were doing nothing good for the public's understanding of the science of climate change (to say nothing of their own comprehension). But now there's actual evidence to back this idea up.

In a recent study, a team of researchers from the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication and several other institutions employed a survey of 1,183 Americans to get at the negative consequences of vituperative online comments for the public understanding of science."

We Tracked Down Our Biggest Troll…and Kind of Liked Him | Mother Jones

[www.motherjones.com]

"Internet researchers at George Mason University recently found that when it comes to online commenting, throwing bombs gets more attention than being nice, and makes readers double down on their preexisting beliefs. What's more, trolls create a false sense that a topic is more controversial than it really is. Witness the overwhelming consensus on climate change amongst scientists—97 percent agreement that global warming is real, and caused by humans."

************

So upon perusing the other three articles, what do we find -

That what constitutes an "internet troll" to Chris Mooney - and Mother Jones - is .....

Anyone who doesn't 'believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming' (aka Conservatives) and comments on it online

*************

Oh, yeah, and this self-same crew at Mother Jones, and Chris Mooney, are Huge Proponents of VACCINES. So I assume anyone who comments that 'they don't Believe in Vaccines' - oh, they're a Troll, also, right? In other words, to Mother Jones and Chris Mooney, anyone who disagrees with them is an 'internet troll'. And they're supposed to be the 'tolerant' party!

I guess I'm an Internet Troll - as opposed to an Internet Shill

So long story short, not only are we called 'Global Warming Deniers', but now we're also called "Internet Trolls".

*************

Oh, and then there's this -

Why are people so quick to buy junk theories on climate, creationism, and vaccines? Chris Mooney explains in "The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science."

[www.motherjones.com]

So we who Do Not Believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming and Vaccinations are characterized as Internet Trolls who Do Not Believe in Science.

Isolate, Characterize, Demonize and Destroy

A troll is someone who does something like go to an Other Topics forum at a diet web-site and start a thread about the evils of eating fat. They're so desperate for attention that they're taking their topic to a place where it doesn't belong while ignoring that the same site has forums where it does belong. Trolls also use insult, whether blatant or "subtle." For example, a troll will attempt to question the mental fitness of their rational debate opponent by using "psychological" evidence. The worst of them will simply resort to name calling. IMO, we're all guilty of a little real trolling here and there. Trolling is not dissent. Trolling is desperate attention seeking and mischief. The term is unfortunately too commonly used to vanquish those who rationally offer a well-conceived counter to the herd's opinion. The word "troll" is very similar to the word "racist" in this respect.