Trolling Ethics Debate Thread

[Morbid Boredom]

I actually feel sympathy for the people who have to provide content to the ever-gaping maul of the insatiable Cwciforums. It's like an unpaid, thankless job.

It is, but they also could just walk away. Like the CWCki says, Chris could have stopped this at any time, his circumstances don't excuse his behavior. Just as surely as people are here of their own accord, someone is supplying information of their own accord.

 

[Flowers For Sonichu]

It was a rhetorical question. I don't care about your rationalization for being on this forum because it's an excuse that will be of the same form that @Thetan and @skyraider91 use to justify their own actions.

I honestly think people on this forum are detached from reality. Since you like hypotheticals, let's try this:
Kiwi user's boss: "I've been viewing your internet browsing history here at work and you go to the place called Kiwi Forums. Can you explain this?"
Kiwi user: "Oh it's just a place where I go so I can get more information about my favorite autistic manchild."
Kiwi user's boss: "..."
Kiwi user: "But it's okay I don't actually actively stalk him. In fact, I actually made a post criticizing the people I get my information from as I compulsively browse the forums. See I'm on the moral high ground here! My behavior is perfectly acceptable."
Kiwi user's boss: "I think you should see the company psychiatrist. Or pack your desk. Your choice."

See how that works?

I don't know what you're talking about, I got my boss to use the term "exceptional individual" because of these forums.

 

[Godjesus]

I don't know what you're talking about, I got my boss to use the term "exceptional individual" because of these forums.

That's realistic content bro.

 

[Le Bateleur]

If you can't see them, I can't help you.

Hi TJ!

I'm really not interesting in an argument over semantics but I will leave the discussion with this:

You have a strange way of leaving.

You are on a forum that documents the most intimate information on an autistic adult individual, while you are criticizing those that try to provide the information that you consume in the most benign way they know how to.

That's two big assumptions. One, how do you know what Chris information I do or do not consume. Two, how can you be sure that the current Chris trolls - or any of them - are obtaining content in "the most benign way they know how to"? Could you be...biased?

Literally on a forum where more intimate information is posted about someone you don't even know personally - to such an extent where you may know more about CWC than your closest friends. What are you even doing here? And why are you criticizing people putting out the information you want?

Finally, in among the finger-pointing, you actually ask a relevant question. What am I doing here? This is a thread about trolling ethics, not about personal interests, so I'll not expand beyond the necessary. I'm interested in eccentric and unusual people. There's a wealth of threads on these forums which have nothing to do with Chris. My current favourite threads acquire content simply from what their subjects post publicly of their own volition.

Also using ">" for quotes was in use long before some websites popularized it but I don't know if you have ever seen an email or old school internet forum or newsgroup, but that's hardly relevant.

> Birthday: May 21, 1993 (Age: 21)
> Posting about the old days of the internet
> Shiggy diggy

 

[Thetan]

Skyraider said they were in a relationship. He also earlier said that it was "based on mutual respect".

It was a relationship, but I wouldn't classify it as boyfriend/girlfriend. Catherine was friendly, but never made any commitments, nor did she refer to herself as Chris's "girlfriend" or Chris as her "boyfriend". Catherine never told Chris that she loved him either.

Chris presented Catherine with the relationship vows when his other efforts to get her to commit to him failed.

Chris started pushing for a commitment about a month in. He sent Catherine so many texts that he was seriously cutting into her data allotment (not an exaggeration).

When Catherine told Chris that she was going to be spending a weekend in NYC, he insisted that she call him every day to let him know what she was doing. He even contacted the person she was going to be staying with, and asked them to keep an eye on Catherine.

 

[Flowers For Sonichu]

It was a relationship, but I wouldn't classify it as boyfriend/girlfriend. Catherine was friendly, but never made any commitments, nor did she refer to herself as Chris's "girlfriend" or Chris as her "boyfriend". Catherine never told Chris that she loved him either.

