Meeting A Troll(traynorseye.com)
traynorseye.com
Meeting A Troll
http://www.traynorseye.com/2012/09/meeting-troll.html
210 comments
Stop. Rewind.
You are calling a 17 year old person a "child". This is wrong, and perfectly in keeping with the trend of failing to raise children into mature adults.
17 year olds will be able to vote on their next birthday. They can hold jobs, they can drive cars, they can fly planes, they can even serve in the armed forces with their parents' permission. 17 year olds fought in the battle of Iwo Jima.
Calling this person a child diminishes them, and takes away their capacity for agency and responsibility. A big part of being a healthy, functional adult in society is responsibility. You can nurture them within a loving community all you want but if you protect them entirely from the consequences of their actions they will never become anything more than children.
You are calling a 17 year old person a "child". This is wrong, and perfectly in keeping with the trend of failing to raise children into mature adults.
17 year olds will be able to vote on their next birthday. They can hold jobs, they can drive cars, they can fly planes, they can even serve in the armed forces with their parents' permission. 17 year olds fought in the battle of Iwo Jima.
Calling this person a child diminishes them, and takes away their capacity for agency and responsibility. A big part of being a healthy, functional adult in society is responsibility. You can nurture them within a loving community all you want but if you protect them entirely from the consequences of their actions they will never become anything more than children.
Stop. Fast-forward.
First of all, you're picking on a very small point. The fact that I referred to this guy/kid/whatever as a "child" isn't really crucial to my argument except perhaps in a pretty indirect/connotative manner.
Second of all, to me, this kid is a child. I know some 30+ year old grown-ass men and women who are children. I was remarking on his (apparent) lack of maturity and his position within the community (still living with parents, pulling [admittedly extreme] "pranks", not living with the consequences of his actions).
I agree that to be an adult you need responsibility and that to get there you must increasingly suffer the consequences of your actions. My point (which you have avoided responding to entirely) centers on the fact that, in the US and the UK, turning ANYONE (child or adult) over to the "authorities" is not any sort of reasonable or useful consequence and, what's more, that it is disturbing to me that this particular idea of "punishment" or "consequences" or "justice" or whatever seems to continue to penetrate the public consciousness.
First of all, you're picking on a very small point. The fact that I referred to this guy/kid/whatever as a "child" isn't really crucial to my argument except perhaps in a pretty indirect/connotative manner.
Second of all, to me, this kid is a child. I know some 30+ year old grown-ass men and women who are children. I was remarking on his (apparent) lack of maturity and his position within the community (still living with parents, pulling [admittedly extreme] "pranks", not living with the consequences of his actions).
I agree that to be an adult you need responsibility and that to get there you must increasingly suffer the consequences of your actions. My point (which you have avoided responding to entirely) centers on the fact that, in the US and the UK, turning ANYONE (child or adult) over to the "authorities" is not any sort of reasonable or useful consequence and, what's more, that it is disturbing to me that this particular idea of "punishment" or "consequences" or "justice" or whatever seems to continue to penetrate the public consciousness.
Just because he's 17 doesn't mean he has grown up. He obviously hasn't and treating him like a grown-up and expecting him to take responsibility when he obviously hasn't reached that part of his mental development would be very detrimental. That's why the article writer made sure to impress upon his parents that the boy needs counselling - to work through and correct whatever mental/behavioural issues he has.
That argument of course only holds if your goal is utilitarian with regards to the well-being of society as a whole and that family in particular. If you just seek to satisfy your inner craving for "justice", by all means - call the cops, destroy his life, create another criminal and drug user and watch him and his parents lose any hope of normal life, while you laugh and twirl your moustache from atop the moral high tower.
That argument of course only holds if your goal is utilitarian with regards to the well-being of society as a whole and that family in particular. If you just seek to satisfy your inner craving for "justice", by all means - call the cops, destroy his life, create another criminal and drug user and watch him and his parents lose any hope of normal life, while you laugh and twirl your moustache from atop the moral high tower.
If it would be detrimental to him to "grow up" then will it not be detrimental to society to put him out in a world where he could do harm to others? Especially given that he already has a history of doing exactly that?
If the premise here is that this man-child is too immature to take on the responsibilities of adult society (such as the right to own firearms, the right to drive automobiles, the right to drink alcohol, etc.), that he is in some way developmentally disabled, then should he not be kept away from society and denied the ability to hurt others?
You are setting up a false dichotomy here. You are saying that the choice is either that this person be sheltered by a nurturing and loving community who protects him from the consequences of his actions and if not then his life will be ruined utterly. He needs to face the consequences of his actions. He needs to learn that it is necessary to abide by just laws in order to live in society and to fail to do so will result in very serious consequences. If he cannot accept any responsibility then he has no place in civil society.
What are the possible consequences of someone being sheltered from the consequences of their vile, hateful, violent acts? That person can become mentally and emotionally twisted and their hatred and lust for wanton destruction can grow. And this can occur even within the sheltering arms of a loving community. And then the hurt they cause others and the irreparable damage they do to themselves becomes even greater until they become a monster. A rapist, a serial killer, or merely an outcast who cannot mesh with society.
