Trolling Ethics Debate Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter EI 903
  • Start date Start date
Well for one, he might stop pepper spraying people, and threatening to pepper spray others that offend him.

If he gets a short period of time in jail (which I don't think is invevitable, but it is very possible), the hope would be that it would be unpleasant enough that serves as a wake-up call. Not that it would change his outlook, but he would learn about lines he can't cross.

But I am worried that it won't have that effect. Bans haven't affected him. Interactions with security and cops haven't affected him. Even being arrested for pepper-spraying seemed to just make him feel like a bad-ass.

His comments after being released from jail worried me. He didn't seem miserable or scared like he did the last time he was jailed. He seemed energized and determined to keep doing whatever the fuck he wants. The fact that he was arrested for pepper-spraying seemed to make pepper-spray even better. He thought that someone did him wrong, and his revenge was so powerful that he ended up getting arrested for it. He seems to like that feeling.

So I am not that hopeful that jail will "fix" Chris. My hope is that he gets a lot of mandated counselling or something along those lines. It might be the best hope.
 
If he gets a short period of time in jail (which I don't think is invevitable, but it is very possible), the hope would be that it would be unpleasant enough that serves as a wake-up call. Not that it would change his outlook, but he would learn about lines he can't cross.

But I am worried that it won't have that effect. Bans haven't affected him. Interactions with security and cops haven't affected him. Even being arrested for pepper-spraying seemed to just make him feel like a bad-ass.

His comments after being released from jail worried me. He didn't seem miserable or scared like he did the last time he was jailed. He seemed energized and determined to keep doing whatever the fuck he wants. The fact that he was arrested for pepper-spraying seemed to make pepper-spray even better. He thought that someone did him wrong, and his revenge was so powerful that he ended up getting arrested for it. He seems to like that feeling.

So I am not that hopeful that jail will "fix" Chris. My hope is that he gets a lot of mandated counselling or something along those lines. It might be the best hope.

He's emboldened because he's certain that he's going to walk away from this virtually scot-free like he did last time. His latest actions suggest that Chris thinks he's somehow above the law.
 
I'm walking away because I agree with @Absinthe. I don't want the personal liability. If that makes me a quitter or a bad person.... whatever. In Chris's current state, who knows what could set him off?

I dunno... I don't think someone in a normal mental state would be happy if they found out someone was impersonating their former friends and family just so they could get close with them. I think that you got lucky that your target is marginally an invalid who can't take care of themselves because if he was an intelligent, capable person he would probably be seeking to take it further than yelling at you over the net.

I didn't want any "role" in Chris's life, I was a casual acquaintance, an Internet friend (like I said, they're not uncommon). Do you have Facebook or Twitter friends? Are you actively involved in their lives or do you just chat with them on the Internet? Friends, casual or otherwise, give unsolicited advice all the time, most people seem OK with this. If someone offers me advice that I don't argee with, then maybe we'll have a discussion or, if it's something I find offensive or distasteful, I'll break off communication with that person. None of this is out of the ordinary.

Well you sure as hell pursued him with all your might. And yes you did want a role in his life. If you wanted to help him to change and help him improve, you sought to have a role in his transformation. I hope you do see that. I have facebook friends but i didn't deceive them into being my friend and I do not think they deceived me. Now in my relationships with them, they rarely suggest that i do A, B or C to change my life. That's not a boundary people should cross. Chris crossed many boundaries in his relationship with you, however what was the response here "creepy", "weirdo", "Chris is sick". I just think you were lucky that your target here was as lonely as he was. He made it clear multiple times by being polite and not responding to the things he did not respond to in anger. He probably just got fed up with everything being about "you should probably X", "Chris you should do Y". I mean you sy that he was your friend, how much of your conversation was getting to know him, laughing about the same things, sharing beliefs, etc. He was just a target for a condescending attitude. Just call it as it is, you needed someone to take some frustration on, and the big dopy tard who dresses like a... yick... was there if you had the patience to jump through all the hoops you jumped through.

