Trolling Ethics Debate Thread

[General Juicer]

The ethics of the trolling thing today, on Kiwi, seems pretty clear (to me at least). Anyone here who chooses to interact with OPL at this point, in any way beyond casual observation, exposes a sort of "all about me" mentality. This does not make for good observation and exploration - it turns this whole thing into a scripted event that eventually devolves into cheerleading and hugboxery. Trolling is and art, remember?

I think that all of the trolling, with the possible exception of the Alec Benson Leary calls, was idiotic. Even the supposedly great moments of trolling like Liquid Chris and the Miyamoto Saga and Asperchu. Current crap like Chris's garbage being raided or Catherine is no more or less stupid than the SingStar Challenge or Kacey's Dad calls. We know this, because almost every other plan to troll lolcows, many of whom are objectively less intelligent than Chris, yields much less fruit. The only thing that redeems any trolling plan is Chris's reactions. But Chris is unparalleled in gullibility, so the glory days of the 'good' trolls says more about Chris than them.

 

[Catastrophic]

Let me preface this by saying, I love trolls and I love watching Chris get trolled. I appreciate all the effort that has gone into it over the years for our entertainment. This isn't addressed to anyone specific but, how can any rational person think the trolling actually helped Chris?

His reputation is completely ruined thanks to the trolls. There are countless humiliating nude pictures and videos on the internet of him which he will have to live with for the rest of his life. If he ever wanted to apply for another job or find a true and honest sweetheart, they will likely at some point, find out about all of those by typing his name into a search engine. If you take the trolls out of the equation, those pictures and videos don't exist, period.

Chris is the major cause of his own downfall but the trolls have certainty played a role. Like I said, I appreciate all the current and former trolls, I just think it should be called like it is.

 

[timtommy]

It is at this point that Chris' life begins to take a different direction. No troll sweethearts. However, the world of online dating gets a lot worse than Chris' experiences. Getting fleeced and being ripped off is quite possible. Chris also has the opposite problem--he's a lot worse than his online profile would suggest. This presents an interesting catch-22.

Chris can get ripped off until he gives up on online dating. Conversely, he can also manage to date real women and discover that none of them are impressed by his behavior. Chris probably does find out about escorts earlier and eventually decides to hire one, but having sex didn't really do much for Chris in the long run, and having it earlier in life doesn't really improve himself.

This is the main part I disagree with. If a non-trolled Chris dated online the most likely outcome is that he would be completely ignored. Ripoffs do happen online, but they are rare. And Chris has so little to rip off. Most likely his profiles would sit there unresponded to for year after year, a lot like the attraction sign.

Important years of his development? Chris was 25 years old when he was discovered by trolls. That cow was long let out of the barn. Not to say that people don't change, but did anything in Chris's life from HS graduation unto the ED Drama show even an iota of promise towards him changing for the better? Chris already had a massive ego, already was massively lazy, already was intellectually stunted, already kept getting into trouble with the law, already had problems relating to other people, and already had massive problems with gainful employment and money. Hell, you can't even blame trolls for his massive persecution complex. Just read Sonichu.

The "big picture" effect I think the trolls are most likely to have had is reinforcing Chris behaviour.

He kept getting sweethearts. Yes they were all trolls, but he is capable of ignoring that fact when he wants too. He can use that to justify the fact that girls might be interested in him, easily addressable flaws and all.

His legions of "Sonichu" fans made him think he was a well-loved artist. Did that allow him to avoid doing productive things because he could say that working on Sonichu was productive too? I suppose its possible.

Of course, trolls provide a perfect built in excuse. Don't have a job? No point in trying, because trolls. Can't make friends? No point in addressing why, the reason is trolls?

And the recent Blue Arms thing. He had a legion of facebook weens feeding his delusions.

Chris hasn't fundamentally changed at all since the pre-trolling days. I don't particularly think that Chris would have improved that much without trolls. But I can see the argument that they allowed him to stay the way he is.

 

[General Juicer]

If you take the trolls out of the equation, those pictures and videos don't exist, period.

Okay, so trolls never discovered Chris and he didn't have all of that awful stuff on the Internet and the HR manager or an Internet companion decides to give him a chance.