This is not about moral high towers, this is about ensuring that society does not become burdened with so-called adults who have never faced true responsibility and are incapable of functioning properly within society.
If the premise here is that this man-child is too immature to take on the responsibilities of adult society (such as the right to own firearms, the right to drive automobiles, the right to drink alcohol, etc.), that he is in some way developmentally disabled, then should he not be kept away from society and denied the ability to hurt others?
You are setting up a false dichotomy here. You are saying that the choice is either that this person be sheltered by a nurturing and loving community who protects him from the consequences of his actions and if not then his life will be ruined utterly. He needs to face the consequences of his actions. He needs to learn that it is necessary to abide by just laws in order to live in society and to fail to do so will result in very serious consequences. If he cannot accept any responsibility then he has no place in civil society.
What are the possible consequences of someone being sheltered from the consequences of their vile, hateful, violent acts? That person can become mentally and emotionally twisted and their hatred and lust for wanton destruction can grow. And this can occur even within the sheltering arms of a loving community. And then the hurt they cause others and the irreparable damage they do to themselves becomes even greater until they become a monster. A rapist, a serial killer, or merely an outcast who cannot mesh with society.
This is not about moral high towers, this is about ensuring that society does not become burdened with so-called adults who have never faced true responsibility and are incapable of functioning properly within society.
"then should he not be kept away from society and denied the ability to hurt others?"
How long do you think he should be kept away from society?
His actions don't justify a life sentence or the death penalty, so he's going to be part of society at some point.
Is taking him out of society going to make him a better person? No.
The best way to rehabilitate someone is for them to have something to lose.
If this 17yo had a wife/child of his own then it is far less likely that he would have done this harassment.
How long do you think he should be kept away from society?
His actions don't justify a life sentence or the death penalty, so he's going to be part of society at some point.
Is taking him out of society going to make him a better person? No.
The best way to rehabilitate someone is for them to have something to lose.
If this 17yo had a wife/child of his own then it is far less likely that he would have done this harassment.
I think it is highly unlikely that any of his actions would result in any significant jail time. Community service, a fine, and/or some sort of probation are all more likely.
I had a childhood friend who got in with a bad crowd in high school. At some point, when he was about 17, he was caught illegally entering a business at night. His parents refused to go pick him up from the police station, so he had to spend the night and most of the next day in a cell. I don't believe his ultimate punishment involved any jail time.
I respect his parent's decision. That sort of action teaches a troublesome kid that there are real consequences for breaking laws beyond just upset parents. While a criminal record might make it harder for him to get a job in the future, it certainly doesn't make it impossible. I also suspect it is better than letting a kid think that other people will protect him and he can get away with whatever he wants.
I had a childhood friend who got in with a bad crowd in high school. At some point, when he was about 17, he was caught illegally entering a business at night. His parents refused to go pick him up from the police station, so he had to spend the night and most of the next day in a cell. I don't believe his ultimate punishment involved any jail time.
I respect his parent's decision. That sort of action teaches a troublesome kid that there are real consequences for breaking laws beyond just upset parents. While a criminal record might make it harder for him to get a job in the future, it certainly doesn't make it impossible. I also suspect it is better than letting a kid think that other people will protect him and he can get away with whatever he wants.
A criminal record for a misdemeanor as a minor can be expunged fairly easily.
I'm suggesting no such thing. I'm saying that if someone thinks that this person should be sheltered entirely from the consequences of his actions then it is similarly logical to shelter society from his cruelty. If you'll notice I haven't actually suggested a course of action for dealing with him, I've only suggested that he needs to experience consequences for his hateful and violent attacks.
[deleted]
The 17 yo might not be a child, but he is immature. His actions were not the actions of a mature individual.
Knowing the 17 yo, and knowing his family means the article author was able to make a judgement call about how seriously he takes the threats against his family and himself now that the veil of anonymity is revealed.
If he was still worried about the threats being enacted after the 17 yo was reveal then I'm sure he would have involved authorities.
Actions have consequences, and while I agree that what the 17 yo did needs to have consequences, by invoking the authorities the author could change this from an act that has a definite conclusion to something that is ongoing (if only on his conscience) when he hears stories about this kid's life 5, 10 and 20 years from now.
To let go of retribution and have a dark part of your life concluded and move on is sometimes a better outcome than having to drag something out to get justice.
Knowing the 17 yo, and knowing his family means the article author was able to make a judgement call about how seriously he takes the threats against his family and himself now that the veil of anonymity is revealed.
If he was still worried about the threats being enacted after the 17 yo was reveal then I'm sure he would have involved authorities.
Actions have consequences, and while I agree that what the 17 yo did needs to have consequences, by invoking the authorities the author could change this from an act that has a definite conclusion to something that is ongoing (if only on his conscience) when he hears stories about this kid's life 5, 10 and 20 years from now.
To let go of retribution and have a dark part of your life concluded and move on is sometimes a better outcome than having to drag something out to get justice.
When I think back to the decisions I made as a 17 year old (and an 18, 19, 20 ... year old) I think it is perfectly valid to call a 17 year old a child.
At that age I would guess a large proportion can barely cook for themselves, have never lived alone, probably never paid a bill or shopped at supermarkets.
