DonationCoder.com Forum
Main Area and Open Discussion => Living Room => Topic started by: 40hz on October 14, 2012, 07:22 AM
-
There's a really interesting article posted by Adrian Chen on Gawker (http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web) last Friday telling the story of how Michael Brutsch (aka Violentacrez), the worst troll on Reddit (and possibly the worst troll in history) was finally "outed."
What is especially interesting is Brutsch's reaction and attitude in the wake of being exposed. Along with some notes on how sites like Reddit are sometimes willing to to give passive "permission" to trolling in order to get their clicks up.
Fascinating.
Link to full article here (http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web).
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ] (http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web)
Unmasking Reddit’s Violentacrez, The Biggest Troll on the Web
Adrian Chen
Last Wednesday afternoon I called Michael Brutsch. He was at the office of the Texas financial services company where he works as a programmer and he was having a bad day. I had just told him, on Gchat, that I had uncovered his identity as the notorious internet troll Violentacrez (pronounced Violent-Acres).
"It's amazing how much you can sweat in a 60 degree office," he said with a nervous laugh.
Judging from his internet footprint, Brutsch, 49, has a lot to sweat over. If you are capable of being offended, Brutsch has almost certainly done something that would offend you, then did his best to rub your face in it. His speciality is distributing images of scantily-clad underage girls, but as Violentacrez he also issued an unending fountain of racism, porn, gore, misogyny, incest, and exotic abominations yet unnamed, all on the sprawling online community Reddit.
.
.
.
8)
-
Fascinating - and edifying ...
-
But the thing about this 'outing' (not saying whether bad or good) is that if he works for a financial services company, and someone truly outed him (i.e. said Michael Brutsch if XX company), he'd most likely lose his job. Its happened before...
-
^Depends on the company. In my home state it might not be that easy unless you could show it affected the person's ability to perform their job. Unless the company had some ethics clause in their employment contract about personal or non-job related activities that might reflect unfavorably upon the company - or foster a "hostile work environment" by your presence. (They'd probably be able to make that one stick now that I'm thinking about it.)
Not that it will matter. SOBs like him tend to land on their feet. He'll probably just sit and wait for the movie or book deal. Or do a big "I Repent!!!!" act and then hit the motivational and pop psychology circuit giving lectures on how to keep what happened to him from happening to you. (He'll probably say it started out as a joke, but soon got out of control and eventually destroyed his entire "moral compass.")
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Plus - he's trendy! He's the guy your mother warned you about. Cyber-bullying is a big hot button topic these days. Parent's groups and talk shows can't seem to hear enough stories, anecdotes and analyses on it.
Besides, America just loves "Prodigal Son" stories and tearful repentant scenes on afternoon talk shows...
Awwww! Group hug everybody!!! :-\
-
In my home state it might not be that easy unless you could show it affected the person's ability to perform their job.
-40hz
Is your state an exception to the At-Will employment laws? It says he's in Texas, so he's pretty much screwed.
-
No. We have "at will."
But we also have an unemployment/labor bureaucracy that does everything in their power to keep an additional person from being added to our already high unemployment rolls.
Then there's the CHRO (http://www.ct.gov/chro/site/default.asp) - one of the most ridiculous kangaroo courts ever created.
Check this out from their website:
It is illegal for employers, employment agencies or labor organizations to discriminate based on a protected class. That means that factors listed below as protected classes cannot be used when making decisions or taking actions related to recruitment, hiring, referring, classifying, promoting, advertising, discharging, training, laying off, compensating or establishing other conditions or terms of employment.
Protected classes in employment are:
Age
Ancestry
Color
Criminal Record ( in state employment & licensing only)
Gender Identity or Expression
Genetic Information
Learning Disability
Marital Status
Mental Disorder
Mental Retardation
National Origin
Physical Disability
Race
Religious Creed
Sex, including pregnancy and sexual harassment
Sexual Orientation
You may be a victim of illegal discrimination, if one or more of these factors was considered in an employment decision that adversely effected you.
All you need to do (no matter what you were dismissed for) is to file a complaint that any one of the above factors was "taken into consideration" (and with no more proof than you "felt" it was) and the bureaucratic wheels start turning...and turning...and turning...
And this commission (as it's currently constituted) has never met a government entity or business it likes (or believes) when it comes to testimony being given against a CHRO complaint filer.
Filing a CHRO complaint is almost like playing 5-card stud with Aces, Deuces and one-eyed Jacks all wild! Seriously. How many cracks at making a full flush can you not get with a game rigged like that?
