Calling Palmer a troll is a fair assessment. She wrote something that she knew would be controversial, then claimed she didn’t know people would get upset. After all this time, after deliberately courting controversy for all these years, you really think she wasn’t expecting controversy again? Of course she was. And when she denies it, she’s trolling. That is the literal definition of trolling: Saying something you know will cause a stir and then pretending like you had no idea. It may be subjective, but I have seen no indication that Palmer is culturally relevant. She only makes the news when she says awful things about disabled feminists in TV interviews, or “edgy” comments on Twitter about donating to the KKK, or fails to pay her musicians, or writes sympathetic poems for a legal adult who deliberately blew up civilians, including an 8-year-old child. And the publicity she gets for these things is extensive, because she and her famous husband love to get on Twitter and defend her actions while clutching their collective pearls and pretending like everyone else has the problem, not her, because it’s totally normal to say “give money to the Klan” on Twitter. That’s ART, baby, and if you don’t get it then you’re stupid, etc. etc. They both send their fans out to attack people who disagree. During Gaiman’s “few dead Indians” idiocy and Palmer’s Evelyn Evelyn fiasco (both in 2010, IIRC) some fans attacked critics and made death threats. They didn’t cause the threats, but they both know this is the kind of response they will engender, and yet they keep rallying their fans to back them up. Again, that is trollish. All of this speaks to her attempt to force relevance when her art contains very little of its own relevance.