At that age I would guess a large proportion can barely cook for themselves, have never lived alone, probably never paid a bill or shopped at supermarkets.
There is a strong case in the modern world for upping the age of maturity to say, 25.
How will that help? You don't solve the problem of people being immature even into adulthood by delaying the official onset of adulthood yet more. You solve it by treating teenagers as adults in training. Which used to be the case until very recently. Now we avoid giving responsibility to teens, we treat high school like day care or a prison, and we wonder why our "kids" don't magically acquire maturity when they turn 18, or 21, or 25, or 30.
Maturity and responsibility are skills that must be taught. And they cannot be taught at a distance, they must be taught live, with the real world, because it is only through learning that actions have consequences, sometimes serious ones, that maturity is acquired.
Maturity and responsibility are skills that must be taught. And they cannot be taught at a distance, they must be taught live, with the real world, because it is only through learning that actions have consequences, sometimes serious ones, that maturity is acquired.
I think the answer isn't so much giving people consequences as giving them responsibility.
It's ridiculous that some kids get their post secondary education degree without ever having held a job (of any kind).
I find it amazing that teens walk around with $200-$2000 worth of electronics that their parents paid for them with no thought to their value because they didn't pay for it, and they know they'll be replaced if they whine enough.
It's ridiculous that some kids get their post secondary education degree without ever having held a job (of any kind).
I find it amazing that teens walk around with $200-$2000 worth of electronics that their parents paid for them with no thought to their value because they didn't pay for it, and they know they'll be replaced if they whine enough.
Both points are accurate.
The case for upping the age of maturity to 25 is that there is solid brain science suggesting that that is how old we are when our brain finishes developing the ability to make mature decisions. See http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/... for that.
However you're absolutely right that children who are never given responsibility never develop their ability to take responsibility.
The case for upping the age of maturity to 25 is that there is solid brain science suggesting that that is how old we are when our brain finishes developing the ability to make mature decisions. See http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/... for that.
However you're absolutely right that children who are never given responsibility never develop their ability to take responsibility.
Yes, let's just keep infantilizing and disenfranchising young people for more and more of their lives, that's sure to work.
The main reason teen rebellion and delinquency are issues in the first place is because young people are already held back for too long.
The main reason teen rebellion and delinquency are issues in the first place is because young people are already held back for too long.
"...the tough thing about adulthood is that it starts before you even know it starts, when you're already a dozen decisions into it. But what you need to know, Todd, no Lifeguard is watching anymore. You're on your own. You're your own man, and the decisions you make now are yours and yours alone from here until the end. "
An arbitrary age of maturity has nothing to do with actual (as opposed to legal) adulthood or responsibility. The fact is that "kids" at the age of 17 and 18 are already making decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Making the legal age later will certainly not help these people realize that the decisions they are making are important or that they need to take responsibility for themselves.
An arbitrary age of maturity has nothing to do with actual (as opposed to legal) adulthood or responsibility. The fact is that "kids" at the age of 17 and 18 are already making decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Making the legal age later will certainly not help these people realize that the decisions they are making are important or that they need to take responsibility for themselves.
After reviewing the conduct of a number of 25 year olds, I find this comment somewhat amusing.
I wouldn't say that increasing it to the age of 40 would be crossing the maturity threshold, either.
I wouldn't say that increasing it to the age of 40 would be crossing the maturity threshold, either.
Totally agree. You see things from a different perspective when you start having responsibilities and duties, like having to pay for your rent, having to cook and do the cleaning yourself, and so on...
I often find the idea of "maturity" an interesting concept. We have a fairly fixed average lifetime expectancy, which can vary by a couple of years depending on where you live (on average). I think the global average is 68 years old for both sexes.
The western world has an fairly fixed period of "maturing" into adulthood, which is usually achieved when the individual reaches 18 years old. Most countries then offer the vote and other "adult" related perks and responsibilities. Meanwhile, adults are living longer and social and health support costs for those people in retirement is increasing and this burden falls on the working population.
Historically humans have matured before 18 years old. This shift has happened over the last two centuries (western world). However, let's not forget that in many parts of the world, children start work and start families at a much younger age and it is socially acceptable within their own societies. These are concepts that we in the western world find (now) quite bizarre, but during the (British) industrial revolution, children (and we had a lot of them) helped to power the revolution, working in mines and factories. These children had children younger and further increased the population at a more rapid growth rate. We now look on this with distaste, disgust and a large degree of pity, but at the time I doubt it was viewed as so.
I would go further and state that today we see this as slavery, whilst back then they saw it as necessity. This necessity still exists around the world, and even though there is a huge drive in the western world to boycott companies in the third and second world who use child labor, it is an important source of income for their families living in poverty. Importantly and all to often forgotten, we are too blinded by our indignation to see otherwise. I'm not saying that this is right, merely making an observation.
Meanwhile our welfare states are collapsing and we have few options. We have to reduce our social support costs or see our support systems collapse. Alternatively we could import human resource from abroad to pay the taxes to support welfare. Importing labor is not without its own challenges, but has helped to build countries like the United States into global powerhouses.