--------------------------
Going back to Brutsch - considering some of the pictures he's posted, I think losing his job may be the least of his worries considering how so much of his antics involved photos of minors. With the publicity that's bound to ensue once the main newswires start picking up on this story, somebody in some official capacity is going to be forced to consider charges and possible prosecution. Be interesting to see if it's the feds or some state that goes first. (It's an election year. Spanking somebody like this guy makes for good campaign copy.)
But that's assuming somebody doesn't come gunning for him first and make it all very simple.
-
Going back to Brutsch - considering some of the pictures he's posted, I think losing his job may be the least of his worries considering how so much of his antics involved photos of minors. With the publicity that's bound to ensue once the main newswires start picking up on this story, somebody in some official capacity is going to be forced to consider charges and possible prosecution. Be interesting to see if it's the feds or some state that goes first. (It's an election year. Spanking somebody like this guy makes for good campaign copy.)
But that's assuming somebody doesn't come gunning for him first and make it all very simple.
-40hz
I don't disagree that someone might *try*, but as long as (a) the photos are not in the child pornography range and (b) they were obtained from the sources he says (facebook, twitter, etc), then it's not going to fly. From my understanding, they were sexualized, but not explicit. And considering what I see on facebook, twitter, and even at malls, that's not going to hold up. And truthfully, I don't think that either side is pristine in that regard, i.e. adults shouldn't be looking at tweens in that way, but (and I know this is not considered PC), they shouldn't be dressing in that way either.
-
I don't disagree that someone might *try*, but as long as (a) the photos are not in the child pornography range and (b) they were obtained from the sources he says (facebook, twitter, etc), then it's not going to fly. From my understanding, they were sexualized, but not explicit. And considering what I see on facebook, twitter, and even at malls, that's not going to hold up
-wraith808
Depends on where it goes to court if it eventually does. Some states are more "right-thinking" and "right leaning" so he'd have a better chance there. But just because a photo was obtained from Twitter or wherever is no guarantee that it was put up there with the subject's consent. He'd be co-liable in any event. Then there's copyright and privacy issues since I doubt he ever bothered obtaining written releases for any of it - especially from a parent or guardian in the event it was a minor in the picture.
Of course Reddit stands to get burnt a bit too. But I really can't feel sorry for them. And their spiel about allowing this animal to continue what he was doing in the name of protecting a contributor's privacy and providing a safe haven for discussion rings just a bit hollow to my ears. But I'm of the "if you ain't part of the solution you're part of the problem" school of thought when it comes to social issues like this one.
I personally hope Reddit gets their all too smug butt kicked royally for dancing with this troll as much as they did. Funny how they finally came to realize he was about to become a liability once it became obvious somebody was onto him. Because they sure ditched him shortly before the story broke. So I assume he tried to cry on Reddit's shoulders about it before it went live.
Nope. This story isn't finished yet. What's gone down so far isn't even the opening act.
-
Called It (http://gawker.com/5951987/reddits-biggest-troll-fired-from-his-real-world-job-reddit-continues-to-censor-gawker-articles). He's done.
-
^Yes you did! :Thmbsup:
Can't wait to see how many otherwise intelligent people in the web community end up making total asses and hypocrites out of themselves attempting to defend this moron.
I do find it amusing how so many in the web community claim to be defenders of free "give & take" and have a "let the fur fly" philosophy until somebody points the same gun at them. Almost like the old joke about how to turn a diehard conservative into a screaming liberal - just have the police stop one of them at 2:00am for a bogus traffic violation with no witnesses around to testify about what really happened shortly afterwards.
I'm waiting to see how long it takes before that "hang tough and screw you" response he's offering starts to fray. I give it about six weeks since the more that comes out about this guy, the worse it looks for anybody standing behind him. And I'm sure we'll hear plenty fairly shortly. Before it's done, this guy is going to become the poster child for everything that's wrong with allowing an open and virtually unregulated Internet.
Really sad part is that Reddit, by some of its recent behavior in this incident, is falling right onto the trap set by those who are arguing for greater legal restrictions on web activities and usage. Hard to argue for the sufficiency of self regulation and policing when it appears a surprisingly large group of savvy and vocal webmins are giving Brutsch's type of behavior their tacit approval.
Only a matter of time before some politicos start asking the old question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. And reach the inevitable conclusion that some new custodes are now required - and preferably be on the judicial branch's payroll.
-
He doesn't seem to be taking the hang tough and screw you approach. If you read the stuff he posts on reddit, he says that the whole thing is his fault. He just says he wouldn't change anything other than the trusting people stuff. The stuff he posts is pretty abhorrent, and I don't agree with it. But I don't think its worthy of a witch hunt...
