- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
In before new user PurpleMonkeyDishwasher joins.
Not quite. I can honestly say that he did that all on his own.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
Petronella
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2013
IIRC, Chris admitted that he found the girl on his own. (I think on craigslist) Then someone warned him that he could get in trouble for soliciting a prostitute, so he backpedaled and claimed a friend had found her ad instead.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2013
Morality, and therefore ethics, are subjective and fluid. The only real question is whether or not an action taken or not taken causes measurable harm or loss to another person. I think that pretending to be a fictitious person in order to gain Chris's trust doesn't, in itself, harm Chris. It's what's done with that trust that you have to look at. The trolls who conned Chris out of his medallion were definitely in breach of ethics because Chris surrendered personal property to them under false pretenses.
However, pretending to be an actual person arguably causes harm to that person, because when you impersonate someone, false information and statements are automatically given and made in their name. In NY and CA online impersonation is a crime, but as far as I know it isn't illegal anywhere else unless you are impersonating someone for gain of money or property, which is always going to be unethical and illegal.
tl;dr- impersonating a fictitious person isn't unethical in itself unless you're doing so to illicitly deprive someone of money or property. Impersonating an actual person is in itself arguably unethical, and possibly illegal depending on where you are or what you're doing.
However, pretending to be an actual person arguably causes harm to that person, because when you impersonate someone, false information and statements are automatically given and made in their name. In NY and CA online impersonation is a crime, but as far as I know it isn't illegal anywhere else unless you are impersonating someone for gain of money or property, which is always going to be unethical and illegal.
tl;dr- impersonating a fictitious person isn't unethical in itself unless you're doing so to illicitly deprive someone of money or property. Impersonating an actual person is in itself arguably unethical, and possibly illegal depending on where you are or what you're doing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 28, 2013
He said he found her on the backpage, which makes sense. Craigslist has been trying to reduce the number of hookers advertising on there for a while. Obviously you can still find them on there, you'd just have to know where to look and what to look for. Backpage on the other hand is pretty up front about being a place where you can find hookers.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
Thank you for the name inspiration ABL. Anyway, on-topic. I'm actually a new poster here, was around on ED back when the Chris stuff broke, the Megan saga, all of it. As a long time observer all I can say on ethics, when it comes to Chris at least, is that the intent to do harm is over the line. He's a sexist and a bigot, but then so is half of Twitter. What made Chris special was him raging over innocuous bullshit (THAT IS NOT MY SISTER THAT IS MEGAN), and his willingness to volunteer basically anything about himself (DIRTY, CRAPPED BRIEFS) if he felt it would help him prove a point. Trolling Chris has seen increasing amounts of diminishing returns to the point that you'd think everyone would realize it's pointless by now. Chris will NEVER change anything about himself that he doesn't believe will help him find a surrogate mother he can also rub his taint jewelry on, so even the "white knight trolls", while having good intentions, are just wasting time and preventing any real, entertaining content from coming out. Chris has and always will be his biggest troll. Chris has always provided his best content unprovoked, and all the trolling past Jackie really accomplished is causing him to produce less content and be more wary of people around him. I notice there's been talk of "everyone Chris knows is us (trolls/agents/Christorians)", well, perhaps part of the reasoning for that is the serious trust issues we gave him.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2014
This is how it should be. Trolling for glory is the gayest thing ever and is highly indicative of how awesome your real-life must be. Don't get me wrong, I've trolled plenty outside of the arena of Chris/lolcows but I won't ever use anything I pulled off as a way to get e-fame. It's pathetic in a way when the only reason anyone knows you is because you sat at home on your computer and formed a catfish-esque relationship with a borderline retarded guy.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
I resent that. In real life I have a wheelchair, but on the webzone I have two wonderful legs built out of glory.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2013
Meh. I think that those types of arguments are of the simplistic "Bullies are just lonely" type.
I have never really trolled anyone, but I don't see why someone who trolled Chris shouldn't (given that they are already trolling Chris), think about how they could do it to amuse others. In a way, someone who trolls to amuse people seems less odd than someone who trolls Chris just to satisfy their own weird desires.
I don't know anyone on the forum in real life so I don't know how well-adjusted they are. But all of this "you must be a loser IRL because blah" stuff seems a little silly.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2014
I have a genuine question for detractors, this is something I've just thought of and I would honestly like to know...