Without a doubt, we need to extend people's working lives (i.e. later retirement), which is for many countries, especially in Europe, the first step on this path. The "lord taketh and the lord taketh away", but woe betide the state that tries to take anything away from its citizens. Countries like France are being brought to their knees by this welfare burden. The people protest in their millions as they see banks profit and get richer, but nothing will change, except for the fact that eventually, the French will have to accept later retirement and higher taxes.
Thus, the question I put to you is this: Do our children really need 18 years to mature, or is our system taking 18 years to mature them? Are we able to improve the system so that we can increase the number of workers in the system from the bottom up, rather than the top down?
We could radically change the way (and speed) in which we educate our children (and have more of them) to help offset the welfare gap from the bottom up. I haven't ever heard this idea proposed and the devil's advocate in me wants to question why not?
I have children and I want the best for them. On one hand I want them to enjoy their "extended" childhood, but I also want them not to suffer in poverty when they get older. The pragmatist in me thinks that there is little option other than consider extending the worker's life from both sides.
To summarize, the baby boomers fucked us and we and our children just have to live with the consequences.
The western world has an fairly fixed period of "maturing" into adulthood, which is usually achieved when the individual reaches 18 years old. Most countries then offer the vote and other "adult" related perks and responsibilities. Meanwhile, adults are living longer and social and health support costs for those people in retirement is increasing and this burden falls on the working population.
Historically humans have matured before 18 years old. This shift has happened over the last two centuries (western world). However, let's not forget that in many parts of the world, children start work and start families at a much younger age and it is socially acceptable within their own societies. These are concepts that we in the western world find (now) quite bizarre, but during the (British) industrial revolution, children (and we had a lot of them) helped to power the revolution, working in mines and factories. These children had children younger and further increased the population at a more rapid growth rate. We now look on this with distaste, disgust and a large degree of pity, but at the time I doubt it was viewed as so.
I would go further and state that today we see this as slavery, whilst back then they saw it as necessity. This necessity still exists around the world, and even though there is a huge drive in the western world to boycott companies in the third and second world who use child labor, it is an important source of income for their families living in poverty. Importantly and all to often forgotten, we are too blinded by our indignation to see otherwise. I'm not saying that this is right, merely making an observation.
Meanwhile our welfare states are collapsing and we have few options. We have to reduce our social support costs or see our support systems collapse. Alternatively we could import human resource from abroad to pay the taxes to support welfare. Importing labor is not without its own challenges, but has helped to build countries like the United States into global powerhouses.
Without a doubt, we need to extend people's working lives (i.e. later retirement), which is for many countries, especially in Europe, the first step on this path. The "lord taketh and the lord taketh away", but woe betide the state that tries to take anything away from its citizens. Countries like France are being brought to their knees by this welfare burden. The people protest in their millions as they see banks profit and get richer, but nothing will change, except for the fact that eventually, the French will have to accept later retirement and higher taxes.
Thus, the question I put to you is this: Do our children really need 18 years to mature, or is our system taking 18 years to mature them? Are we able to improve the system so that we can increase the number of workers in the system from the bottom up, rather than the top down?
We could radically change the way (and speed) in which we educate our children (and have more of them) to help offset the welfare gap from the bottom up. I haven't ever heard this idea proposed and the devil's advocate in me wants to question why not?
I have children and I want the best for them. On one hand I want them to enjoy their "extended" childhood, but I also want them not to suffer in poverty when they get older. The pragmatist in me thinks that there is little option other than consider extending the worker's life from both sides.
To summarize, the baby boomers fucked us and we and our children just have to live with the consequences.
"Without a doubt, we need to extend people's working lives (i.e. later retirement)"
How is this a given? Increased efficiency might counteract demographics. Hundred years ago a lot more farmers where needed to feed the same amount of people than today. If your phone can do your medical checkup, lots of medical aid workers can perhaps be freed to do other stuff.
I worry that we are being brainwashed on a constant basis by a rich elite to believe the "we have to work harder and longer" dogma. It doesn't make that much sense, given that we are a lot more technologically advanced than 50 years ago. Granted, the population has grown, too. All I want to say that I wouldn't take your claim at face value.
As for working children: sure, children can work. Does that mean they are adults? I think in our times it basically means being allowed to vote and make responsible decisions. You can still work in a coal mine following orders without being able to make responsible decisions.
Obviously people will do what they need to survive, but while we can, we should probably try to attain to a higher standard.
Even for the child laborers in India it is not a given that things have to be what they are. Yes, the current system makes it so - doesn't imply that there couldn't be another system. Paying their parents more might be a start.
How is this a given? Increased efficiency might counteract demographics. Hundred years ago a lot more farmers where needed to feed the same amount of people than today. If your phone can do your medical checkup, lots of medical aid workers can perhaps be freed to do other stuff.
I worry that we are being brainwashed on a constant basis by a rich elite to believe the "we have to work harder and longer" dogma. It doesn't make that much sense, given that we are a lot more technologically advanced than 50 years ago. Granted, the population has grown, too. All I want to say that I wouldn't take your claim at face value.
As for working children: sure, children can work. Does that mean they are adults? I think in our times it basically means being allowed to vote and make responsible decisions. You can still work in a coal mine following orders without being able to make responsible decisions.
