Blog

Today, the troll of old is practically extinct. The once amusing, clumsy troll has migrated to the Internet — and mutated into the toxic, venom-spitting Internet troll.
These modern trolls are known for posting provocative, disruptive, or even harmful comments and content online. They behave like that little green imp from the Asterix comics, constantly provoking people into arguments.
The troll thrives on provocation without offering real value to the conversation, and proudly pats itself on the back for doing so.
What’s the point? Well, they seek both negative and positive reactions to bask in the light of attention. Some comments are politically charged, but most of the time, it’s simply about spitting poison for its own sake.
Fun has many facets, and for some, chaos in other people’s minds is apparently one way to make life feel meaningful. But that’s anything but trollish.
Click.
A thought about another kind of “troll” surfaces in my memory: the Trolley Problem.
And no — I don’t mean the buses connected to overhead wires, but the philosophical thought experiment that forces a more or less deadly decision.
Philippa Foot, a philosopher, first outlined this idea in 1967. She imagined a scenario in which an out-of-control tram is heading toward a switch.
If it continues straight, it will run over five people who are tied up and immobile on the tracks. On the side track lies one person, also bound and unable to move. Nearby stands someone who can operate the switch.
The question: which decision is the right one — morally, philosophically, legally, or in terms of consequences?
This thought experiment on cause and effect, and the consequences of action or inaction, presents a fascinating model of moral choice. Foot’s original question has since found new relevance in the age of self-driving cars, buses, and trains. After all, an automated vehicle must make split-second decisions in thousands of different situations.
Take this scenario: the car’s cameras detect a group of people standing motionless on the road. A single person stands still on the sidewalk. What should the vehicle’s digital brain do?
What brings this Trolley Problem back to my mind these days is the war between Israel and Palestine — or more precisely, between the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and the terrorist group Hamas.
The comments in both mainstream and social media are filled with absolute “solutions,” harsh criticism, and supposed ways to end this human tragedy.
Everywhere I look, I find the same black-and-white framing of this crisis. And that isn’t comforting.
Why? Because this conflict has existed since 1948.
The current tragedy began two years ago, on October 7, when Hamas killed over a thousand people at a music festival. Since then, a war of unimaginable scale has raged.
It is above all the civilians in Gaza who suffer as the situation worsens daily. All hospitals have been destroyed; food and water are scarce; the territory is sealed off.
When Greta Thunberg began advocating for the Palestinians — about three years ago — she was erased from much of the media. She approached the humanitarian suffering of civilians as a call to action. She became one of the co-founders of the Flotilla — a civilian fleet attempting to break the blockade with medical supplies and infant formula.
She has now been arrested for the second time, along with 496 other volunteers.
I’ve supported this action by sharing and commenting, because I cannot and will not accept that people must suffer deliberately, subjected to what increasingly looks like a planned genocide — the systematic extermination of an entire population group.
Now voices are rising that call the Flotilla action misguided and the recognition of Palestine premature. The argument: Hamas still determines Palestine’s fate.
And so I sit here, thinking. Back and forth. Who wins in my head — the politically “correct” reasoning, or the ethical, humanist perspective?
The Trolley Problem is immense.