"}I\u2019m trying not to talk much about that incident anymore, but I\u2019ve just found out that \u201ctroublemaker\u201d is a derogatory term in some subcultures for someone who doesn\u2019t behave in a \u201ctroubled\u201d way. (That is, who doesn\u2019t have problems or problems of their own making.) Someone who does this \u2013 who deliberately refuses to be troubled \u2013 will be called a \u201ctrouble-maker.\u201d And I wonder if the \u201ctrouble-maker\u201d label reflects an impulse that is not wholly positive: the desire to see the problematizing person as having a character flaw, or as irredeemable, or something.
A lot of subcultures (including online communities like 4chan) emphasize the idea that there are people who are simply not troubled at all (by which they mean not troubled by anything), and if you can recognize these trouble-free people, you can safely discard the idea that everyone is potentially troubled.
But that\u2019s not a good thing. The trouble-free person can\u2019t talk about or understand the troubled person, and can\u2019t be troubled. I wonder if anyone is really troubled and just happens to be trouble-free \u2013 I wonder if I have any trouble and just happen to have that fact taken as some kind of character flaw or secret, and am therefore unable to be troubled.