-
I don't understand why people defend the troll's free speech but condemn the gawker author's free speech of outing him. :huh:
-
I don't understand why people defend the troll's free speech but condemn the gawker author's free speech of outing him. :huh:
-Deozaan
As I said in one of my posts on the subject elsewhere, everyone is responsible for their own use of the right of free speech, and the consequences thereof. Truthfully, I don't agree with either- him doing it, or their capitalizing on it. The writer says that it was "to bring it to light" like it was a charitable act, when it really was to make a scoop and get hits. Just like his was to get attention, basically. People compare this to someone outing a sexual predator that hasn't been punished or something, when comparing the two acts is comparing apples and oranges. Both acts were self-serving, truthfully.
-
Trolls of the various kinds are the far edge of the free speech range. There's that Mid East article where the govts are upset about the religious angle. This guy is going for more shock stuff.
It's a famous problem because the powers that be can use him (and pay him!!?) as a poster boy, to enact more evil laws.
It's a cycle I don't know how to stop.
-
I've been following this for a while, and have a few comments...
Betraying trust is betrayal. Pretty simple. Nothing further to say there.
For myself, I don't try to hide. I know it's futile. Everything I say I stand behind, though I must confess that many things I say are drunken farts. ;D Other things are simple nonsense, and many things are in jest. I know that many things I say cannot be taken literally, and really don't care much. Literalists are often total morons. Oh, and I meant that literally. :P ;D
For the media, well, they have no restraint or semblance of decency. Nothing more can be expected. They're whores. Dirty, disgusting, filthy whores. I don't mean that as a stain on prostitution. I have much more respect for prostitutes than for them. (I'm counting on other people's disdain for the profession here.) I hold prostitution in higher regard than many other professions, e.g. lawyers, doctors, politicians, bureaucrats, MSM journalists/presstitutes, etc. Prostitutes are at least honest about what they do. They do honest work for honest pay. (Comparatively.)
So, I probably have a skewed view compared to many other people. I don't apologize for it.
I also have little sympathy for the guy being "outed". If you can't stand behind what you say, then STFU.
I don't sit on any "side" here. I just see a disaster. And really don't have any position. Perhaps I'm ignorant of some facts. But from what I've seen here and elsewhere, I just see this as a big, dirty mess.
It hasn't really occupied much mindshare for me though, and I could be missing something. I just don't see any real problem here though. Guy was a douche, and got outed for it. Well... yeah. That was to be expected at some point. ? No?
-
^ Pretty much what I think. Other than the bit about prostitution. Well, prostitution that doesn't involve pimps. I don't hold the same disdain- they're people like any other, and the negative connotations I have are associated with johns that have other obligations. A police friend of mine once told me they busted a guy with a ring and a baby seat in the back. That's low.
-
BTW: I don't see where the term "witch hunt" has any applicability here.
A witch hunt is when people go out and look for somebody (anybody) they can hang a label on by extension and then burn it.
This guy burned himself. He displayed reprehensible behavior and caused a lot of pain for no reason other than the simple pleasure of pushing buttons and watching people squirm. And he did it in a cowardly manner by hiding behind a mask - and then counting on the occasionally warped morality of the web (which says: It's all good.) to protect himself.
Sorry. Doing what this person did is plain evil. And like most things truly evil, it's amazing how utterly pointless and banal it is in its practice and intent.
Funny how, according to some people, you have the god-given right to inflict as much pain and mayhem as you want to with impunity - and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot, a statist, a fascist, or any of the other labels the techno-hipster crowd is fond of slapping on anyone who dares ask "Should we really be putting up with this sort of thing?"
Perhaps it has something to do with upbringing? :)
Oh well...the Reddit spin doctors are out in full swing trying to build a case for how this individual is actually a very nice guy and didn't actually mean to cause all the suffering and annoyance he did. It was just done in fun - and screw you if you can't take a joke. Besides, all these dumb chicks were asking for it anyway, right?
Yup...that's the age old macho-male argument anytime one of their number is called to book for acting like a yahoo.
Like I said...must have something to do with upbringing. :-\
-
A police friend of mine once told me they busted a guy with a ring and a baby seat in the back. That's low.
-wraith808
Really, why? ...Maybe he wanted to try something that his wife didn't. Is he really obligated to be stuck eternally wondering what it would be like? Why is that fair?
Here's the screwed up part. You can legally have at it with as many of anyone as is consenting...and it's all perfectly legal ... Unless somebody gets compensated for their time. That's just stupid puritanical nonsense that should never been allowed to become law.
-
Hey, sway me one side or another... I just don't see it ATM. :(
-
anyone as is consenting
-Stoic Joker
Agree up to a point. But then there's the issue of what you'd consider "consent."
"I think you're really hot and I'd like to go to bed with you!" is pretty clearly consensual.
But so is: "Ok. I'll do ya for $50 instead of $75 - but only because if I don't come back with enough money tonight, my Man is gonna beat the living hell out of me again." It's just a different form of 'consent.'