Obviously people will do what they need to survive, but while we can, we should probably try to attain to a higher standard.
Even for the child laborers in India it is not a given that things have to be what they are. Yes, the current system makes it so - doesn't imply that there couldn't be another system. Paying their parents more might be a start.
"You are calling a 17 year old person a "child". This is wrong, and perfectly in keeping with the trend of failing to raise children into mature adults."
I see it slightly more cynically - in my opinion, either the 17 year old is "child" so is not held responsible and his parents are, or he is not a child and is held responsible. I don't accept the assumption that _nobody_ is responsible for a badly brought up child. The guy and his wife were put through something a lot closer to "terrorism" than anything many detainees at Guantanamo ever managed. If the kid had been Arabian, and hs parents had knowingly or unknowingly provided training and equipment that allowd the kid to do what he did - how differently do you suppose this story would have played out?
I see it slightly more cynically - in my opinion, either the 17 year old is "child" so is not held responsible and his parents are, or he is not a child and is held responsible. I don't accept the assumption that _nobody_ is responsible for a badly brought up child. The guy and his wife were put through something a lot closer to "terrorism" than anything many detainees at Guantanamo ever managed. If the kid had been Arabian, and hs parents had knowingly or unknowingly provided training and equipment that allowd the kid to do what he did - how differently do you suppose this story would have played out?
Let's not pretend there's reason or justice in how the US treats those people. That's part of a larger conflict, and has little value as an example of individual responsibility.
17 year olds may be able to do all of those things, however we know that the average male's forebrain doesn't fully develop until much later, as much as 8 years later. Some males aged 25 still have not developed to the point of advanced reasoning. Reasoning like being able to see the consequences and harm done by stunts such as sending threats like this. It's certainly not enough to dismiss this and say "he's 17, he's not a child anymore".
Whoa, can I get a citation for this?
That sounds so weird. This is particularly males? Males with healthy diets and lifestyles, ones with terrible diets and bad lifestyles, or across the board?
That sounds so weird. This is particularly males? Males with healthy diets and lifestyles, ones with terrible diets and bad lifestyles, or across the board?
Especially since the average male lifespan was around 35 years up until a few millenia ago. Are you saying that most males died before they reached maturity?
AFAIK 'average male lifespan was around 35 years' is based on estimates that includes all males including the relatively large percentage who never survived childhood
Who cares about a "fully developed" brain, if there is even such a thing? Human beings at any age are largely irresponsible and irrational and most people never move beyond this. Yet I know that the vast majority of 17-year-olds I have encountered do not mail boxes of ashes to Jews, or anything of the sort. That his brain is not totally "developed" absolves nothing. Should a person with an IQ of 100 serve less time than a person with an IQ of 140, because the latter is more "capable of rationality", or whatever other quality you want to ascribe to the mind? At some point, certainly short after the reasonable age of entry into the working world (probably sixteen) people need to be expected to act decently. Sure, I'm in favor of rehabilitation -- punishment is a revenge-instinct and waste of resources -- but we should do ourselves and these people the service of being honest about what they are: criminals.
And your implication that a "loving community" can wave a magic wand and make this sick adult better is equally incorrect.
I would suggest in fact that some of the signs this troubled individual would behave in this manner were probably already apparent to his parents, but they chose to dismiss it because no parent really believes their own child can be capable of such horrible behaviour.
This is a person that needs professional help - from an objective third party. The authorities, while certainly imperfect, can provide this.
For all you know, when this adult was confronted and "broke down" it could have all been an act. He could truly be a psychopath (and his actions certainly suggest that)
I would suggest in fact that some of the signs this troubled individual would behave in this manner were probably already apparent to his parents, but they chose to dismiss it because no parent really believes their own child can be capable of such horrible behaviour.
This is a person that needs professional help - from an objective third party. The authorities, while certainly imperfect, can provide this.
For all you know, when this adult was confronted and "broke down" it could have all been an act. He could truly be a psychopath (and his actions certainly suggest that)
I'm of multiple minds of this. My personal relation to this is my brother was a punk in his teenage years. He stole from friends, neighbors, and even my mom's engagement ring and hocked it all to by drugs and alcohol. My dad was and still is in the firm "loving community" area with him. Selling my dad's car was the last straw and we sent him to a juvenile detention/rehab/detox center to recover. We feel this was actually worse because this is where he learned from the other people how to lie, cheat, and evade better than he would have on his own. For years he would comeback and steal from my dad knowing he would not be turned in or would at least be released to his care. Now he is career criminal and next chance for parole is in 16 years.
My brother needed professional help but I don't think he got it from that rehab center and sure as hell did not get it in subsequent trips to prison when he became an adult. For him he could act and say exactly the right thing to whoever he was talking too to convince them he was reformed yet again. Being sent away for rehab was probably the wrong action but we did try several things prior to that that never helped.