So now what? In the former's case, they see that he has untreated autism, never held any job for more than two months, barely graduated high school, has no idea how to hold a normal conversation, and has tastes way outside of his expected age group. In the latter's case, Chris in addition to everything previously mentioned is unattractive, has no friends, lives with his crazy-ass hoarding mother, thinks that inquiring about marriage and child-rearing on the first date is normal, and has massive issues with personal space.

Yeah, Chris's troll-produced video collection would be life-ruining for normal people or even run-of-the-mill lolcows like PixyTeri, but Chris... is special.

Chris hasn't fundamentally changed at all since the pre-trolling days. I don't particularly think that Chris would have improved that much without trolls. But I can see the argument that they allowed him to stay the way he is.

I don't, because the things that the trolls did to Chris only tangentially intersected with the things that are really messing him up. How much did encouraging Chris's delusions that he had millions of fans cause him to run up credit card debt and neglect exercise? How much did the troll sweethearts make him an outcast in his church and family? What effect did having him engage in ridiculous cybersex and show off his bent duck have on him antagonizing legitimate authority figures?

 

[Atlas 95]

Chris hasn't fundamentally changed at all since the pre-trolling days. I don't particularly think that Chris would have improved that much without trolls. But I can see the argument that they allowed him to stay the way he is.

I really can't see that argument. Chris uses that excuse, but that's all it is, an excuse. A flimsy one at that. If he didn't have the trolls he'd just blame his autism, like he did before the trolling started

His reputation is completely ruined thanks to the trolls

Even when dealing with people not aware of his online reputation (Wallflower comes to mind, or Megan as she was around before he really made one) Chris screws it up because of his abrasive personality. He's an egotistical moron with poor self control and very little sense of appropriate social or physical boundaries. Without a wealth of video evidence behind him, he still managed to get fired from his Wendy's job for how poorly he handled the public

 

[AnOminous]

If the specific trolls who discovered Chris hadn't discovered him, other trolls would have. Speculating about how Chris would have been without trolls is basically speculating on what if we lived in an entirely different world where someone sperging on the Internet didn't attract trolls like sugar draws ants.

 

[Stud2Stud]

Important years of his development? Chris was 25 years old when he was discovered by trolls. That cow was long let out of the barn. Not to say that people don't change, but did anything in Chris's life from HS graduation unto the ED Drama show even an iota of promise towards him changing for the better? Chris already had a massive ego, already was massively lazy, already was intellectually stunted, already kept getting into trouble with the law, already had problems relating to other people, and already had massive problems with gainful employment and money. Hell, you can't even blame trolls for his massive persecution complex. Just read Sonichu.

I'm not questioning any of those assertions, I am (again) merely pointing out there is a possibility his life could have changed for the better even if it just had been a little. It's consensus on this forum that Chris mental and physical age don't match up. I'm remarking on the possibility of him coming to some conclusion in his 20s that might have allowed him to improve.
Blue Max made a long post arguing that his life would be worse without the trolls. That is nonsense. Using it to argue why trolling Chris is a good thing is pointless.
I'm not saying without trolls Chris would now lead a happy, fulfilled life with a family of his own and a successful job. I know the most likely scenario is Chris being pretty much in an equally shitty position, even without trolls. What I am saying is this: We will never know. Using such speculation to defend or justify his trolling is nonsense.

What's so speculative about it? Chris got in trouble with the law thanks to his ego and pettiness before discovery by trolls. While he was being trolled, Chris got into less trouble. After organized trolling ended, Chris got into even more trouble. Correlation does not equal causation, but if you don't have correlation then you don't have causation.

There's a whole wiki dedicated to his misadventures. He might have gotten into less legal trouble during that time, but what he got in exchange is hardly any better.

Like Catasrophic put it:

Let me preface this by saying, I love trolls and I love watching Chris get trolled. I appreciate all the effort that has gone into it over the years for our entertainment. This isn't addressed to anyone specific but, how can any rational person think the trolling actually helped Chris?

His reputation is completely ruined thanks to the trolls. There are countless humiliating nude pictures and videos on the internet of him which he will have to live with for the rest of his life. If he ever wanted to apply for another job or find a true and honest sweetheart, they will likely at some point, find out about all of those by typing his name into a search engine. If you take the trolls out of the equation, those pictures and videos don't exist, period.