So too with a runaway fourteen year old who is thinking: "If I don't wanna turn tricks anymore they said I can go back living out on the street anytime I want to. So maybe this ain't so bad compared to the street."
Gotta be careful with arguments defending prostitution in the USA.
I was involved in a crisis call center at one point in my career. Got an earful enough to last a lifetime. And trust me, while there may well be thousands of "high-class call girls" and "sly-boys" out there who "love" their job, there's easily ten times that many homeless, brutalized, blackmailed, and drug-addicted prostitutes on the payroll of your average "procurer" or "madam."
It's an ugly business. Until you see up close how it actually operates, you have no idea just how ugly it can be.
-
A police friend of mine once told me they busted a guy with a ring and a baby seat in the back. That's low.
-wraith808
Really, why? ...Maybe he wanted to try something that his wife didn't. Is he really obligated to be stuck eternally wondering what it would be like? Why is that fair?
-Stoic Joker
Because he agreed to it? And there's another uninvolved person whose life is totally affected by his choice. If he gets something and passes it on to her... if both of them die of some infectious disease and leave the child alone... does that still fall in the realm of fair?
You don't have to get married- that's your prerogative, and many people are choosing that these days since marriage isn't such an imperative. And you can get a divorce... that's becoming easier and easier.
But if you choose to commit, you should choose to treat that commitment (and the person you're committed to) with a modicum of decency and basic humanity, and not go around lying behind the person's back. And before the whole "maybe it was agreed upon" argument comes up, he was begging to be let go with a warning so his wife wouldn't find out... so yes, the whole lying thing was present and in full effect.
Sorry. Doing what this person did is plain evil. And like most things truly evil, it's amazing how utterly pointless and banal it is in its practice and intent.
-40hz
Bad yes. Reprehensible yes. Evil? Well, we have a different definition of that. I leave that to the people who do more than troll on the internet. But the differences in definition are fine. But when someone says that the people that shot the Pakistani girl were evil and you lump him in with it... well, you have too wide a spectrum there in my opinion.
Use of certain words in hyperbole IMO reduces the effectiveness of them when they are accurately used. Racism, bigotry, homophobia, rape... they are used too commonly now, which water the terms down. And IMO, this is a prime example of hyperbole.
anyone as is consenting
-Stoic Joker
It's an ugly business. Until you see up close how it actually operates, you have no idea just how ugly it can be.
-40hz
I totally agree with this. It definitely doesn't just need to be legalized- but regulated in some way (which legalization would help) to get rid of some of the seamier practices that go along with it. 40 uses the example of a 14 year old... but the same thing applies to a 25 year old with two kids and no other way to make ends meet worried about offending her pimp. Despair is a big part of that part of the industry that makes it as ugly as 40 says, and then some.
-
Backing up a bit from that angle, since my specialty is identity themes, I want to begin a look at "well, it's okay because it's *That Guy* (TM)." As long as it's That Guy, "it's okay to bust him, as he deserved it, la la la". Let me be the first to say I don't enjoy 95% of the output of trolls, but that's because it's the very far edge of the slippery slope. Do I stand by what I say? I do, *to a certain audience*. DC has its memes and my comments here are in the context of that inside understanding. It would disturb me to have random people (do what the media likes to do, which is to...) pick juicy comments completely out of context.
I coined a phrase years ago for that - "Google Monkeys" - I even purposely left ID trails back to me, but it's enough to slow down bored snoops looking through 5,000 net posts for something to hang me with. Someone once told me to "write to an audience" and for example I have a 25% chance of getting a Slashdot post up-modded, because I write to that audience. I don't need ultra-prudes, maybe right wing maybe not, fine-combing every word I post.
And that's the thing - it gets slippery. Depending on your audience, the line between "hilarious" and "pure evil" slides a lot. Borrowing a slogan, "Friends Don't Let Friend's Mothers See 4Chan".
-
anyone as is consenting
-Stoic Joker
Agree up to a point. But then there's the issue of what you'd consider "consent."-40hz
Um... that would be the standardly accepted two (or more) consenting adults definition.
"I think you're really hot and I'd like to go to bed with you!" is pretty clearly consensual.-40hz
...Yepper, that's the one.
But so is: "Ok. I'll do ya for $50 instead of $75 - but only because if I don't come back with enough money tonight, my Man is gonna beat the living hell out of me again." It's just a different form of 'consent.'
So too with a runaway fourteen year old who is thinking: "If I don't wanna turn tricks anymore they said I can go back living out on the street anytime I want to. So maybe this ain't so bad compared to the street."
Gotta be careful with arguments defending prostitution in the USA.