I think this kid is trouble and the parents knew it which is why they gave the author the option to engage the authorities. They maybe afraid to do it themselves not knowing if he would hold a grudge against them if they did it (my brother did). I don't know if engaging the legal system would help and certainly wouldn't if he was a psychopath. For the author though, this is probably the best option as he did not escalate the situation with the kid. He probably will not be the target in the future but hard to say really. If the kid really is capable of those actions then I would not want him on my enemy's list. The kid has just learned that there are no real consequences for his actions. I think the parents need to be the ones that take action and at least have him see a psychologist as a minimum.
My brother needed professional help but I don't think he got it from that rehab center and sure as hell did not get it in subsequent trips to prison when he became an adult. For him he could act and say exactly the right thing to whoever he was talking too to convince them he was reformed yet again. Being sent away for rehab was probably the wrong action but we did try several things prior to that that never helped.
I think this kid is trouble and the parents knew it which is why they gave the author the option to engage the authorities. They maybe afraid to do it themselves not knowing if he would hold a grudge against them if they did it (my brother did). I don't know if engaging the legal system would help and certainly wouldn't if he was a psychopath. For the author though, this is probably the best option as he did not escalate the situation with the kid. He probably will not be the target in the future but hard to say really. If the kid really is capable of those actions then I would not want him on my enemy's list. The kid has just learned that there are no real consequences for his actions. I think the parents need to be the ones that take action and at least have him see a psychologist as a minimum.
Neither do imply nor do I believe that a "loving community" can waive a magic wand and make this sick child better. I do believe that it is more or less the only chance he has. There is ample evidence that our justice system and public mental health facilities are woefully inadequate for dealing with mental disturbances which are increasingly abundant in society. The idea that "professionals" are somehow intrinsically capable of dealing with these sorts of problems is one of the more troubling and pervasive myths in the United States (at least among people I know/have met/in the beliefs of the people as presented in the media). I'm not an expert, but my impression is that ther countries known for having better track records w/r/t criminal and mental rehabilitation (Norway, Finland, Japan) have stronger community structures and a more communal-based jail/asylum system.
What do you imagine happening to this child once he begins receiving professional help - (and let's be clear, here - I am advocating professional help - e.g. I think it's good that the child will go to counseling) - from the authorities that be? If he is put into jail he has a high probability of becoming criminalized (attaching to a community of criminals ) - if he is put into an asylum he has a good chance of becoming institutionalized. What is the root of your faith in our prison/mental health system? I honestly want to know.
It seems that your belief might stem in the idea that the child's parents are somehow morally or intellectually weak and that therefore the government has to step in and be the child's "strong father/mother." Is this correct? If so, why do you believe that government agencies deserve this sort of power? Have they earned it?
What do you imagine happening to this child once he begins receiving professional help - (and let's be clear, here - I am advocating professional help - e.g. I think it's good that the child will go to counseling) - from the authorities that be? If he is put into jail he has a high probability of becoming criminalized (attaching to a community of criminals ) - if he is put into an asylum he has a good chance of becoming institutionalized. What is the root of your faith in our prison/mental health system? I honestly want to know.
It seems that your belief might stem in the idea that the child's parents are somehow morally or intellectually weak and that therefore the government has to step in and be the child's "strong father/mother." Is this correct? If so, why do you believe that government agencies deserve this sort of power? Have they earned it?
I would probably do the same thing, I would probably not report the child of my friend to authorities.
But looking at this as a third person; I think he got away too easily. He did something evil, he got caught and what are the consequences? A slap on the wrist.
But looking at this as a third person; I think he got away too easily. He did something evil, he got caught and what are the consequences? A slap on the wrist.
That's the problem with the "loving community will fix everything" theory in a nutshell.
Parents or friends of a person who is dangerous to society will turn a blind eye, be more easily coerced, manipulated, etc.
A loving community will see the signs of recovery in a person, not because there is necessarily any, but because it's what they want to see.
Parents or friends of a person who is dangerous to society will turn a blind eye, be more easily coerced, manipulated, etc.
A loving community will see the signs of recovery in a person, not because there is necessarily any, but because it's what they want to see.
There are outliers, but love has contagious qualities in most instances.
What kind of persons downvote this comment? (please someone argument this I am really curious why this happened)
I didn't downvote, but an assertion coupled with waffle words and with no citation doesn't add much to the conversation. Phrasing it as "in my experience, love is contagious" would at least frame the comment more accurately (individual experience and opinion versus universal axiom).
Except the outliers, as you mention, in which case nothing will help. True psycopaths cannot be reformed.
If he has any connection to his parents at all, the embarrassment of being outed in front of his parents might be more than just a slap on the wrist.
Also, is this the "an eye for an eye" theory of justice? Personally I hope that my kid will behave in a good way because he considers it the right thing to do, not because he is afraid of punishment.
Also, is this the "an eye for an eye" theory of justice? Personally I hope that my kid will behave in a good way because he considers it the right thing to do, not because he is afraid of punishment.
It's not an eye for an eye. But it is actions and consequences.
If you take an extreme crime (like murder), I don't think you'll find many people who would say "there should be no consequences to that as long as the person is truly sorry for what they did". There must be some level of punishment, and there will be disagreement about what the appropriate level is.
Now this was not murder, but it was true terror over a period of 4 years. Do those actions have consequences? Or just give him a hug?
This 17 year old has problem, and he needs intensive psychological counselling at the very least. He didn't know why he did it? It was just a game? Those are scary answers and the problem needs to be fixed.