Chris is the major cause of his own downfall but the trolls have certainty played a role. Like I said, I appreciate all the current and former trolls, I just think it should be called like it is.

I can only throw in my own two cents:
Without the trolling, Chris might have at some point gotten a clue and worked towards improving himself. Not very likely, but not impossible.
What is - however - impossible, is Chris having a regular life the way it happened with trolling.

I think at this point the only thing to do is agreeing to disagree, though.

Edit:
I hope I don't come across like a holier than thou 'no fun allowed' jackass, that's actually not what I'm trying to do here.
I just dislike the idea of justifying trolling by claiming it improved somone's life. It feels insincere to me.
Hope I don't step on anyone's toes here...

 

[Kaptcher]

I can only throw in my own two cents:
Without the trolling, Chris might have at some point gotten a clue and worked towards improving himself. Not very likely, but not impossible.
What is - however - impossible, is Chris having a regular life the way it happened with trolling.

With the trolling, Chris' reaction each occasion was identical and reflective of no lessons learnt. Each. and. every. time.
Before the trolling, Chris' reaction to being called out on anything that put him in a bad light was to deflect blame and abscond from responsibility. Each. and. every. time.
Trolls provided him with a convenient scapegoat of responsibility. If they hadn't existed, I can only speculate that Chris would have found something else to fill the gap. He is a fundamentally self-ingratiated person unable to accept accountability because he lacks the self-awareness to realize he has a major part to play in his own downfall. While it's my personal opinion, without trolls, he would still be living the life that he does (albeit not broadcast to such a large forum) and would still have tied these problems into some kind of conspiracy against him, masterminded by another human being- his campaign against Mary-Lee Walsh is reflective of this.

EDIT- But I digress, I guess there is no telling what could have happened or not. I just have a feeling that Chris would have messed his life up and blamed somebody other than himself, regardless.

 

[Coldgrip]

If he ever wanted to apply for another job or find a true and honest sweetheart, they will likely at some point, find out about all of those by typing his name into a search engine. I

Even if those pictures didn't exist, his personality would drive away any potential sweetheart and his own laziness coupled with his poor attitude would ensure he'd never be able to get or maintain a job.

 

[Blue Max]

Don't get me wrong, this is not meant to be disrespectful, but:

Do you honestly think removing something as majorly influencing like the trolling from Chris life would pan out like this? With barely any changes and somehow worse off than he is now?

That's a lot to buy.

Chris is a thousand dollars richer for knowing the trolls by direct donation, has a market for his Sonichu Medallions, and has been viewed by 1,000,000+ people. He has a possible out to still be something with his life by embracing the eccentric reputation he's built.

He has not crossed any legal lines with real women. He's had two legitimate "heartsweets": Megan Schroeder and the Wallflower. Chris claims (probably untrue) that he drew Shecame4CWC.JPG because it was either that or raping Megan. I can give you many possible outcomes where Chris winds up in a worse position than getting chewed out by Matthew Davoria and learning that the relationships aren't working out. You aren't going to sell me that the lovequest would fare any better than it did with the Trolls around, and that was not heading in a good way--Attraction Signs and Want Woman should be fairly clear that this was NOT going to go well.

The trolls have been, in general, the voice of reason in Chris' life:

Remember SheCame4CWC? Chris uploaded it. ED deleted it. Chris decided to upload it again, and for years celebrated it in the Luv Shack.
Chris' Ego? The Trolls have fought quite hard on that point to bring Chris back to earth.
Chris' spending habits? Reggie Fils-Aime had something to say about that.
Chris' Hypocrisy? I refer you to Asperchu, itself a parody of Sonichu.
Chris' Homophobia? How about his hygiene? Or his hatred of all men?

But let's go further. Let's talk about 10/28/11.
It's a red letter day in Christory. Chris and Barb ram Michael Snyder with their car, twice. It's a massive legal saga, and our bread and butter after a somewhat lean period. Most of us know the broad details, some of us know the salient points. But a very similar act had been done previously, and the trolls learned about it.

This was a troll attempt to reveal it to Bob, and hopefully stop this sort of thing from happening again.

I don't think that Chris' life without the trolls would have been better. But I'm pretty confident that it would likely wind up slightly worse--and think about it, Chris with even less social interaction, with people less willing to put up with his antics, and his achievements are less known and smaller. No Medallion business for absolute sure.

