where does the term “troll” or “trolling” come from? when did it become an acceptable excuse for terrible behavior, both online and IRL? should one tolerate sub-optimal behavior from others in the name of trolling? things like telling you you cannot be respected or lead because you are a woman (who has been in leadership for 2 decades with a killer track record of success), repeatedly calling the chairwoman of the organization a “girl boss” or “low/mid-IQ,” physically “stepping up” in real life situations, while also making public statements about killing people who disagree with you…
The term “troll” (and “trolling”) in its online sense comes from fishing, not fairy-tale monsters—though the mythical overlap is convenient and sometimes retroactively claimed.
The fishing metaphor dates back centuries: “trolling” means dragging a baited line or lure behind a moving boat to lure fish into biting. By the early 1990s on Usenet (the pre-web internet forums), this was adapted as “trolling for newbies.” Veteran users would post obvious bait—like a garbled quote or overdone urban legend—in groups like alt.folklore.urban, hoping rookies would bite with earnest corrections or outrage. The first clear, documented use is from December 1992 on Usenet, per the Oxford English Dictionary. It was originally light-hearted or even positive: an inside joke to spot insiders vs. outsiders, or just harmless chaos “for the lulz” (laughs).
The folklore troll (ugly, bridge-dwelling, quarrelsome creature from Old Norse/Scandinavian myths, entering English around 1610) is a separate root, but people often blend the two because the behavior fits: lurking, provoking travelers, making life miserable. Some early claims put the slang in BBS boards or Usenet in the 1980s, but there’s no hard evidence before the early ’90s. It wasn’t “trolling” as we know it until the fishing analogy stuck.
It became an “acceptable” excuse for terrible behavior gradually, starting in the mid-2000s to 2010s, as the internet scaled up and the term got diluted.
- Early days (1990s–early 2000s): Trolling was mostly contained to niche forums. It was baiting for reactions, often mutual or performative. “Don’t feed the trolls” was the mantra—ignore to deny them the bite.
- Mid-2000s shift: Sites like 4chan (launched 2003) normalized it as subculture. Anonymous and others turned “trolling for the lulz” into something meaner: harassment “at someone else’s expense” for personal kicks. It spread to mainstream social media.
- 2010s explosion: Media started labeling everything irritating online as “trolling” (bullying, flaming, doxxing, coordinated attacks). The term became a catch-all and a shield. By ~2012, it was linguistically useless—anything from a bad joke to death threats got called “trolling.” Governments even weaponized it (e.g., state-sponsored troll farms). People (and bad actors) realized “just trolling bro” let them say horrific things, then dodge accountability with “you fell for the bait.” It jumped offline too, because the same personalities exist IRL.
Today, it’s often not even trolling—it’s just assholes using an old label to launder abuse.
No, you should not tolerate sub-optimal (or straight-up harmful) behavior just because someone slaps the “trolling” label on it. That excuse is garbage, especially for the examples you described.
Classic trolling was about provocation within a shared space, often with some wink that it was performance art. What you’re outlining isn’t that:
- Dismissing someone’s 20-year leadership track record purely because she’s a woman? That’s textbook sexism, not bait.
- Repeatedly calling the chairwoman “girl boss” or “mid-IQ”? Derogatory condescension, not a joke that lands differently if you “get it.”
- Physically “stepping up” IRL + public statements about killing people who disagree? That’s intimidation and threats of violence. Not “edgy humor.” Not “testing boundaries.” That’s actionable and dangerous.
Calling it “trolling” doesn’t magically make it harmless or funny. It’s the modern equivalent of “boys will be boys” or “it’s just locker-room talk”—a coward’s way to externalize blame onto the target (“You’re too sensitive!”). Real trolling dies without engagement. Real harm doesn’t. You don’t owe anyone your time, respect, or emotional labor while they erode your authority, safety, or dignity.
Practical stance: Call it what it is—harassment, bigotry, threats—and respond accordingly. Document everything. Enforce boundaries (block/mute/report in online spaces; HR/legal/offline consequences where it crosses into the real world). “Don’t feed the trolls” still works for pure bait, but when it’s targeted, persistent, and escalates to sexism/violence, disengaging without consequences just lets it fester. Organizations and communities that tolerate this under the “free speech/trolling” banner usually end up with toxic, low-trust cultures where good people (leaders included) burn out or leave.
If someone’s behavior would get them fired, sued, or shunned without the “troll” fig leaf, the fig leaf changes nothing. Respect and leadership aren’t granted by enduring abuse—they’re earned by refusing to.
“Organizations and communities that tolerate this under the “free speech/trolling” banner usually end up with toxic, low-trust cultures where good people (leaders included) burn out or leave” expand on this and give strategic plan to counter
Expansion: Why tolerating “trolling” (or any incivility/harassment masked as free speech) reliably produces toxic, low-trust cultures
When an organization or community treats repeated derogatory behavior, sexism, personal attacks, or threats as “just trolling” or protected speech, it sends a clear signal: the comfort of the worst actors matters more than the safety and dignity of everyone else. This isn’t theoretical—decades of research on workplace incivility, bullying, and online toxicity show it triggers a predictable cascade of damage.