And yes I am a better influence that his psychotic paranoid mother - almost ANYONE is. This is a woman who convinced Chris that their neighbors were breeding specially trained assassin snakes and setting them loose in their house, she also convinced Chris that Michael Snyder "faked" his injuries. Barb is an absolute fucking menace; she's toxic to Chris and the sooner he's away from her the better.

Getting Chris away from Barb may be the "silver lining" in all of this.

I am just going to let this one sit because I think it exhibits a foundation of problems I do not even want to begin to touch.
 
If people here suggested that you get in contact with the MHA because of the attention you have given Chris, what would you say? He doesn't have the capabilities you were born with, that doesn't mean he has to follow you as Mommy's orders...
I'd be curious to know the circumstances. If Chris was going on about how depressed he was, which is a pretty common theme, I'd say that suggesting he seeks professional help is not objectionable.

It's the prosecutor's job to go for the maximum sentence. Around here, that's how they get re-elected. It's the defense's job (PD, PC or Pro Se) to get him off. They should be able to strike a balance that is beneficial to the defendant and the public the prosecutor represents. This fan video could upset the balance and rob the defense of any bargaining chips for rehabilitation that Chris needs instead of the prison that will make Chris worse. Normal people don't come out of prison rehabilitated, they come out with mental disorders, learn how to be better criminals and often get victimized. What good do you think 1-2 years in a state prison could do for Chris, and ultimately the community they will release him upon?
I don't see what relevance this has to the ethics of trolling Chris. The video simply shows what happened, and will presumably tie in with the testimony of everyone else involved. It's unlucky for Chris that he got filmed, but he was filmed doing something illegal in public. The shortcomings of the criminal justice system are an entirely different issue.
 
qld said:
This fan video could upset the balance and rob the defense of any bargaining chips for rehabilitation that Chris needs instead of the prison that will make Chris worse.
Who gives a shit? It's not like the prosecution is getting or using illegally obtained evidence. Again: the prosecution and defense having access to the full facts of the case in a way that respects the rule of law with plenty of witnesses and evidence is supposed to be the ideal situation. That it almost never happens is unfortunate, but that's no excuse for demanding that the prosecution has to get a handicap.

What good do you think 1-2 years in a state prison could do for Chris, and ultimately the community they will release him upon?
What makes Chris so special? What if this incident was caused by some random doofus who wasn't Chris but looked a lot like him? Should the video guy throw out his video? What if the prosecutor is familiar with Chris's celebrity status because their daughter is a Christorian? What's their obligation during the trial to ensure things are 'fair'? What if the prosecution feels that they can make a slam-dunk case without referring to the video at all? Should s/he still intentionally sandbag so that a dimwit doesn't go to prison? Do you think that witnesses have an obligation to fudge or duck testimony that would result in what you would feel is an inappropriate punishment?

If you have a problem with someone like Chris getting thrown in the pokey, then either get the law changed or work to elect judges with your mindset. You're headed down a well of madness if you think that anyone besides the judge or the legislature should special plead legal proceedings based on the defendant. It's seriously not the prosecution or witnesses' job in a legal or moral sense to do some kind of weird-ass fudge factor for people like Chris.
 
The only time Chris did something he didn't want to do that I'm aware of was the "Julie Reveals Herself" incident. He may have been coerced into doing stupid and embarrassing shit (Jackie "saga" anyone?) but it's not like anyone had anything on him to do it. Hell even when he had his PSN accounts hijacked other times most of what happened to him was minuscule compared to BlueSpike.

I think this is why I'm not personally very upset at most of the trolls. For the most part, they didn't pop the balloon so much as they poked the balloon and it gained sentience and flew straight at a box of nails out of sheer stupidity.
 