I'm not sure there's enough evidence to say that Chris' life wouldn't be about the same. But are people really thinking he'd grow up with less motivation and less social contact?

 

[Morbid Boredom]

I don't think that Chris' life without the trolls would have been better. But I'm pretty confident that it would likely wind up slightly worse--and think about it, Chris with even less social interaction, with people less willing to put up with his antics, and his achievements are less known and smaller. No Medallion business for absolute sure.

I'm not sure there's enough evidence to say that Chris' life wouldn't be about the same. But are people really thinking he'd grow up with less motivation and less social contact?

The pittance Chris has made from medallions was not worth 7 years of harassment.

Perhaps I'm not well-enough versed in this, but I think that the trolls inadvertently caused Chris to double down on his bad ideas, and certainly fed into his persecution complex -making every interaction with the general public worse.

I do concede there's no evidence Chris was applying for work anywhere, and a job truly would have improved his life -more spending money, something to keep his mind off internet loonies, etc.

 

[trueandhonestfan]

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.

I have to disagree with you there. At this point, I think the only way to get Chris pay attention to trolling is by pretending to be a grillfren. I think anybody who actually gets Chris to provide with content/lulz successfully is different from your average ween (yelling JULAAAY, Ian Brandon Anderson, blah blah). My problem with Catherine isn't that the e-girlfriend thing has already been done, but the fact that she was meant to get information about Chris' living situation (and that it broke off to early/ the Collin thing). Something that hasn't been done before ( until the last year) but is totally ween is something like digging through Chris' trash for homework or filing an eBay report about Chris' Medallion (although I do think that was justified, because Chris was very late, and then sent the Angry-eyed Medallion).

 

[Blue Max]

The pittance Chris has made from medallions was not worth 7 years of harassment.

Perhaps I'm not well-enough versed in this, but I think that the trolls inadvertently caused Chris to double down on his bad ideas, and certainly fed into his persecution complex -making every interaction with the general public worse.

I do concede there's no evidence Chris was applying for work anywhere, and a job truly would have improved his life -more spending money, something to keep his mind off internet loonies, etc.

Look at the section I've just painted blue.

This sort of thinking is literally that of a hostage taker, claiming that the choice to do something terrible is somehow on the head of someone not pointing a gun at an innocent person. And just like a terrorist killing a hostage isn't the fault of the FBI, neither is a troll's plot to monkey with Chris online responsible for Chris living a defective existence.

Chris isn't a robot or a program; he's capable of his own very original and off the wall thinking. Chris is not insane, and I suspect, he's not mentally incompetent. There are a few things that Trolls have legitimately done that were illegal or wrong, such as unlawfully controlling his PSN accounts. Most of the actions of trolls were suggestions and some manipulation--and Chris always had the power to say no, had the power to turn off the internet or even contact the authorities.

Treating Chris like a passive object that breaks because other people break it is wrongminded and, I suspect, the source for a lot of ethical splatter against Trolls. This ethical splatter assumes that trolls have a moral obligation to avoid manipulating Chris in any way--but they don't have this obligation. It is not unethical to ask a clerk for a volume discount or a deal on something they're promoting. It is not unethical to buy the pretty girl a drink at the bar and see if maybe she's boyfriend free.

Chris is his own free bitch, and that means that just about all trolling suggestions, manipulations and interactions (Try putting your phone number up after attacking a popular website and claiming credit for taking it down for unrelated reasons) are on his head. Chris has directly motivated many people into disliking him, and he's culpable for that dislike. How is calling Chris to tell him that he's full of crap unfair or unjustified in this situation? And if he ignores your first call, calling him and telling him that Sonic is dead or that Rosechu has a penis is fair game as well.

I think people are REALLY QUICK to exonerate or minimize Chris' own actions in these sorts of ethical discussions. These actions include harassment campaigns, trespassing, causing bodily injury with a vehicle, and now include some level of violence against a Gamestop assistant manager and a harassment campaign against local businesses. These actions do not deserve the love and admiration of others, or the toleration of society.

