It's entirely possible, yes. But coming clean and ending contact is the cleanest way to end this. Do we really need more taint photos or can we seriously just please let this go?
You contradict yourself here. You first say we have to end it by coming clean and telling Chris the truth, and then the rest of your post is about how easily hurt the poor thing is and how he's not a punching bag etc.
So which is it? Tell him and hurt him, or maintain radio silence until Chris gets the message but comes away thinking that the whole thing was real?
I'm honestly not sure what you're overall message is, and I don't think you are either.
But he was actually sobbing when Kacey bitched him out in the final call. And why shouldn't he, she not only "left" him but yelled some really nasty insults at him and was frankly an abusive, passive aggressive punk to him. As for moving on so quickly, I don't buy that he was completely over it so much as he was trying to distract and use playground tactics of " OH YEAH? Well, um, look at THIS shiny new copyright, aren't you JEALOUS?"
I'd like to remind you that on the Cwcki there are 24 phonecalls between Kacey and Chris, some lasting more than an hour. In every single one of these calls, Kacey offers Chris some superb advice regarding his life, getting a job and relationships,
which if he'd followed to the letter would have brought about some enormous changes in his life. She was counselling him for free and genuinely offering him some stellar ways in which he could improve himself. He did none of those things, and
Kacey naturally became frustrated.
Add into the mix that Chris was trying to steal her away from her current boyfriend by
slandering him repeatedly online, and actually initiated contact with Kacey by trying to decieve her by impersonating him.
Then he was an immature baby to her 'father' over the phone over the course of several hours. Now you may say that my argument is invalid because these people were trolls, but you have to keep in mind that
Chris was acting under the assumption that they weren't trolls, and that these scenarios were genuine. He would have acted like this regardless of their intentions.
Chris's squeaky clean child-like innocence is starting to fall apart a bit, isn't it?
And you say Chris was sobbing. I reply to this with the question so fucking what? Breakups are a part of life that we all must endure, and it's painful. It sucks. Why should Chris be protected from that? just because it wasn't real doesn't mean it wasn't real to Chris so the experience is the same, and I'd like to think he learned something from it. That, in my book, is a positive result.
Maybe she went too far but hopefully I have explained why I felt that was (at least partly) justified.
Also I enjoy that you didn't address the PandaHalo example at all. I guess we agree that that one is totally indefensible and shows that Chris gets over a 'breakup' more easily than the common cold.
As much as trolls want to believe that Chris is an unfeeling punching bag, there are levels of shit that do get to him and it's really like trolling a child in a lot of ways. Yes, it is not be the same as when one feels deep romantic love and suffers a loss, but for Chris it's still an emotional connection on some level and it absolutely affects him. I used to revel in sweetheart sagas years ago, but Kacey ruined it for me. I really do not like the sweetheart trolls because they see making him cry and getting his hopes up as victories. That crosses a line.
Kacey is a bad example of this because I believe her intentions were at least somewhat pure from the start.
She had to pose as a sweetheart in order to get through to Chris, because if it was a man or someone otherwise unavailable to him offering the advice he would have labelled them a jerk and seen no incentive to following their advice.
Plus I just think you're just plain wrong about this:
The only one who I saw as seeing Chris cry as a 'victory' was BlueSpike, and I absolutely agree that he crossed the line. All of the others I think were ultimately trying to offer some form of help to Chris, be that in the form of life advice or just the comfort of a relationship, all whilst providing content. Everybody wins.
See above. Chris doesn't come out of these relationships with a good-natured "Awh you guys, you got me! HAHAHAHA!", he does get upset and it hurts him. Even if he didn't have deep feelings for these girls, he believed he did and reacts as such when they turn on him. It's relative, because Chris's mental and emotional maturity put him if a different level than normal adults.
That's life.
I'll expand on that, please bear with me on this one. In our lives we may get involved with people who ultimately hurt us in some fashion. Nobody is to blame, it just happens.
Chris, being the way he is, was never ever likely to have that experience. He's boring, racist, selfish, unhygienic, socially inadequate, egotistical, infantile, vindictive, ignorant, lazy, misogynistic, bizarre, naive, deluded, unappealing (both physically and in terms of personality) and generally has nothing to offer in a relationship, and would just take and take and take. This is evidenced by Chris flippantly asking Renee to have his children, not to mention house him and his elderly mother whilst offering nothing in return. I'm not A-logging, I'm stating well substantiated facts.
The expression goes it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all, and I do believe this to be the case.
However fantastical those relationships were/are objectively, the fact that they are real to Chris has given him an experience that would have otherwise been impossible. I don't think you should wrap him in cotton wool to protect him from nasty breakups that we all have to go through.
I think Chris would be far more miserable to this day if he felt that he'd
never had any romantic contact with anyone at all, which most likely would have been the case if not for the sweetheart trolls. I'm speculating, obviously, but reading between the lines I think its true.
Maybe I'm wrong on this, it's just my opinion.
Oh come on. A stove doesn't make moral choices, it simply has an on/off state. Anyone who chooses to troll Chris has a greater mental capacity than a household appliance (well, one hopes) and is responsible for what they do. Bad analogy.
I agree it's not a perfect analogy, but I still think it's valid.
Touching a hot stove is a painful stimulus. We react to this pain by avoiding similar situations in the future that lead us to that same outcome, perhaps by not touching the stove again or wearing oven mitts etc.
Being rejected by a romantic partner on the internet is a painful stimulus. We react to this pain by avoiding similar situations in the future that lead us to that same outcome, perhaps by bettering ourselves so we don't make the same mistakes in future relationships, or simply avoid falling in love with women on the internet who we've never met and who are likely to be trolls.
The moral choices of the source of the painful stimulus don't enter into it. You learn from
your mistakes so as not to repeat them to preserve
yourself from pain in the future. Chris does not do this. You put far too much stock in the importance of the source of the pain. He repeatedly gets blindly involved with strangers on the internet regardless of his previous experiences, in much the same way that the person in my hypothetical scenario repeatedly touches the stove regardless of their past experiences of doing so. My point stands.
That's a lot of words, I apologise