Chris presented Catherine with the relationship vows when his other efforts to get her to commit to him failed.

Chris started pushing for a commitment about a month in. He sent Catherine so many texts that he was seriously cutting into her data allotment (not an exaggeration).

When Catherine told Chris that she was going to be spending a weekend in NYC, he insisted that she call him every day to let him know what she was doing. He even contacted the person she was going to be staying with, and asked them to keep an eye on Catherine.

But really, did you expect anything different? Chris is Chris, and we have nearly a decade to document this sort of behavior. How was this supposed to help him?

 

[Godjesus]

That's two big assumptions. One, how do you know what Chris information I do or do not consume. Two, how can you be sure that the current Chris trolls - or any of them - are obtaining content in "the most benign way they know how to"? Could you be...biased?

I can see your profile.

Why should I not believe their story? I have no attachment to either @skyraider91 or @Thetan. And I have no reason to believe they are trolling the community when they have been open to us.

, in among the finger-pointing, you actually ask a relevant question. What am I doing here? This is a thread about trolling ethics, not about personal interests, so I'll not expand beyond the necessary. I'm interested in eccentric and unusual people. There's a wealth of threads on these forums which have nothing to do with Chris. My current favourite threads acquire content simply from what their subjects post publicly of their own volition.

Me too. Again I actually don't care why you are here. I was trying to get you to rationalize why you are here and it worked. As an outsider to this community, reading this thread is very strange. It like this:

Apple fanboy: "Have you seen the new iPhone?"
X: "Yeah it looks cool."
Apple fanboy: "I can't wait to get it."
X: "You know they basically use slave labor at FoxConn right? The conditions are so bad the workers had mass suicides."
Apple fanboy: "I know it's horrible. If I could change it I would, but I NEED it for X because [insert rationalization here]. I still am buying it."

End result: Apple fanboy washes his hands of any guilt and gets to continue his behavior. Apple fanboy's cognitive dissidence is resolved and the status quo is preserved. (No hate to Apple or their fanboys)

It's basically I walked into apple forums saw this conversation and the very next post the user is talking about buying an iPhone. Pot meet kettle.

> Birthday: May 21, 1993 (Age: 21)
> Posting about the old days of the internet
> Shiggy diggy

>putting your personal information on the internet
>the year of our Lord 2014
http://33bits.org/about/

 

[Zekesman]

I can see your profile.

Why should I not believe their story? I have no attachment to either @skyraider91 or @Thetan. And I have no reason to believe they are trolling the community when they have been open to us.

Playing Devil's advocate: What if you're biased against Chris and want to believe negative information about him? Or more likely, just are amused by that information without caring whether its true or not?

 

[Godjesus]

Playing Devil's advocate: What if you're biased against Chris and want to believe negative information about him? Or more likely, just are amused by that information without caring whether its true or not?

I'm just trying to judge on what I know (or what I've been let to know about Christory) and what they are saying doesn't sound different than Megan. I am trying to not make assumptions here except they wouldn't have much a reason to act in bad faith. It's possible but I really don't see the point.

 

[garbageraider]

Skyraider said they were in a relationship. He also earlier said that it was "based on mutual respect".

They were in an official relationship, but only in Chris's mind. Also, I never said that it was based on mutual respect. I said that that's what Catie tried to base their interactions on. This is my actual quote:

Obviously, Catie is pure evil for trying to have a relationship with Chris based on mutual respect. Catie is responsible for everything bad that's happened in Chris's life, and none of it is his own fault. Chris is just an autistic little angel, flawless and completely selfless.
Not.

 

[Cuck Norris]

Kiwi user: "But it's okay I don't actually actively stalk him. In fact, I actually made a post criticizing the people I get my information from as I compulsively browse the forums. See I'm on the moral high ground here! My behavior is perfectly acceptable."

So you're going for what? Super Secret Double Moral High Ground?

 

[Le Bateleur]

I was trying to get you to rationalize why you are here and it worked.