These actions justify social disapproval. Entrenched within ethics is the concept of fair play and proportionate response. How is it unethical to contact some asshole that took down a website you enjoy for petty personal reasons and express your displeasure? Particularly when your phone number is on the public record, your actions are public, and your gloating is public?

Chris didn't get harassed for seven years because he was a friendly person who was making a difference and was gainfully employed. He was ALSO not harassed on the orders of Clyde Cash, CEO of Trollcorp. It was because of what he did--because he decided to post porn of Megan online, repeatedly. He decided to accuse someone who did a better job with a rap video of cheating, even though his own showed the words "Birthday Boy" nonsensically. If there were no trolls, are we suggesting that vaguely dangerous people are trying to take Chris down instead? There would NOT be no response from Chris' own stupidity.

Most trolling falls inside the bounds of fair play and proportionate response; therefore, most trolling is ethical. This ultimately all boils down to the Golden Rule; "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." I could cite the Bible [Matthew 7:12], but in fact this seems to be a very widespread ethical belief--and how many people would expect to be chastised for advocating violence? For harassing women in businesses? For blatant hypocrisy?

Tl;dr: Chris has almost nothing to show for his actions without the trolls except a trial and a second one coming soon. Trolling is, in the case of CWC, reasonably ethical. And Blue Max likes using paint functions for emphasis.

 

[timtommy]

Snip

You raise some good points, but

1. Objecting to something a troll does does not mean giving Chris a pass for anything.
2. I think you have to be careful about mixing up stupid things Chris does and morally wrong things Chris does. He has done many things that fit into one or both of these categories, but they should probably be separated.
3. I think you have to be really careful with justifying trolling by saying it was punishment for Chris' bad behaviour. For one thing, that was not the intention of it. And it opens up a can of worms where you have to consider each infraction Chris comitted and weigh it against the troll response. Just like I think that the morality of each troll has to be judged separately, I think the morality of trolls has to be judged separately from Chris.
4. I do think that when Chris is manipulated into doing something, some blame/credit has to go to the manipulators. I guess it depends on the situation. If someone just makes a silly suggestion, and he runs with it, I am with you. But other times trolls used blackmail and trickery to put him in a situation which steered him forcefully in one direction.

 

[Morbid Boredom]

Look at the section I've just painted blue.

This sort of thinking is literally that of a hostage taker, claiming that the choice to do something terrible is somehow on the head of someone not pointing a gun at an innocent person. And just like a terrorist killing a hostage isn't the fault of the FBI, neither is a troll's plot to monkey with Chris online responsible for Chris living a defective existence.

Chris isn't a robot or a program; he's capable of his own very original and off the wall thinking. Chris is not insane, and I suspect, he's not mentally incompetent. There are a few things that Trolls have legitimately done that were illegal or wrong, such as unlawfully controlling his PSN accounts. Most of the actions of trolls were suggestions and some manipulation--and Chris always had the power to say no, had the power to turn off the internet or even contact the authorities.

Treating Chris like a passive object that breaks because other people break it is wrongminded and, I suspect, the source for a lot of ethical splatter against Trolls. This ethical splatter assumes that trolls have a moral obligation to avoid manipulating Chris in any way--but they don't have this obligation. It is not unethical to ask a clerk for a volume discount or a deal on something they're promoting. It is not unethical to buy the pretty girl a drink at the bar and see if maybe she's boyfriend free.

Chris is his own free bitch, and that means that just about all trolling suggestions, manipulations and interactions (Try putting your phone number up after attacking a popular website and claiming credit for taking it down for unrelated reasons) are on his head. Chris has directly motivated many people into disliking him, and he's culpable for that dislike. How is calling Chris to tell him that he's full of crap unfair or unjustified in this situation? And if he ignores your first call, calling him and telling him that Sonic is dead or that Rosechu has a penis is fair game as well.

I think people are REALLY QUICK to exonerate or minimize Chris' own actions in these sorts of ethical discussions. These actions include harassment campaigns, trespassing, causing bodily injury with a vehicle, and now include some level of violence against a Gamestop assistant manager and a harassment campaign against local businesses. These actions do not deserve the love and admiration of others, or the toleration of society.

These actions justify social disapproval. Entrenched within ethics is the concept of fair play and proportionate response. How is it unethical to contact some asshole that took down a website you enjoy for petty personal reasons and express your displeasure? Particularly when your phone number is on the public record, your actions are public, and your gloating is public?