At least having him in the police database, fingerprints, IP address records, reports from his counselling sessions - would make it easier for someone else to catch him next time he does this. The next person he does this to will be starting from scratch trying to find out who this was, like the author was 4 years ago.
If you take an extreme crime (like murder), I don't think you'll find many people who would say "there should be no consequences to that as long as the person is truly sorry for what they did". There must be some level of punishment, and there will be disagreement about what the appropriate level is.
Now this was not murder, but it was true terror over a period of 4 years. Do those actions have consequences? Or just give him a hug?
This 17 year old has problem, and he needs intensive psychological counselling at the very least. He didn't know why he did it? It was just a game? Those are scary answers and the problem needs to be fixed.
At least having him in the police database, fingerprints, IP address records, reports from his counselling sessions - would make it easier for someone else to catch him next time he does this. The next person he does this to will be starting from scratch trying to find out who this was, like the author was 4 years ago.
There seems to be an implicit assumption in your statement that either the only meaningful type of consequence comes from the authorities or that the parents will not enact any type of consequence themselves. Considering the reaction of the parents, I think it is quite likely that they will/did provide consequences more severe than a slap on the wrist.
I don't think the point people are making when they say he should be handed to the authorities is that they'll fix him. The point is that he should answer for his actions. Fixing the darkness or not, the kid DID make death threats and make someone's life miserable by unacceptable and criminal means. Criminals need rehabilitation, but they also need to be taught that their behaviour is unacceptable.
It's unfortunate that you have such strong authoritarian beliefs. Can I convince you that your ideas that criminals (this child is 17 - he has not, by our own state's very definition - attained an age where he can be defined as a criminal or where he can knowingly enter into the social moral contract that binds adults) "need to be taught that their behavior is unacceptable" is a very modern one and - what's more - one that is supported by state propaganda?
Do you actually believe that anyone who enters the prison system is "taught that their behavior is unacceptable?" Many sources indicate that the more common response to incarceration is "criminalization" - that this child has a high probability of connecting with negative forces which will push him further down the path of his darkness.
I recommend you read "Discipline and Punish" by Foucault - I think it would open your ideas to the genealogy of some of the ideals underpinning your beliefs and apparent faith in the modern justice system.
Do you actually believe that anyone who enters the prison system is "taught that their behavior is unacceptable?" Many sources indicate that the more common response to incarceration is "criminalization" - that this child has a high probability of connecting with negative forces which will push him further down the path of his darkness.
I recommend you read "Discipline and Punish" by Foucault - I think it would open your ideas to the genealogy of some of the ideals underpinning your beliefs and apparent faith in the modern justice system.
You credibly describe the flaws of the prison system, but you don't offer any alternatives.
Frankly, given the choice of a rock and a hard place, it is better to have a criminal in jail half his life and terrorizing society half his life, then terrorizing society for his entire life.
We aren't looking at Jean Valjeans here.
Frankly, given the choice of a rock and a hard place, it is better to have a criminal in jail half his life and terrorizing society half his life, then terrorizing society for his entire life.
We aren't looking at Jean Valjeans here.
In my opinion, to situate this conversation in a framework where "alternatives" are to be considered is to already assume an authoritarian stance. I believe that the model you are assuming is one in which there is some sort of established "government" which selects among alternative systems sharing the property that they are maintained by varying degrees of implicit/explicit use of force.
I would never claim to know how to set up a working mental health system or a functional system of criminal rehabilitation. What I claim is that the properties that these institutions have in the U.S. are MAINLY determined by historical accumulation (trauma -> reaction) rather than by organic growth from well-defined principles. I advocate the decompilation of these institutions and the organic outgrowth of new, community-based (preferably non-governmental) institutions.
I agree that there may be cases in which a "criminal" (your word, not mine) must be separated out from society [1], but that these cases are far, far rarer than most people believe. Most "criminals" in the U.S. are ethnic minorities suffering under an incoherent and evil system of drug criminalization.
From an unsystematic/non-governmental standpoint, I also believe that society needs to do more work in increasing its acceptance of different psychological and mental needs from a younger age. I'm very lucky that I was put in a "gifted" program because, had such a program not existed, my rage would have been intense, long-lasting, and I honestly may have killed someone. If my talents had been treated as a "difference" in the way that most peoples' are (exclusion from social events, bullying, emotional and mental abuse, punishment, etc.) I would have turned out very differently indeed.
Perhaps the reason that I feel so strongly about this topic is that there is a great deal of darkness in me (I don't believe everyone is like this). I throw a tremendous amount of personal effort at overcoming it/transforming it/thinking about whether it's really "darkness." During certain periods of history (including this one) homosexuality was seen as "darkness" in many places - now we think back on these periods as being backwards/bigoted/wrong. I must accept that some of my personal darkness is NOT bad/evil (e.g. some of my perverse sexual tastes) but that it only APPEARS bad to many people in society. I have come, through discussion and queer community support, to accept parts of myself that I have been ridiculed for and told were evil from a very young age - which ridicule and torment drove me deep into despair and hatred.
