Understanding Political Trolling in Modern Discourse

While Donald Trump didn’t create political trolling, he certainly excels at it in today’s landscape. Many of his rivals seem perplexed by this tactic, which allows him to maneuver politically with ease. To grasp the nature of trolling, we must consider the broader ideological battles that define our era.

For many Christians, the ethical implications of trolling are significant. It can come across as merciless—like provoking someone repeatedly until they lose their cool, only to find amusement in their reaction. There’s often a layer of deceit involved as well. This raises questions about whether it conflicts with the Ninth Commandment. Additionally, how do we align purposeful provocation with Christ’s teaching to “love your neighbor”?

When those advocating for tolerance insist on silencing dissenting voices, perhaps love necessitates a deftly placed troll.

The solution lies in a precise definition of the term.

The term “trolling” has its roots in fishing rather than mythical creatures. A fisherman teases a fish with bait, waiting for a nibble. In politics, a troll presents rhetorical bait to provoke an emotional and often careless response from opponents. The Oxford English Dictionary describes trolling as “posting antagonistic or insincere messages to incite a hostile or annoyed reaction,” and in a broader sense, as behavior “aimed at provoking or deceiving.”

Political trolling employs public mockery to draw out responses that reveal contradictions, detract from the opponent’s time, and undermine ideologies that lack merit. Thus, effective trolling suggests that certain public figures and belief systems warrant this form of scorn.

A skilled troll identifies flaws in a public figure or ideology, frames them provocatively, and simply waits. The target, often flustered, may react thoughtlessly, thus confirming the troll’s original point. Instead of just accusing someone of hypocrisy, the troll cleverly compels them to highlight it themselves for all to see.

This isn’t about hurling insults at strangers for kicks. Trolling shouldn’t legitimize lying, defaming individuals, threatening, or mocking someone’s suffering. Instead, it’s akin to tactics used in sports or warfare—designed to mislead opponents and expose their vulnerabilities. Nobody chastises a quarterback for faking a play, nor does anyone expect a general to give a heads-up before an ambush.

Sun Tzu taught that effective warfare relies on understanding both your adversary and yourself. Meanwhile, Schopenhauer cataloged various rhetorical tactics people utilize for persuasive advantage. A troll synthesizes these insights, directing the dynamic so that the opponent inadvertently lays bare their weaknesses, ultimately losing credibility.

Christians are often discerning about just and unjust warfare. Not all force is equal—there’s a difference between aggression and defending the innocent, which is an act of compassion.

The same applies to rhetorical battles. Language has the power to mislead, intimidate, indoctrinate, and tarnish reputations. Institutions may use words to mask coercion as compassion and exclusion as inclusion.

It’s essential to recognize that not every Christian is equipped or called to engage in a physical or rhetorical fight. Some might not have the temperament, position, or skill for such public confrontations. That’s perfectly acceptable. Just like a soldier lacking discipline puts their side at risk, a poorly equipped online warrior can jeopardize their cause as well.

However, Christians must acknowledge that conflicts exist. Different visions of God, humanity, sexuality, justice, freedom, and authority are vying for dominance in our institutions. They can’t coexist indefinitely. The pressing question isn’t whether a moral vision will govern society, but rather which one will hold sway.

The Bible doesn’t denounce every instance of ridicule. For example, Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, implying their deity might be preoccupied or sleeping. Jesus also referred to the scribes and Pharisees as “whitewashed tombs.” By publicly exposing those who promoted falsehoods, they aimed to diminish the credibility of their teachings and authority.

There’s a recognizable pattern for effective trolling: its rightful targets are public figures who support harmful ideologies. Its approach involves ridicule that exposes hypocrisy. The immediate aim is to incite revealing reactions, but the real audience is the observing public. Ultimately, the goal is to shield the vulnerable from damaging ideologies that could lead to spiritual ruin.

Publicly revealing the ridiculous aspects of ideologies like critical theory or LGBTQ activism can provide those at risk an opportunity to reassess. Dismantling unwarranted authority from an ideology can nudge onlookers toward truth and away from leaders and systems that foster destruction.

I’m not suggesting that everyone should become a troll. But we shouldn’t view an ideological battle as less significant than a competitive sport where teams engage in antics and feigned strategies to win.

When Christianity’s opponents attempt to suppress biblical teachings in favor of Marxist viewpoints and LGBTQ ethics, revealing their leaders to mockery becomes a tactical necessity in the conflict. Their frantic reactions can expose their folly, aimed at safeguarding the vulnerable and convincing those who sense the hollowness of the anti-Christian stance.

Being loving toward our neighbors doesn’t entail aiding a hypocrite in maintaining their facade. Sometimes, love calls for spirited debate, and debate often leads to confrontation. Trolling can serve to protect individuals from those concealing their true nature. In moments when advocates for tolerance insist on silencing dissenters, love may even demand a strategic troll and the willingness to allow one’s opponent to validate your critique.