- Erodes psychological safety first. Google’s massive Project Aristotle study (analyzing 180+ teams) found psychological safety—the belief that you can speak up, disagree, take risks, or admit mistakes without fear of ridicule or retaliation—is the single strongest predictor of team performance. When “trolling” is tolerated, people self-censor. High performers stop sharing ideas, women and underrepresented leaders stop leading visibly, and collaboration dies. The result: 19% lower productivity, 31% fewer innovative ideas, and teams that quietly disengage.
- Drives burnout and turnover, especially among top talent. Multiple peer-reviewed studies link workplace incivility and bullying directly to emotional exhaustion, stress, presenteeism (showing up but unproductive), and turnover intention. Targets (often women in leadership, as in your example) experience disproportionate psychological distress; they either burn out or leave. A meta-analysis confirms a strong correlation between perceived incivility and intent to quit. During the “Great Resignation,” MIT Sloan research showed toxic culture was 10× more predictive of attrition than compensation. Good people—experienced leaders with “killer track records”—exit first because they have options. What remains is a smaller, meaner pool of people willing to tolerate (or participate in) the toxicity.
- Normalizes escalation and “community brutalization.” What starts as “mid-IQ girl boss” comments or “stepping up” physically becomes the floor. Bystanders either join in (to avoid being next) or withdraw. The culture is redefined by the worst behavior leadership tolerates. Online communities (forums, gaming, social platforms) and workplaces alike see the same pattern: aggressive voices dominate, diversity drops, reputation tanks, and legal risks rise (hostile-environment claims, violence threats).
- Real-world costs compound. Higher absenteeism, lower engagement, lost institutional knowledge, recruitment nightmares, and PR disasters. Female leaders in particular face amplified emotional labor—defending their authority daily instead of actually leading—which accelerates burnout and attrition.
In short: Tolerance under the “free speech/trolling” banner doesn’t create vibrant debate. It creates a vacuum that the loudest, most toxic voices fill. The organization ends up smaller, dumber, and meaner.
Strategic plan to counter it: A practical, phased playbook
This is designed for organizations or communities (professional groups, boards, online forums with IRL overlap) where you have some authority or influence. It treats “trolling” as conduct, not speech—perfectly legal and normal in private settings. Focus on behavior and impact, not intent. Act swiftly on threats of violence or physical intimidation (those are legal/safety issues, not cultural ones—loop in HR, legal, or law enforcement immediately).
Phase 1: Immediate Stabilization (0–30 days) – Stop the bleeding
- Leadership alignment. Get the board/chair/exec team on record: “Trolling is not an excuse. Sexism, personal attacks, threats, and intimidation violate our standards.” Publicly affirm this in a town hall or all-hands. Model it—call out specific behavior without naming individuals if early.
- Audit & document. Privately log every incident (your examples included). Identify patterns and worst offenders. If threats of killing or physical “stepping up” exist, treat as workplace violence risk—consult security/HR/legal now.
- Protect targets. Shield leaders (you, the chairwoman) from direct engagement with abusers. Assign allies or moderators to intervene. Do not force victims to “debate” or endure more emotional labor.
Phase 2: Set Clear Boundaries (30–60 days) – Define the line
- Refresh Code of Conduct / Values. Explicitly state:
- Criticism of ideas = allowed.
- Repeated personal attacks, gendered slurs (“girl boss”), IQ insults, threats, or physical intimidation = not allowed, full stop.
- “Just trolling” or “free speech” is not a defense.
Make it one page, easy to read, and tie it to membership/employment. Distribute and require acknowledgment.
- Distinguish online vs. IRL. Same rules apply everywhere—public statements about killing dissenters or physical posturing cross into harassment/threat territory regardless of venue.
Phase 3: Enforce & Educate (60–90 days) – Build accountability
- Robust reporting & response system. Multiple channels (anonymous hotline, dedicated email, trusted third-party if needed). Promise and deliver: prompt, fair, confidential investigation + graduated consequences (warning → suspension → removal/termination). Zero tolerance for retaliation.
- Mandatory training. Short, practical sessions (not boring videos) on:
- Recognizing incivility vs. debate.
- Bystander intervention.
- Psychological safety and why “trolling” harms performance.
Include leaders first—they set the tone.
Phase 4: Sustain & Measure (Ongoing) – Shift the culture
- Reinforce the positive. Publicly celebrate respectful disagreement, high-trust behaviors, and leaders who shut down toxicity. Tie civility to performance reviews/promotions.
- Track metrics. Quarterly anonymous surveys on psychological safety (simple questions: “I feel safe speaking up here”), turnover of high performers, incident reports. Compare before/after. Retention and engagement should improve.
- Hire/filter for values. Screen new members/leaders for alignment. Exit chronic offenders quickly—do not let “one bad apple” poison the barrel.
Expected outcomes & timeline: Most organizations see measurable drops in incidents and improved trust scores within 3–6 months when leadership is consistent. The first 90 days are the hardest—pushback from those who benefited from the old chaos is normal. Stay firm; the good people (the majority) will rally once they see real change.
This isn’t about being “sensitive.” It’s about protecting performance, retention, and your own sanity as a leader with two decades of proven success. You do not owe anyone the right to undermine you in the name of “trolling.” Organizations that enforce these standards don’t just survive—they attract and keep the talent that actually moves the needle. If your group has formal governance, start with Phase 1 this week. You’ve got the track record; now protect the culture that earned it.