Okay, okay, okay, I need to get something clear here; Are people actually claiming that trolling Chris is unfair, because the video of him spraying someone with pepper spray might be used by the prosecutor? Don't answer that, I've read the thread, I know people are saying that, so I wanna make two points:

1: Odds are the prosecutor will never see the video and if he does, it won't matter. There are at least 10 people in that GameStop, plus whatever security system the GameStop has. If the prosecutor decides to bring the hammer down, those 13 seconds of video aren't going to matter one way or another.

2: This is the age of smartphones. Based on monozettai's account, Chris was making a scene before he pepper sprayed the guy and several people in the video react with incredulity or amusement, at least before the guy gets sprayed. People record videos of other people acting like asses and put it up on youtube all the time. The fact that Chris is internet famous means that he's more likely to get recorded, but it could happen to anyone.

Plus (and @General Juicer brought up this point earlier) but what makes Chris special in this regard? People have lost jobs because someone took a picture of them smoking a joint at a party and posted it to facebook. So long as the evidence was legally obtained, then it doesn't matter if the video was took because Chris got into a fight with ED 6 years ago and it escalated or because someone watching wanted to show a video of some jackass making a fool of himself in GameStop to their youtube followers.
 
I'm not sure this is ethics, but I just find it deeply sad that the only people in the goddamn world who even think about Chris's welfare are people who only paid attention to him in the first place because his particular mode of self-destruction happened to be hilarious.

I wish I had a nice one sentence sum-up of what this should mean, but all I have is an abiding feeling that this is a sad, sad world.

And some laughter.

It's the prosecutor's job to go for the maximum sentence.

This is a sad fact and actually goes against the special ethics rules specifically for prosecutors.

Here, look at this.

Every prosecutor in this fucking country ignores this.

E.g. Carmen Ortiz, who basically sadistically murdered Aaron Swartz.


The pronouns in this post rendered it literally incomprehensible.

Thanks Obama!
 
It's all a sick, sad situation. I can understand having someone say "I assumed a fake identity in order to affect Chris's life positively." I can see how people on both sides of that argument, as far as ethics are concerned, have some valid points. But when someone pops up and says "Hey, look, if you want NEW CONTENT, someone needs to troll Chris." When that slips out, it's no longer about helping Chris. It's only about generating content. I still maintain you can go "help" Chris all you want, however you want, but helping him does not require posting the results and findings you gained in confidence, under false pretenses, on a forum that mocks him.

It's not my intention to vilify anyone that has interacted with Chris, past or present, but it's my understanding that the purpose of this thread is to ascertain whether trolling Chris is ethical. When I consider that question, I have to make the subject, Chris, interchangeable with just about anyone else. Such as a friend, a neighbor, a co-worker, or a family member. To say Chris is deserving of chicanery, deception, "catfishing," being stalked, overzealous surveillance and having his privacy invaded is to say he deserves punishment meted out by vigilantes. I have vigilante desires myself on occasion when I hear certain crime reports or know of people of a character and morality I disagree with, but I know, ethically, they are undeserving until they have been given a fair trial and due process. Otherwise, it's Un-American and is unethical.
 
Last edited:
It's all a sick, sad situation. I can understand having someone say "I assumed a fake identity in order to affect Chris's life positively." I can see how people on both sides of that argument, as far as ethics are concerned, have some valid points. But when someone pops up and says "Hey, look, if you want NEW CONTENT, someone needs to troll Chris." When that slips out, it's no longer about helping Chris. It's only about generating content. I still maintain you can go "help" Chris all you want, however you want, but helping him does not require posting the results and findings you gained in confidence, under false pretenses, on a forum that mocks him.

It's not my intention to vilify anyone that has interacted with Chris, past or present, but it's my understanding that the purpose of this thread is to ascertain whether trolling Chris is ethical. When I consider that question, I have to make the subject, Chris, interchangeable with just about anyone else. Such as a friend, a neighbor, a co-worker, or a family member. To say Chris is deserving of chicanery, deception, "catfishing," being stalked, overzealous surveillance and having his privacy invaded is to say he deserves punishment meted out by vigilantes. I have vigilante desires myself on occasion when I hear certain crime reports or know of people of a character and morality I disagree with, but I know, ethically, they are undeserving until they have been given a fair trial and due process. Otherwise, it's Un-American and is unethical.