What, morally, is the difference between Skyraider's dumpster diving and photo snapping and the kind of trash seen in magazines all the time of "We found Kerry Katona EATING MCDONALDS" or "Pics of some bitch at the beach, LOL CELLULITE"? There are people out there who will pay to read magazines FULL of this stuff, not really all to different to us laughing at old homework or tutting about the state of his house, why is it perfectly fine in those cases but not in this one? Because Chris can't afford bodyguards to keep people out of his trash?
Just asking because a lot of people have been calling his actions really creepy and stalkerish when there are people out there who make a living out of diving through famous peoples bins for the amusement of others who seem to get a free pass.
If this is a dumb question let me know but I'm really curious.
What, morally, is the difference between Skyraider's dumpster diving and photo snapping and the kind of trash seen in magazines all the time of "We found Kerry Katona EATING MCDONALDS" or "Pics of some bitch at the beach, LOL CELLULITE"? There are people out there who will pay to read magazines FULL of this stuff, not really all to different to us laughing at old homework or tutting about the state of his house, why is it perfectly fine in those cases but not in this one? Because Chris can't afford bodyguards to keep people out of his trash?
Just asking because a lot of people have been calling his actions really creepy and stalkerish when there are people out there who make a living out of diving through famous peoples bins for the amusement of others who seem to get a free pass.
If this is a dumb question let me know but I'm really curious.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2014
I think the reasoning is:
1. Chris is not in a great place right now with the fire, financial issues the death of Bob and the continued existence of Barb, so trolling is kicking him when he's down.
2. Real, non-Miyamoto people have been dragged into it.
3. It's felt that, given the board's no-trolling policy, it was deceptive and hypocritical for a trolling saga to be carried out on the secret board.
Speaking personally, the only ethical problem I have with this as opposed to other sagas is the second item. Because I think in the long term, Chris is most likely just going to forget all about Catherine and Renee in a few weeks and go right back to his happy little bubble of Lego and vidya.
nad7155
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2014
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
No, I got his point, it's just that I never said anything about forum posters at large being complicit in trolling. That was CatParty's point, which he also quoted.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2013
I have a genuine question for detractors, this is something I've just thought of and I would honestly like to know...
What, morally, is the difference between Skyraider's dumpster diving and photo snapping and the kind of trash seen in magazines all the time of "We found Kerry Katona EATING MCDONALDS" or "Pics of some bitch at the beach, LOL CELLULITE"? There are people out there who will pay to read magazines FULL of this stuff, not really all to different to us laughing at old homework or tutting about the state of his house, why is it perfectly fine in those cases but not in this one? Because Chris can't afford bodyguards to keep people out of his trash?
Just asking because a lot of people have been calling his actions really creepy and stalkerish when there are people out there who make a living out of diving through famous peoples bins for the amusement of others who seem to get a free pass.
If this is a dumb question let me know but I'm really curious.
Firstly, there are a lot of people who talk shit about paparazzi and tabloid journalism. I am sure a lot of people who have problems with the skyraiding would have similar problems with that type of journalism.
But even if they don't I don't think it is entirely inconsistent. "Celebrities" become wealthy by being public figures. This involves their life being laid out before the public. Sometimes that involves parts of their lives they don't want laid out. One could easily argue that by choosing to become a celebrity they are entering into an implicit contract where they exchange some privacy for money and the other positives of being famous.
Chris never chose whether or not to enter that contract. And he didn't get a lot in exchange for his lack of privacy. Actually, when he made a few thousand off of eBay, it made me feel a little better about the whole thing, because he was seeing the upside of his little bit of fame after years of mostly just experiencing the downside.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
I have a genuine question for detractors, this is something I've just thought of and I would honestly like to know...
What, morally, is the difference between Skyraider's dumpster diving and photo snapping and the kind of trash seen in magazines all the time of "We found Kerry Katona EATING MCDONALDS" or "Pics of some bitch at the beach, LOL CELLULITE"? There are people out there who will pay to read magazines FULL of this stuff, not really all to different to us laughing at old homework or tutting about the state of his house, why is it perfectly fine in those cases but not in this one? Because Chris can't afford bodyguards to keep people out of his trash?
Just asking because a lot of people have been calling his actions really creepy and stalkerish when there are people out there who make a living out of diving through famous peoples bins for the amusement of others who seem to get a free pass.
If this is a dumb question let me know but I'm really curious.