Chris didn't get harassed for seven years because he was a friendly person who was making a difference and was gainfully employed. He was ALSO not harassed on the orders of Clyde Cash, CEO of Trollcorp. It was because of what he did--because he decided to post porn of Megan online, repeatedly. He decided to accuse someone who did a better job with a rap video of cheating, even though his own showed the words "Birthday Boy" nonsensically. If there were no trolls, are we suggesting that vaguely dangerous people are trying to take Chris down instead? There would NOT be no response from Chris' own stupidity.

Most trolling falls inside the bounds of fair play and proportionate response; therefore, most trolling is ethical. This ultimately all boils down to the Golden Rule; "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." I could cite the Bible [Matthew 7:12], but in fact this seems to be a very widespread ethical belief--and how many people would expect to be chastised for advocating violence? For harassing women in businesses? For blatant hypocrisy?

Tl;dr: Chris has almost nothing to show for his actions without the trolls except a trial and a second one coming soon. Trolling is, in the case of CWC, reasonably ethical. And Blue Max likes using paint functions for emphasis.

Your argument is compelling, and I think we're talking past each other because I'm operating on different assumptions.

1) I believe Chris is incompetent -he thinks Sonichu is real. He's only deemed competent in the US because the bar is super high -the state of Texas will execute retarded people. Chris certainly makes this worse for himself because he refuses any actual psychiatric help past an evaluation to make sure he's not an ax-murderer. He's stupid and selfish, but he's also too damned messed up to walk away.

2) I believe the trolling is often disproportionate vigilantism. As embarrassing as BlueSpike was (it turns out some trolls are just reckless adolescents!) it happened -there are few people who believe that was okay. I guess I've just set the bar for proportionate a bit lower.

3) I most definitely believe there have been just consequences for Chris's actions. He's a pariah. No one here who looks askance at BlueSpike says Clyde Cash owes Chris a girlfriend. Chris lives in his own filth and we said "Jeez, SkyRaider, isn't digging through his trash a bit embarrassing?" not "Clean poor Chris's house!" This isn't the same as enabling.

 

[Atlas 95]

Your argument is compelling, and I think we're talking past each other because I'm operating on different assumptions.

1) I believe Chris is incompetent -he thinks Sonichu is real. He's only deemed competent in the US because the bar is super high -the state of Texas will execute retarded people. Chris certainly makes this worse for himself because he refuses any actual psychiatric help past an evaluation to make sure he's not an ax-murderer. He's stupid and selfish, but he's also too damned messed up to walk away.

I think the term your both looking for here is accountable. Chris is incompetent at many things, to the point where even the things I could say he is competent at come with caveats to counter that. But, ultimately, he is more than mentally aware enough to be be considered accountable for his actions. If nothing else, even the situations where you claim coercion all Chris had to do was sit tight for a month and do nothing and even the PSN hacking would have been stopped simply because it wouldn't be funny. Chris reacted, and prolonged the trolling at every juncture

2) I believe the trolling is often disproportionate vigilantism. As embarrassing as BlueSpike was (it turns out some trolls are just reckless adolescents!) it happened -there are few people who believe that was okay. I guess I've just set the bar for proportionate a bit lower.

I'm not seeing this. Some might dress it up as vigilantism but I don't think its getting back at Chris for what he thinks or professes to believe, but simply mocking an idiot who kept climbing back into the spotlight for more mockery. Later it might have evolved into attempts to help Chris in some way, but only much later. Really only the most recent (2014) contact was mostly to assist Chris or at least fill out his background without a primary focus on generating content, although that's just my opinion and some conjecture.

3) I most definitely believe there have been just consequences for Chris's actions. He's a pariah. No one here who looks askance at BlueSpike says Clyde Cash owes Chris a girlfriend. Chris lives in his own filth and we said "Jeez, SkyRaider, isn't digging through his trash a bit embarrassing?" not "Clean poor Chris's house!" This isn't the same as enabling.