I was involved in a crisis call center at one point in my career. Got an earful enough to last a lifetime. And trust me, while there may well be thousands of "high-class call girls" and "sly-boys" out there who "love" their job, there's easily ten times that many homeless, brutalized, blackmailed, and drug-addicted prostitutes on the payroll of your average "procurer" or "madam."
It's an ugly business. Until you see up close how it actually operates, you have no idea just how ugly it can be.-40hz
All of which are directly caused by shunning things into the shadows and making them naughty/illegal/wrong.
Legal and regulated properly would leave far less casualties.
-
Legal and regulated properly would leave far less casualties.
-Stoic Joker
True... but who regulates? Haven't they already done so by fiat? It's just that no one wants to have the conversation, because it's a political hot potato, and being in the shadows makes it more so. So in the meantime, I think the point about respect of commitment and others applies...
-
Legal and regulated properly would leave far less casualties.
-Stoic Joker
True... but who regulates? Haven't they already done so by fiat?-wraith808
LOL (Love that term) :Thmbsup: But I don't think the zero tolerance policy quite qualifies as a happy medium.
It's just that no one wants to have the conversation, because it's a political hot potato, and being in the shadows makes it more so. So in the meantime, I think the point about respect of commitment and others applies...-wraith808
There lying the crux of the problem ... Nothing good ever happens in a dark alley. But get a thing out into the light of a proper business environment, and things just tend to be a tad bit safer. Ya know?
Regulating based on morality is just silly...and dangerous. You're not stopping anything from happening ... You're just preventing people from getting paid for their "efforts" (e.g. prostitution does not equal or cause infidelity).
-
Legal and regulated properly would leave far less casualties.
-Stoic Joker
@SJ - Sounds more like a conclusion masquerading as a premise to me, but ok ;)
Bad yes. Reprehensible yes. Evil? Well, we have a different definition of that. I leave that to the people who do more than troll on the internet. But the differences in definition are fine. But when someone says that the people that shot the Pakistani girl were evil and you lump him in with it... well, you have too wide a spectrum there in my opinion.
Really? Spend some time carefully examining and contemplating the concept of evil and you might come away with a very different understanding. Seriously. :)
Use of certain words in hyperbole IMO reduces the effectiveness of them when they are accurately used. Racism, bigotry, homophobia, rape... they are used too commonly now, which water the terms down. And IMO, this is a prime example of hyperbole.
Wraith, my good man, you know I think the world of you. But I don't understand where you're coming from with the above. But so be it. If you can't see (or won't allow yourself to see) the difference between what is commonly considered 'trolling' and what this guy has been doing...well...I'll leave you to ponder effectiveness and accuracy of definition to your heart's content.
For my part, I'll just sit back and smile a little smile, knowing somebody finally belled this particular cat.
-----------------------------
Note: Did you mean Use of certain words in exaggeration rather than hyperbole? Because I think you might be misusing the word "hyperbole" in the above. Hyperbole is done with the conscious effort to exaggerate rather than persuade - and is not presented with the intent that it to be taken literally. At least from my understanding of the definition. :)
-
Legal and regulated properly would leave far less casualties.
-Stoic Joker
@SJ - Sounds more like a conclusion masquerading as a premise to me, but ok ;)
Bad yes. Reprehensible yes. Evil? Well, we have a different definition of that. I leave that to the people who do more than troll on the internet. But the differences in definition are fine. But when someone says that the people that shot the Pakistani girl were evil and you lump him in with it... well, you have too wide a spectrum there in my opinion.
Really? Spend some time carefully examining and contemplating the concept of evil and you might come away with a very different understanding. Seriously. :)
Use of certain words in hyperbole IMO reduces the effectiveness of them when they are accurately used. Racism, bigotry, homophobia, rape... they are used too commonly now, which water the terms down. And IMO, this is a prime example of hyperbole.
Wraith, my good man, you know I think the world of you. But I don't understand where you're coming from with the above. But so be it. If you can't see (or won't allow yourself to see) the difference between what is commonly considered 'trolling' and what this guy has been doing...well...I'll leave you to ponder effectiveness and accuracy of definition to your heart's content.
For my part, I'll just sit back and smile a little smile, knowing somebody finally belled this particular cat.
-----------------------------
Note: Did you mean Use of certain words in exaggeration rather than hyperbole? Because I think you might be misusing the word "hyperbole" in the above. Hyperbole is done with the conscious effort to exaggerate rather than persuade - and is not presented with the intent that it to be taken literally. At least from my understanding of the definition. :)
-40hz
Well, I think that words sometimes change in use- especially in the english language. And from what I've seen it used- yes, hyperbole can mean intentional exaggeration not to be taken literally. It can also (and what I meant) be taken to mean exaggerated in rhetoric, i.e. with the intent to persuade. See this definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole) which highlights both.