Would it be less creepy if Skyraider (or any agent for that matter) waited until the homework ended up in the dump before taking it and scanning it? As much as Barb loves her hoard I can't see anyone wanting to keep old superfluous papers that are now smoke and/or water damaged. I don't know the specifics but it seems he acquired access to the material through his job, and if that's the case I'd say it's more about his ethics in regards to his own employment rather than ethics in trolling Chris.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2014
Thanks for responding :3
First I do agree the paparazzi do get a pretty bad rap so yeah you're right, that's at least consistent.
But the idea that Chris never had a choice about any of this...I'm kinda inclined to disagree. He willingly put himself into the public eye, knowing full well that people where watching, and laid his life bare at every opportunity. For every one piece of information the trolls got out of him, there where like 5 pieces he put out there with no provocation. Chris, for a time, liked having people following his every word and he thought of it as having his own personal army who would do what he wanted when he wanted. He only really wanted to be left alone when he started realising that his 'fans' where outnumbered by the 'trolls'...not unlike a celebrity who gets turned on by the public and suddenly decides they 'just want to be left alone.'
Also Chris sought other rewards from his fans; money and china. He made videos and put himself out there because he thought that he could use the people watching him to either get Sonichu made into a franchise or get laid. I'm not saying he gets the same deal as an A-lister, I'm talking about people who are famous only for being famous and use their personal lives as a way of getting money and attention, it does remind me of what Chris was like in the early days and whats happening now with the dumpster diving also reminds me of what happens when these Z-Listers decide they 'don't wanna be famous anymore'.
Basically what I'm arguing is when some washed up celebrity is having their drug or debt problem laughed at in a magazine, people don't care what they get in return as long as they can read about it and laugh. That is seen as totally acceptable but doing the exact same thing to a person who doesn't have 'celebrity' status isn't and it kinda confuses me.
That's a good point, that does seem kinda sketchy no matter how you slice it.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
No one wanted to be the "bad guy" and tell you, sorry you had to find out this way.
This is where that line I was talking about earlier comes in. Some people would have no problems with how that stuff was received if it had been in the garbage. But some people still would. Personally, it's still creepy. There's some magic line I think a lot of people have that says that pretending to be a girlfriend/friend is ok but actually going to his house and stealing his trash or digging through it is just not ok.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
The original Heartsweets at least had good intentions (get Chris working, exercising, off the vidya) but that teat ran dry ages ago. For me, as I pointed out, at present pretending to be a boyfriend-free girl regardless of motivation is played out, not so much about ethics. It generates very little content, and most of it isn't even good. He still is providing the most interesting content all on his own re: sanic's arms. Hell, even the newest "Renee" content is just Chris being Chris and not taking the "this person hasn't replied in days" hint, as he always does. He would do the same to a real person, we just wouldn't know the details beyond a pity party Facebook post. As for digging in the trash, the point I'm making is that so much shit ends up in a landfill, and at that point it's free pickings to anyone that gives few enough fucks to dig around in garbage all day. Whether that person knows who Chris is and cares enough to post it to the internet is really the only determining factor in whether we see it. But even given the circumstances the latest content was acquired under, I would actually say "Renee" is the less ethical of the two. Us getting Chris' old high school homework doesn't hurt Chris, it only confirms what we've long suspected (he wasn't as great in school as he claimed) where as the whole "Renee" thing is going to cause him some measure of emotional pain. Given Chris' history of latching on to anything with a china that gives him the slightest bit of attention it should have been expected he'd pull his usual clingy bullshit and hurt himself in the process.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
Oh, the cwcki and celebrity taboid analogy is my favorite.
@timtommy The "non-retard celebrities make their bed and that's different" argument is a popular one and I understand what they're trying to say. But what about child stars? The parents of a child star decide everything and it has serious impacts on the child's life long after the parent is directly involved.
Personally, I consider Chris to be very similar to a celebrity. Or rather, he definitely is a celebrity. He's famous with a lot of people who don't know him personally. If someone thinks that Chris isn't a celebrity because he didn't make a fully informed decision to become a celebrity, then... well, then responsibility-wise he's on par with a child star.
To me, the big question is, are the observers/trolls being dicks?
I think if Chris is making a solid effort to hide from his notoriety, then it's kind of dickish to exploit his subpar intelligence to push him into the trolling situations he's unhappy with. That's how it was in 2013. (And in practice, few people were successful in trolling Chris in 2013. That year he did a good job shutting out the trolls.)
However, in 2014, Chris has been very public. He's also been very successful at exploiting his troll attention for personal profit. It's a blurrier situation in 2014 because he's profiting off of his notoriety.