And one of the biggest consequences of Chris's own, entirely self motivated, actions has been the trolling. When he was first discovered he was but one of the seemingly infinite number of internet 'artists' with a shitty Sonic recolour that ED felt was worth a bit of a laugh at. Then the video message got dug up and ED had some more stuff to laugh at. It could have stopped there but Chris finds the page and goes on a ridiculous crusade that brought the trolls to his door. And ever since then he's been interacting with them. Like I said earlier, even when the trolling got so pervasive it leaked into Chris's secure accounts all he had to do was disengage. The joke would have been over, the wiki would stagnate and fall off the 'net, and the forums would empty and gather dust. But Chris always had to respond. Thus, consequences

 

[Stud2Stud]

Look at the section I've just painted blue.

People on the internet made him believe there's a bunch of fans that love his comics. They planted the idea into his head there's girls so willing to have sex with him, they have internet-catfights over who's first. They also reinforced the idea there's some sort of troll-corporation.
Of course it's not the peoples fault Chris is a gullible idiot that believed all this and they can't be blamed for Chris cherrypicking the parts that he thinks are true/lies based on whether he gets fuzzy wuzzies or prickly wicklies when he thinks about them, but that behaviour still affected him. I don't condemn the people who put these ideas into Chris' head, I just want to get the point across that it affected Chris.

Chris isn't a robot or a program; he's capable of his own very original and off the wall thinking. Chris is not insane, and I suspect, he's not mentally incompetent.

He has autism, isn't very bright, incredibly gullible and easy to manipulate if you push the right buttons (which he'll happily telegraph ahead individually). Obviously, that doesn't take away his own accountability, but it's not like accountability is a feeble thing that can only ever exist on one side alone. Chris is mentally not en par with a regular grown up person and people were taking advantage of that. Again, I am not condemning it, mind you, I'm just pointing it out.

Treating Chris like a passive object that breaks because other people break it is wrongminded and, I suspect, the source for a lot of ethical splatter against Trolls. This ethical splatter assumes that trolls have a moral obligation to avoid manipulating Chris in any way--but they don't have this obligation. It is not unethical to ask a clerk for a volume discount or a deal on something they're promoting. It is not unethical to buy the pretty girl a drink at the bar and see if maybe she's boyfriend free.

With your two examples, I can't help but wonder where "pretending to be a romantically interested girl to gain access to personal information" would fit in.

Spoiler

sorry if that sounded smug or something, couldn't resist...

See, I am the first one to concur that trolls do not have any obligation to behave ethically. They are trolls. What they do is unethical by definition. That's the whole point I am trying to make.

Chris is his own free bitch, and that means that just about all trolling suggestions, manipulations and interactions (Try putting your phone number up after attacking a popular website and claiming credit for taking it down for unrelated reasons) are on his head. Chris has directly motivated many people into disliking him, and he's culpable for that dislike. How is calling Chris to tell him that he's full of crap unfair or unjustified in this situation? And if he ignores your first call, calling him and telling him that Sonic is dead or that Rosechu has a penis is fair game as well.

Repeatedly calling someone just to tell him you dislike him is silly.

I think people are REALLY QUICK to exonerate or minimize Chris' own actions in these sorts of ethical discussions. These actions include harassment campaigns, trespassing, causing bodily injury with a vehicle, and now include some level of violence against a Gamestop assistant manager and a harassment campaign against local businesses. These actions do not deserve the love and admiration of others, or the toleration of society.

Oh come on. Trolls being vigilantes doing society a favor/dishing out justice by trolling Chris? That's a bold statement to say the least.

Chris didn't get harassed for seven years because he was a friendly person who was making a difference and was gainfully employed. He was ALSO not harassed on the orders of Clyde Cash, CEO of Trollcorp. It was because of what he did--because he decided to post porn of Megan online, repeatedly. He decided to accuse someone who did a better job with a rap video of cheating, even though his own showed the words "Birthday Boy" nonsensically. If there were no trolls, are we suggesting that vaguely dangerous people are trying to take Chris down instead? There would NOT be no response from Chris' own stupidity.

I'll go out on a limb here but I'll say most trolls didn't want to avenge victims of Chris bad behaviour like Snyder or Megan and merely enjoyed poking Chris to get some Lulz.
Of course Chris is an asshole, even when you cut him some slack for his autism he's behaving like a dick, but "two wrongs don't make one right".