I'm not American so I can enjoy the new content. As long as nobody is harmed, I think its all a neutral territory.
Chris is not the President who has a public image to maintain. Chris maintains the public image of macing people and that :briefs: is totally normal thing that everybody does.
Most of the hurt Chris receives is Chris's own doing. See the Unclit and the macing Tomgirl events of late just for example.
 

I agree with most of this, but my opinion is that trolling Chris is amoral rather than immoral. I'm not going to denounce anyone who does it, but at the same time, I would probably get annoyed at anyone who does it portraying themselves as a knight in shining armor.

I am sure as hell not a wonderful person for amusing myself by watching some idiot wrecking his life, and neither is someone who is sort of helping him to do it.
 
The fact there are people who want to be directly involved in Chris's life is, itself, more astounding than their intentions.
In the case of those who want to help, I think it's because he's just such a mess that you kinda feel like something ought to be done, just out of basic human compassion.
 
In the case of those who want to help, I think it's because he's just such a mess that you kinda feel like something ought to be done, just out of basic human compassion.

No one starts trolling to help Chris. People delude themselves into thinking their intention is to help Chris, when their actual intention is to lie to and manipulate an autistic man for fun.

I still maintain you can go "help" Chris all you want, however you want, but helping him does not require posting the results and findings you gained in confidence, under false pretenses, on a forum that mocks him.

Exactly. If certain trolls actually cared about helping Chris, they wouldn't be here. It's just a pathetic delusion to excuse the fact that their hobby is manipulating and deceiving someone who is much more vulnerable than themselves.
 
No one starts trolling to help Chris. People delude themselves into thinking their intention is to help Chris, when their actual intention is to lie to and manipulate an autistic man for fun.



Exactly. If certain trolls actually cared about helping Chris, they wouldn't be here. It's just a pathetic delusion to excuse the fact that their hobby is manipulating and deceiving someone who is much more vulnerable than themselves.

Your wrong, very few people here have ever really trolled Chris, he is just a funny nutter who does weird crap an people watch far worse stuff on TV day in day out.

And a awful lot of people on here do or did care about Chris an his well being, again we are the ones who reached into our pockets to help post fire, trolls are the ones who stopped a possibly serious medical problem with the whole gooch piercing situation. I have never activly trolled any one it's just not my thing I am strictly stand back an watch the show, but since Bob passed away other than a few weens any one who has successfully "Trolled" him has done so not just for content as that is always going to happen but to try an help him without the trolls he would not have engaged with people or been out the house for more than take out and shopping.
 
No one starts trolling to help Chris. People delude themselves into thinking their intention is to help Chris, when their actual intention is to lie to and manipulate an autistic man for fun.

This may be true in some sort of general sense, but I think any time you say that "nobody" ever does something, you're going to run afoul of exceptions. I've never personally trolled or interacted with Chris in any way, other than a few times I told him he was a fucking idiot in commenting on one of his videos back in 2009 or so.

Part of why I have remained fascinated with him has not been so much Chris himself as that his trolls themselves are creepily fascinating. I've been just sort of amazed that the Internet has even made interactions like this possible.

I do generally agree with you that pure schadenfreude is what keeps most of us here, but at times, the sheer awfulness of what Chris does to himself makes you step back and think whether there is something, anything you can do to make this better, because unless you are an absolute monster, watching someone utterly destroy himself stops being amusing and starts being horrifying.
 
A thread got totally derailed, so let's talk about it here. When it comes to failed attempts at a "Long Con", the difference between a troll and a ween is timing. Whoever gets to Chris first is the troll and the WINNAR. Even though Chris is shockingly gullible, being the second person to have the idea will make you a failure.
 
Back