And posting offensive pictures and subjects on the internet, especially those not produced and gathered from the same? At least unless there are other sources. They were truly offensive, and teenagers should not be sexualized in that manner (but that's a matter for parenting to remove the source- not taking the they deserved it approach so often taken, but I've seen people [and dress] that just shouldn't have been out there- you sexualize yourself, and some perverts are not going to take it as this girl just doesn't know better, but do exactly what they did)., but do you have sources that he did worse? Nothing in that article was anything other than a creepy old man seeking attention and power, not evil.
Did he do any more than what I said, or what was said in the article?
-
Did he do any more than what I said, or what was said in the article?
-wraith808
Here's one of his:
Warning: Graphic, NSFW, VDA
http://metareddit.com/r/PicsOfDeadKids
-
Here's one of his:
Warning: Graphic, NSFW, VDA
http://metareddit.com/r/PicsOfDeadKids-40hz
That's some sick shit. The people that collect that kind of crap are really twisted....
-
Did he do any more than what I said, or what was said in the article?
-wraith808
Here's one of his:
Warning: Graphic, NSFW, VDA
http://metareddit.com/r/PicsOfDeadKids
-40hz
Very sick. Very very sick. And no, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on someone that did that if they were on fire. But, no. Still doesn't meet my definition of evil. Just sick and twisted.
Now if he posted up stuff like that about things that he had done, or did any of that stuff to the kids, then yeah. Or (and I read this recently about him) if what he said was true about what he did to his step-daughter, even if she was of 'legal age', then yeah. But just reposting stuff that is around is sick and perverse.
-
I found an interesting comment on a follow up article, and thought it good food for thought.
'Remus Shepherd' is not my real name.
In 1996, I was publicly outed for my sexuality. I chose to flee from the net and all contact with people. I lost my job and many friends, but I survived.
In 2000, a friend of mine was publicly outed for his sexuality. He was the owner of a business and could not vanish the way that I did. He chose instead to take his own life.
Stripping of another person's anonymity is a vile tactic, no matter how flimsy that anonymity may be. If you suspect someone of a crime then yes, out them to the authorities. Let the legal system work. But publicly shaming people for activities with which you do not agree is a tactic used by blind mobs and righteous zealots. Outing is used to prevent rape victims from speaking out, it is used to harass and kill homosexuals and other minorities, and it is used to enforce social dogma on those who are merely different. It cannot and must not become an accepted tactic. The consequences on the weak and vulnerable will be far worse than any good that may come from using it.
-
^Apples and oranges. If you work long and hard enough, anything can be made to look "almost" like anything else.
And in this case it's really a stretch to compare the the situation surrounding Violentacrez to what was done to Remus Shepard. And, with all due sympathy and respect for his pain and personal tragedy, Remus Shepard paints with a pretty broad brush. He also ignores (or dismisses) how putting unacceptable behaviors out in the clear light of day are effective in putting a stop to them. Unless, of course, you'd like to make a case that blowing the whistle and naming names of people involved in something like the torture and prisoner abuse that took place in the Abu Ghraib was unfair to the US service personnel tried and convicted for such crimes. (Note that these practices had been previously reported to authorities through official channels with no result. It wasn't until it got "outed" before the entire world that action was finally taken.)
Then there's the fact that several million people were murdered in openly secret extermination camps a little over half a century ago. It wasn't until long after it was too late that the world saw and was sickened at what went on. One ponders what might have happened if the intelligence gathered by various sources about the conditions in the Nazi death camps had been made public, and not simply dismissed by those who received it as "impossible to be happening."
Of course there are revisionists who continue to insist none of that ever happened. And there will always be those that will believe them.
Many times those in authority, for various reasons, turn a blind eye towards problems they don't know how (or simply prefer not) to deal with. In the case of Reddit, Violentacrez fell into that category.
Still, Reddit will have its "levelers" and revisionists (and those who appeal to what they consider "higher principles") who will claim this individual is now being misjudged and treated unfairly for his own self-elected behaviors. Behaviors which this same individual frankly and unrepentantly states were done purely with the intent to provoke outrage and dismay.
Marvin Minski once remarked that there was an unfortunate tendency on the part of many to focus far too much on similarities rather than differences. Minski said that, on a certain level, anything could be considered to be the equivalent of everything else. He went on to say that doing so led to "brain rot."
He suggested that we were far better off focusing on dissimilarities in order to zero in on those "differences that made a difference." That, he felt was key to all human inquiry and progress.
I agree. 8)
-
^Apples and oranges.
[...]