*snip*

Apple fanboy's cognitive dissidence is resolved and the status quo is preserved. (No hate to Apple or their fanboys)

*snip*

It's basically I walked into apple forums saw this conversation and the very next post the user is talking about buying an iPhone. Pot meet kettle.

I give up - you have fooled me! Please, oh Master of Puppets, make me dance only gently.

Oh wait...

cognitive dissidence

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

[Godjesus]

So you're going for what? Super Secret Double Moral High Ground?

I'm sorry you have missed the point.

I give up - you have fooled me! Please, oh Master of Puppets, make me dance only gently.

Oh wait...





http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I think this is a very typical reaction of someone experiencing cognitive dissonance. Sorry I misspelled it, I am a retard but at least I know you can't argue the point so you resort to diversionary - maybe I should spell it divisionary tactics. For you.

 

[RecordStoreToughGuy]

What attracted me to this forum is the idea that we don't actively interfere with Chris (apart from helping the guy out when his house burned down). We don't troll him, we don't torment him, we don't interact with him. We simply observe and discuss him being weird. While he may think we are part of the grand Greene County Conspiracy, by and large, we aren't. Apart from a few of us who were probably already involved, I guess (I don't know those circumstances, so I can't really speak to that).

Chris is ultimately just some weirdo on the internet that is being discussed by a bunch of other weirdos on the internet. He's far more interesting when he's left to his own devices, because his weirdness is such that he will make a scene pretty much anywhere. The internet only gives him a far wider audience than he might have had twenty years ago. The Wallflower saga would have been much more interesting had it been left alone and allowed to crash and burn disastrously on its own merits, rather than some ween fucking it up for the rest of us.

If other people wanna troll him, fine, whatever, I can't stop 'em. But I like the idea of this forum taking the hands-off approach and chronicling the antics of this weirdo on the internet. With the way things are going, we seem to be moving towards a generic lolcow forum anyway, which was probably inevitable. The idea of a cloister of spergs documenting internet crazy people but not interfering with them is really amusing to me for some reason. Like the Brotherhood of Steel only with lolcows instead of pre-war tech.

And I'm totes for srs gonna talk about that in the documentary I'm making about Chris that I'm totally for real making you guise.

 

[Cuck Norris]

I'm sorry you have missed the point.


I think this is a very typical reaction of someone experiencing cognitive dissonance. Sorry I misspelled it, I am a exceptional individual but at least I know you can't argue the point so you resort to diversionary - maybe I should spell it divisionary tactics. For you.

I'm not so sure I failed to grasp your point as you failed to make it. But I'll clue you in on mine: You're basically, albeit accidentally, going way too meta in your "point". You call out posters for criticizing others as some sort of mental gymnastic bullshit, but it kinda seems like you're going for the "well I'm going to find my own high ground by pointing out how they do mental gymnastics to find said high ground." Also, criticizing posters for criticizing other posters is just one huge circle jerk of spergery. My apologies if I'm misinterpreting your posts, but that's how they read.

 

[timtommy]

Hypothetically, if you build a fake store, and fill the register with fake money, and then when I'm at the counter you catch me on camera leaning over when no one is looking to grab a stack of twenties? You're still allowed to call me a dirty fucking thief.

Chris doesn't realize he's in this social experiment, and yes it's totally shitty that it's being done to him in the first place. But he still believes it's real, and his pathetic inappropriate behavior is still pathetic and inappropriate.

I agree to a certain extent. But a lot of troll-sweets have had seeing how far they could push Chris as there modus operandi. Julie had a lot of moments "how much would Chris do/give up for this girl he had never met." And a lot of the Jackie saga was based on how far he was willing to go in terms of making humiliating videos.

So I fall somewhere in the middle. I think you can judge Chris for how he acts with his troll-sweets, but you have to be aware you are looking at a guy who is being put intentionally into tricky situations or being pushed towards wrong or embarassing decisions. Depending on the case, the amount of slack you should cut him varies.

