http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/011182.html
I would agree that they pose a threat to themselves, but in some ways they are more toxic to those with projects than the trolls. It's quite easy to identify and distance oneself from a troll: once you've established they are a troll, sever all contact with them and - this is imperative - don't read anything they write. This requires a little discipline, but not much, and after a while you'll completely forget the upset they caused. For what is usually a very short period, trolls cause a great deal of incendiary, fruitless antagonism, but it seldom leaves much of a lasting trace. The final victory over them is achieved by simply persisting in the pursuit of a project, refusing to allow yourself to be ensnared in the self-doubts and impotent autocritique that disables them and which they seek to transmit to you.

I find this a strange way of talking. I can understand the idea of a troll just wasting your time. But ultimately it's good to have some kind of an answer to all criticisms. This instead almost seems to be espousing the necessity of being closeminded in some respects in order to just do something instead of doing nothing. One could read it actually as being an example of downright comical closedmindedness.

OTOH I do see the possibility of losing one's creative spark as a result of getting in mind some negative audience that no matter what is going to just tear down whatever you say.

I have thought of this before how this idea of an audience, this idea of finding ways to continue wanting to be creative can tie into actions that end up appearing closeminded. A most obvious example being I've the comments closed in this blog. As does this fellow, who though isn't out stranded in the dark like me. Unlike me, he matters. He's a part of academia and has endless important conversations with others about philosophical matters. I feel slightly jealous. And then furthermore there's Schopenhauer's comment about the cuttle fish (fortified by my own obscurity) which I usually have in mind when reading most of these philosophers...

Still trying to figure out what to make of supervalent thought's blog. I like the subject matter but 'cinematically mediated queers'?? You mean gay people on TV? I think I'll just learn the lingo (and thus eventually not notice how incomprehensible to the average person it appears) before I come to a conclusion as to whether or not this is a valid example of 'writing beautifully' or some kind of pretentious, dishonest behavior...

So then there's the question of asking supervalent thought her thoughts on writing beautifully while not being comprehendable by 98% of people while talking about an important subject. Asking such a question then of her or just stating my annoyance for how hard she makes it to understand easy concepts, either way I can be labeled a troll.

But I shouldn't be. She ought to be able to have an answer. Probably she doesn't and I won't even bother of course as the possibility for it to be considered a negative thing is too great. But she ought to have an answer. I ought to be able to ask and get an answer instead of being stuck trying to reinvent the metaphorical wheel and figure out entirely on my own which is the correct way to write ("beautifully" or in a way that people can easily understand). Well, it's seems a silly question, surely one should try to be easy to understand? Maybe if it's just some escapist fun one can enjoy writing with a flair for language, but she's talking about suicide; I'd assume because she actually cares about people unfortunately committing suicide.

Me pointing out such a criticism would though just be thought of as being stifling to her creativity most likely and I'd be dismissed as just a troll.