Most trolling falls inside the bounds of fair play and proportionate response; therefore, most trolling is ethical. This ultimately all boils down to the Golden Rule; "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." I could cite the Bible [Matthew 7:12], but in fact this seems to be a very widespread ethical belief--and how many people would expect to be chastised for advocating violence? For harassing women in businesses? For blatant hypocrisy?

There's a difference between being chastised and being trolled for years, I'd say.

I guess I should point out my stance on this whole thing is not "Trolling Chris is bad and thus should never have happened".
My opinion on this matter is "Trolling Chris is not ethically justifiable, but it gave me content that I enjoy, so let's not be hypocritical and pretend we're on moral highground for picking on a mentally challenged person."
I am not against trolling Chris. I am just against sugarcoating it to a point where people try to insinuate it's a moral obligation of brave internet vigilantes that serve society.

I enjoy his silly antics, the outcome of some of the trolls and I enjoy talking about this stuff with you people. Even though I know this most likely means I'm a bit of an asshole.

 

[Blue Max]

Behind all of the trolling, the common thread that holds it together, and the single justification that we're here is one, undeniable and obvious truth:

Chris is an unrepentant asshole.

This was known at the very beginning; this fight was started by Chris himself. Chris dox'd himself, Chris uploaded porn of Megan, and Chris gave everyone the opportunity to troll him. Chris has made it easy, given people a motivation, and perhaps further, Chris has really proven that he'll listen to some trolls--and it could make a difference.

Throw in another Philosopher, this time Saint Thomas Aquinas.

The consequences of stopping Chris from harming someone, harming himself, getting mental help and even just growing up are the payoffs. According to the principle of double effect, if a troll legitimately intended to improve Chris' life as their goal, this justifies morally neutral acts.

This is the stated intent of Clyde Cash.
Trolling attempts against Chris' homophobia, hatred of other slow in the minds, racism, creepy posturing with women, drawing porn of acquaintances, making parodies of other comics or even forcing him to grow up are actually fairly common.

I'm not going to claim that gaining Lulz is a positive good, nor am I going to defend manipulating [not forcing] Chris into inserting his medallion into his tailpipe. Or stealing his PSN account. But what if these acts are neutral?

The good effect can also sufficiently outweigh the bad effects to justify the bad effects. Impersonating Matthew Noble, our own Alec Benson Leary tried to stop 10/28/11 from happening. The president of Nintendo America tells Chris his idea is terrible and he needs to focus on different things. The whole Liquid Saga was about making Chris face his shortcomings.

And finally, recall that Chris now stands trial for a felony. His incredible ego, that has already led him into major grief, has now collided with an Assistant Manager at Gamestop. If trolls wanted to act because taking Chris down a notch or dropping his ego was a goal, I think the evidence has shown that it would indeed be ethical to make that claim.

Not all trolling is ethical. Blind reciprocity doesn't imply ethics, Chris still has rights and Chris still has the responsibilities that come with being his own man/tomgirl. But I think starting with the point that Chris himself bears that responsibility (and he's not insane, competent, and high functioning autistic and refuses further mental assistance--it's on him) the conclusion is a lot further in favor of trolls.

Individuals might act unethically with Chris. But a troll acting with a desire to deflate Chris' ego and using no means of coercion, is probably acting ethically. And I've got a Christian Saint on that point.

TL;DR Saint Thomas Aquinas Principle of Double Effect largely justifies trolling.

 

[rugg247]

Always laugh when I read arguments pertaining to trolls ruining his reputation.

shut up. He never had a good reputation to begin with and has never made a valid effort to improve his life or his image. He wanted everything in his life to be handed to him while he was acting like a man child so trolls were handed to him when his antics became increasingly public.

There was no hope period.

 

[Le Bateleur]

Chris is a vulnerable person. He is mentally disabled to the point that medical professionals agree he is unable to support himself through work.

When a group of organised people, each with superior mental abilities, decide to manipulate him, I don't think the "Chris chose to go along with it" argument holds much water.

I've also never seen anyone so spectacularly misapply the Golden Rule. If I became mentally disabled, I would want to be treated with compassion by qualified professionals. I would not want to be manipulated by unaccountable trolls for their own amusement. Thus, the application of the principle is "don't troll Chris".

Nobody who messed with Chris did so out of a sense of duty. They all got something out of it, be it amusement, praise or self-validation.