Trump has transformed political provocation into an art form. Yet the deeper question remains: Can Christians wield the same tactics without becoming what they oppose?
Donald Trump did not invent political trolling, but he may be its most gifted modern practitioner. His opponents still fail to grasp this tactic, which is why he consistently outmaneuvers them. Understanding trolling requires seeing it within the broader ideological conflict of our time.
For Christians, the moral implications of trolling are profound. It can feel cruel—a digital version of poking someone until they explode and then laughing at the aftermath. Trolling also often involves deception. Does this violate the Ninth Commandment? How can deliberate provocation align with Christ’s command to “love your neighbor”?
In moments when guardians of tolerance demand dissenters be silenced, love may even require a well-placed troll.
The answer begins by defining trolling precisely.
The internet term “trolling” derives from fishing, not monsters under the bed. A fisherman drags bait through water, waiting for a fish to bite. Similarly, a political troll places rhetorical bait before an opponent and waits for an angry, thoughtless response. The Oxford English Dictionary defines trolling as “posting antagonistic or disingenuous messages to provoke a hostile or annoyed response” and broadly as behavior “intended to provoke or deceive.”
Political trolling is public mockery designed to elicit responses that expose contradictions, waste opponents’ time, and strip ideologies of undeserved authority. Legitimate trolling presupposes that certain public figures and ideologies deserve such scrutiny.
An effective troll identifies a contradiction in an opponent’s ideology, frames it provocatively, and waits. The target becomes flustered and responds thoughtlessly, confirming the original criticism. Rather than merely accusing hypocrisy, the troll induces the opponent to demonstrate it publicly.
This is distinct from insulting strangers for entertainment or using trolling as a license to lie, defame, threaten, or mock private suffering. Trolling resembles misdirection in sports or war—used to confuse an opponent and reveal weaknesses. No one accuses a quarterback of lying when he fakes a handoff, nor does anyone expect a general to warn about a surprise attack.
Sun Tzu taught that warfare depends on knowing both your enemy and yourself. Schopenhauer cataloged the rhetorical tricks people use to appear right. The troll draws on these insights, arranging the contest so the opponent reveals weaknesses publicly and loses respect.
Christians recognize the distinction between just and unjust wars. Not every use of force is murder, and refusing to defend the innocent is not an act of love.
Rhetorical warfare is real. Words can deceive, intimidate, indoctrinate, and destroy reputations. Institutions often disguise coercion as compassion and discrimination as inclusion.
Not every Christian must engage in kinetic or rhetorical conflict. Some lack the temperament, position, or skill for public confrontation—this is no disgrace. A soldier without discipline endangers their side, just as an internet warrior with a social media account and three cups of coffee can endanger their cause.
But Christians cannot deny that conflict exists. Christian and anti-Christian visions of God, humanity, sexuality, justice, freedom, and authority compete for control of our institutions. They cannot both prevail. The question is not whether society will be governed by a moral vision but which one will rule.
The Bible does not condemn every use of ridicule. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, suggesting their god might be occupied or asleep. Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees “whitewashed tombs.” Public teachers promoting falsehoods were exposed to lose their authority.
We can identify a pattern for legitimate trolling: Its target is a public figure advancing destructive ideology; its method is ridicule aimed at hypocrisy; its immediate purpose is to provoke a revealing response; its true audience is the people watching. The goal? To protect the vulnerable from harmful ideologies that lead souls to perdition.
Publicly exposing the absurdities of ideologies such as critical theory or LGBTQ activism gives those who might be led astray an opportunity to reconsider. Stripping an ideology of its unearned authority can turn audiences toward truth and away from destructive systems.
I am not recommending that everyone become a troll. But we should not treat ideological conflict as less consequential than sports contests, where teams use talk smacks and misdirection to win.
When opponents of Christianity seek to censor biblical teaching and replace it with Marxist dialectics and LGBTQ sexual ethics, exposing their public leaders to laughter and ridicule becomes part of the conflict. Their panicked responses can reveal their folly. The purpose is to protect the vulnerable and persuade those who recognize the emptiness of anti-Christian positions.
Love of neighbor does not require helping a hypocrite preserve his disguise. Sometimes love requires argument—and argument requires confrontation. Trolling can protect your neighbor from wolves in sheep’s clothing. When guardians of tolerance demand dissenters be silenced, love may even require a well-placed troll and the patience to let your opponent prove your point.
Owen Anderson is a professor of philosophy and religion at Arizona State University and author of “The Declaration of Independence and God.”