Marvin Minski once remarked that there was an unfortunate tendency on the part of many to focus far too much on similarities rather than differences. Minski said that, on a certain level, anything could be considered to be the equivalent of everything else. He went on to say that doing so led to "brain rot."-40hz
But apples and oranges are so similar! They're both fruit. They both taste sweet. They are both used to make juices. They both grow on trees. They both have seeds. . .
:D
-
I found an interesting comment on a follow up article, and thought it good food for thought.
'Remus Shepherd' is not my real name.
In 1996, I was publicly outed for my sexuality. I chose to flee from the net and all contact with people. I lost my job and many friends, but I survived.
In 2000, a friend of mine was publicly outed for his sexuality. He was the owner of a business and could not vanish the way that I did. He chose instead to take his own life.
Stripping of another person's anonymity is a vile tactic, no matter how flimsy that anonymity may be. If you suspect someone of a crime then yes, out them to the authorities. Let the legal system work. But publicly shaming people for activities with which you do not agree is a tactic used by blind mobs and righteous zealots. Outing is used to prevent rape victims from speaking out, it is used to harass and kill homosexuals and other minorities, and it is used to enforce social dogma on those who are merely different. It cannot and must not become an accepted tactic. The consequences on the weak and vulnerable will be far worse than any good that may come from using it.
-wraith808
As sad as that is, it will never end. People are just too damned nosy and have to insert themselves into everybody Else's business, no matter how big or small. And if that isn't enough, then they have to go a step further and ridicule anyone that's "different" to the point of either trying to change them or ruin their lives. They can't just live and let live.
People like that are either so unhappy with their own lives and try to make everyone Else's life miserable (misery loves company) or they think they are above reproach and need to command everyone to their line of thought. You know, full of themselves.
-
^Apples and oranges. If you work long and hard enough, anything can be made to look "almost" like anything else.
-40hz
Same thing happened on the article. People focused so much on the substance of what the 'outing' was used for, that they missed the point.
He wasn't defending Brutsch. He was condemning outing as a tool. And I totally agree. As much as I don't want the government in my life, either via social or financial issues, some things are better handled by an impartial party. And whether as the result of internet or 'real life' interaction, prosecution is one of those issues. Mob rule is never going to be the right thing. It may make short term gains, but in the end, the mob is too fickle, and too subject to direction by a minority of the mob and emotion for an unregulated group of people to ever come up with a truly reasoned and rational approach to any problem. This is a slippery slope, and one that's far too easy to find one's self downhill of unjustifiably.
If you have the information, and think that the person did wrong, then report them to the correct authorities, and let them take it from there.
But, as I said in a response to this, true change moves too slowly for short term emotion to be satisfied- so that's where the mob comes in. If this is bad, and there is not a law against it, it's easier to pillory the person and put them on display in the town square rather than work for true change that won't just apply in this one situation. And one that won't put the needs of those that are in similar but different situations at risk.
-
work for true change that won't just apply in this one situation. And one that won't put the needs of those that are in similar but different situations at risk.
-wraith808
I sure we're all waiting to hear exactly what that might be. Because from what I've been given to understand, the human race has been working on that very question for its entire history. And AFAIK, nobody's come up with the answer yet.
So...care to share your specific proposal for true change as it might relate to this particular case? Because we can toss generalities and "bright promise for the future" speeches back and forth forever. And who knows? Maybe you - or somebody else here - does have the answer? Seriously. Somebody will eventually come up with it. Why not somebody here today?
here's my take:
Insisting on arriving at a 'perfect solution for all eternity' before allowing any action be taken is, to me, the ultimate cop out. And a complete evasion of personal responsibility. Most solutions I've seen range from 'marginal' to 'better than the alternatives.' I've never once seen an 'ideal' solution that satisfies everybody. And any attempt to completely eliminate all risk and anticipate all future contingencies is a sure guarantee that nothing will ever get done by anyone. Ever.
Because we're not gods.
Even under the most ideal circumstances, we can't do any more than the best we can with what information we have - and what we have to work with. I've never seen it happen any other way. And I've been involved in more 'causes' and 'social actions' and 'protests' than I care to remember some days.
So while I don't react on a knee-jerk basis to every problem I encounter, by the same token, I also don't sit by and twiddle my philosophical thumbs if there's something I can help with that needs getting done.
For example: It's one thing to contemplate all the factors that went into influencing the development of someone's personality and temperament. And if that development took an antisocial form, to work towards broadly eliminating its root causes, with the goal of removing such things from the human experience.
But in the meantime, if I hear a commotion next door, or see signs of physical abuse on someone who lives there, I'm not going to sit idly by and ponder how we can "raise awareness" and "best address" the "problem of domestic abuse." I'm going to call the police and go over and bang on the door.
