Outing the Internet's worst troll.

[40hz]

Legal and regulated properly would leave far less casualties.

-Stoic Joker (October 16, 2012, 01:47 PM)

@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.  

[wraith808]

Legal and regulated properly would leave far less casualties.

-Stoic Joker (October 16, 2012, 01:47 PM)

@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 (October 16, 2012, 03:26 PM)

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 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?

[40hz]

Did he do any more than what I said, or what was said in the article?

-wraith808 (October 16, 2012, 04:11 PM)

Here's one of his:

Warning: Graphic, NSFW, VDA

http://metareddit.com/r/PicsOfDeadKids

[Tinman57]

Here's one of his:

Warning: Graphic, NSFW, VDA

http://metareddit.com/r/PicsOfDeadKids

-40hz (October 16, 2012, 04:43 PM)

  That's some sick shit.  The people that collect that kind of crap are really twisted....

[wraith808]

Did he do any more than what I said, or what was said in the article?

-wraith808 (October 16, 2012, 04:11 PM)

Here's one of his:

Warning: Graphic, NSFW, VDA

http://metareddit.com/r/PicsOfDeadKids

-40hz (October 16, 2012, 04:43 PM)

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.

[wraith808]

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.

[40hz]

^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.

[Deozaan]

^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 (October 18, 2012, 04:08 PM)

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. . .

[Tinman57]

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 (October 18, 2012, 03:14 PM)

  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.

[wraith808]

^Apples and oranges. If you work long and hard enough, anything can be made to look "almost" like anything else.

-40hz (October 18, 2012, 04:08 PM)

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.

[40hz]

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 (October 18, 2012, 07:32 PM)

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.

[wraith808]

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 (October 18, 2012, 09:45 PM)

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 (October 18, 2012, 07:32 PM)

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.

[f0dder]

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 (October 18, 2012, 09:55 PM)

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...

[TaoPhoenix]

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 (October 18, 2012, 07:16 PM)

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 _____?"

[wraith808]

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 (October 19, 2012, 02:28 AM)

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.

[Gwen7]

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. :>(

[rxantos]

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.