 

[Godjesus]

I'm not so sure I failed to grasp your point as you failed to make it. But I'll clue you in on mine: You're basically, albeit accidentally, going way too meta in your "point". You call out posters for criticizing others as some sort of mental gymnastic bullshit, but it kinda seems like you're going for the "well I'm going to find my own high ground by pointing out how they do mental gymnastics to find said high ground." Also, criticizing posters for criticizing other posters is just one huge circle jerk of spergery. My apologies if I'm misinterpreting your posts, but that's how they read.

Where did I claim I'm on any high ground? I think this thread is entirely silly is all and I'm trying to get more people to see that. I think it's silly to act like everyone here is riding a horse named Morality. Also this is kinda a meta thread by definition. One group should not be able to exclusively called out in a thread called "Trolling ethics debate."

Also, criticizing posters for criticizing other posters is just one huge circle jerk of spergery.

Completely valid. I like to argue.

 

[Cuck Norris]

Where did I claim I'm on any high ground? I think this thread is entirely silly is all and I'm trying to get more people to see that. I think it's silly to act like everyone here is riding a horse named Morality.


Completely valid. I like to argue though.

The tone of your posts don't imply an objective, "this is stupid let's just troll the sperg some more." attitude. They convey an "I'm better than you because I don't rationalize why I'm here." attitude. They come off as confrontational, almost like you're trying to bait out the posters (like myself) that enjoy content, but would also like to see Chris eventually learn and better himself. Just because I want him to get his shit together and make something of what's left of his life doesn't mean I don't get lulz and even a sense of schadenfreude watching him make the same mistakes repeatedly. It's like a carwreck, you hope no one got hurt but you slow down and stare all the same.

 

[Godjesus]

The tone of your posts don't imply an objective, "this is stupid let's just troll the sperg some more." attitude. They convey an "I'm better than you because I don't rationalize why I'm here." attitude. They come off as confrontational, almost like you're trying to bait out the posters (like myself) that enjoy content, but would also like to see Chris eventually learn and better himself. Just because I want him to get his shit together and make something of what's left of his life doesn't mean I don't get lulz and even a sense of schadenfruede watching him make the same mistakes repeatedly. It's like a carwreck, you hope no one got hurt but you slow down and stare all the same.

You're wrong, I rationalized why I am here and do. I would like to see Chris better himself too but in the end this is what it is. I don't think any rationalization changes the reality of what's happening here.

 

[Pikonic]

I've been staying away from this debate because I really don't know.

Spoiler: Content

I'm not going to actively troll Chris, but when content like texts to Renee and pictures of his homework pop up, I'm going to look at them, maintaining the demand for them, so I can't bitch and moan about the trolling because, in a way, I'm passively trolling Chris by being here and I'm supporting the trolls because I comment on the content they give me. I feel like if I were to say, "Chris can't be trolled in any way, shape, or form." I might as well tell Null to nuke my account here from existence.

Spoiler: It will never end.

Remember the user "h1ggl3dyp1ggl3dy"? The guy who tried and failed to troll Chris with the public Facebook page? He also was behind "Hearts for the Bullied." Nobody is getting a lynch mob ready for him because he failed at what he was doing. He failed, we laughed, everybody moved on. So why hate on the successful trolls? Trolling Chris will never go away, so long as he has even the smallest presence, people will fuck with him. He's been told six ways from Sunday to get off the internet, and he hasn't.

Spoiler: Other trolling victims we don't care about

Also, why Chris's trolls? People far worse off than him get fucked with and nobody cares. Were there multiple threads debating the morals for GK's fake sweetheart here, no. What about when Pixy's nudes leaked? What about when people called A-log's radio show to scream "SIX INCH FOX DICK!"? When people hacked TAA's websites? And bananagate? And Oilgate? The list goes on.

I guess my stance is, "I'm not going to do it, but I'm not going to stop people from doing it, and I don't believe I'm in a stance to judge them for it."