Maybe such direct action on my part won't change the world. Or solve the "real underlying problem." But it very likely will bring (or force) some very real attention and official recognition to the hypothetical problem next door - and very possibly prevent an innocent person from otherwise getting seriously injured.
And you know what? That's enough for me. :)
-
But in the meantime, if I hear a commotion next door, or see signs of physical abuse on someone who lives there, I'm not going to sit idly by and ponder how we can "raise awareness" and "best address" the "problem of domestic abuse." I'm going to call the police and go over and bang on the door.
-40hz
That's what I'm talking about. And that's what was said in the quote. And that's what I said in my post. Didn't I?
If you have the information, and think that the person did wrong, then report them to the correct authorities, and let them take it from there.
-wraith808
That's all I'm saying. Outing isn't solving the problem. Mob rule isn't the key. Going to the police with the information is. And is actually more constructive, as they can build up a case without him knowing. And thereby have a better chance of being able to do something with it. So it seems like a win win to me.
It seems that you took part of my post without reading the whole thing. :(
-
That's all I'm saying. Outing isn't solving the problem. Mob rule isn't the key. Going to the police with the information is. And is actually more constructive, as they can build up a case without him knowing. And thereby have a better chance of being able to do something with it. So it seems like a win win to me.
-wraith808
I haven't looked into what violentacrez has been doing, and I'm not going to - I've got the feeling gist that some of what he's posted is relatively nasty stuff, and I frankly don't feel like seeing more nasty things than I already have. But has he posted anything that's illegal? And, if that, anything that's bad enough to get anything more than a "Well, we've got murderers and rapists to investigate, so whatever" response from the police? You can make other people's lives pretty darn miserable without breaking the law.
The rational part of me believes that outing is a bad thing. There's the risk of framing innocents, but even if the information is 100% correct, it's a pretty darn slippery slope. On the other hand, I'm glad to see a bully stopped...
-
People are just too damned nosy and have to insert themselves into everybody Else's business, no matter how big or small. And if that isn't enough, then they have to go a step further and ridicule anyone that's "different" to the point of either trying to change them or ruin their lives. They can't just live and let live.
People like that are either so unhappy with their own lives and try to make everyone Else's life miserable (misery loves company) or they think they are above reproach and need to command everyone to their line of thought. You know, full of themselves.
-Tinman57
I feel the push to "real names" is on a collision course here, because of the ability for "outrage" to go viral. At least in old small towns if you made a wreck of your life in Maine people in Pennsylvania wouldn't usually know. Now it's that "Google Monkey" effect I mentioned: "Oh, that's you that did _____?"
-
The rational part of me believes that outing is a bad thing. There's the risk of framing innocents, but even if the information is 100% correct, it's a pretty darn slippery slope. On the other hand, I'm glad to see a bully stopped...
-f0dder
And I think this is the part where balance is required. Is it good to stop someone that's exploiting others? Yes. But do you throw the rights of everyone out the door in order to do so? Especially when you could have done it in a more constructive way? I think that's where gawker's feet need to be held to the fire. They didn't even try to coordinate with law officials, and still haven't to my knowledge. If they were so concerned, LE would have been involved long before now, and they could report on the results of that investigation. That takes care of the problem. Of course, in that case, there's the chance that they lose their exclusive. And I think that the exclusive came before the benefits, truthfully.
-
i don't think it's a good idea to encourage investigative news to see itself as part of law enforcement. that's a very slippery slope. :>(
-
Should a private organization be allowed to kick out people they don't want?
While people have the right of freedom of speech. Does that means that an entity should be forced to be the vehicle of the speech of others?
I don't care what the person wrote or not. And, as long as the pictures where not obtained illegally, there is nothing illegal on it. Thus, unless you believe that freedom of speech should be abolished, its not our concern.
That said:
While a person right of freedom of speech should be uphold (irrelevant if you like it or not). The right of another person to ignore or even counter attack with their own speech should also be uphold. As well as the right for an organization no not be used as a medium of that speech.
Would it be ok for a guy to enter a synagogue dress on a gestapo uniform and ask to do a speech on how the Zionist are the scum of the earth and the Aryan race should rise again?
Yes.
However, the synagogue administration have the right to refuse and tell him to leave the premises. If he refuses, they can call the police, not because of the speech. But because he refused to leave a private property. Whoever owns the premises decides what can be done at it.
The same guy can do their speech on a conversion center where he rented 4 hours. And the conversion center does not have the right to say no once is rented (unless they placed in the contract beforehand). Why? Because for those 4 hours, the room is not theirs, is of the person that rented and is only bound for what is legal and whatever the rent contract stipulates.
So, unless the guy paid Redit to be able to post messages. They had the right to kick him out.
Freedom of speech does not means freedom to force someone else to be the medium of your speech.