I suppose that I am ultimately advocating acceptance of darkness because I don't really believe in darkness. I believe that if we accept what we currently think about as dark (ultimately, for instance, it would be great if we could accept death) then we will see that it is not so dark after all.
THEN WE CAN LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER, THE END.
-----
[1] Let me be clear, here. I can't even really name any. Maybe certain serial killers/mass murderers - but who else? Who, really, needs to be put in permanent time-out, anymore? Can you even name anyone?
I would never claim to know how to set up a working mental health system or a functional system of criminal rehabilitation. What I claim is that the properties that these institutions have in the U.S. are MAINLY determined by historical accumulation (trauma -> reaction) rather than by organic growth from well-defined principles. I advocate the decompilation of these institutions and the organic outgrowth of new, community-based (preferably non-governmental) institutions.
I agree that there may be cases in which a "criminal" (your word, not mine) must be separated out from society [1], but that these cases are far, far rarer than most people believe. Most "criminals" in the U.S. are ethnic minorities suffering under an incoherent and evil system of drug criminalization.
From an unsystematic/non-governmental standpoint, I also believe that society needs to do more work in increasing its acceptance of different psychological and mental needs from a younger age. I'm very lucky that I was put in a "gifted" program because, had such a program not existed, my rage would have been intense, long-lasting, and I honestly may have killed someone. If my talents had been treated as a "difference" in the way that most peoples' are (exclusion from social events, bullying, emotional and mental abuse, punishment, etc.) I would have turned out very differently indeed.
Perhaps the reason that I feel so strongly about this topic is that there is a great deal of darkness in me (I don't believe everyone is like this). I throw a tremendous amount of personal effort at overcoming it/transforming it/thinking about whether it's really "darkness." During certain periods of history (including this one) homosexuality was seen as "darkness" in many places - now we think back on these periods as being backwards/bigoted/wrong. I must accept that some of my personal darkness is NOT bad/evil (e.g. some of my perverse sexual tastes) but that it only APPEARS bad to many people in society. I have come, through discussion and queer community support, to accept parts of myself that I have been ridiculed for and told were evil from a very young age - which ridicule and torment drove me deep into despair and hatred.
I suppose that I am ultimately advocating acceptance of darkness because I don't really believe in darkness. I believe that if we accept what we currently think about as dark (ultimately, for instance, it would be great if we could accept death) then we will see that it is not so dark after all.
THEN WE CAN LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER, THE END.
-----
[1] Let me be clear, here. I can't even really name any. Maybe certain serial killers/mass murderers - but who else? Who, really, needs to be put in permanent time-out, anymore? Can you even name anyone?
After reading this, I can only say one thing: you're living in fantasyland. This is the real world, not some libertarian utopia. And regarding your last point, what about pedophiles? Rapists? Should we just surround them with love and forgiveness?
Yes, I believe we should surround them with love and forgiveness.
We also should -have- provided them with love and forgiveness so that they would feel comfortable talking about their problems before they could result in severe issues.
What do -you- suggest we do? Beat them up? "Teach them a lesson?" What will that accomplish, exactly?
---
Let me just say that I sense a great deal of pain in you. This is not an attack. Your points seem to be based in fear and anger - you are being very reactive rather than clearly laying out a well-reasoned argument. E.g. contrast your response to my own - yours relies on ad hominem and caricature and then finally a straw man argument. You seem sad. I hope you're OK. Hope!
We also should -have- provided them with love and forgiveness so that they would feel comfortable talking about their problems before they could result in severe issues.
What do -you- suggest we do? Beat them up? "Teach them a lesson?" What will that accomplish, exactly?
---
Let me just say that I sense a great deal of pain in you. This is not an attack. Your points seem to be based in fear and anger - you are being very reactive rather than clearly laying out a well-reasoned argument. E.g. contrast your response to my own - yours relies on ad hominem and caricature and then finally a straw man argument. You seem sad. I hope you're OK. Hope!
Sometimes what's best for society isn't what's best for the individual. Society benefits from having sadists removed from the equation. It doesn't matter much, from a societal standpoint, whether they're rehabilitated or incarcerated, as long as the sadistic entity is removed from the equation.
If there were no examples of sadists who could not be rehabilitated, your point would be obviously true. Unfortunately, there are many examples of sadists who resist rehabilitation. These people exist now, whether or not they could have been rehabilitated earlier by love and forgiveness. Even if you were strictly correct, you'd still have a bootstrapping problem, in the form of what to do with these people today.
I contend that there will always be people who become sadistic outside the reach of whatever institutions you attempt to create to shower love and forgiveness on them, and I further contend that many people who, once they become sadistic, cannot return to a state of empathy. For the first point, I only have to point to hunger. Food and shelter are obviously tractable problems, yet we continue to have a problem with hunger and homelessness. To think we can eradicate more complex social problems than those is really quite naive.
As to the second point I am open to scientific evidence to the contrary, but please bear in mind that from society's standpoint, a recidivism rate greater than zero may still be less preferable than lifelong incarceration for sadistic criminals. Most people would agree that once you've taken a few lives for the fun of it, it's not worth the risk to another member of society to "find out" whether you've been successfully rehabilitated.
If there were no examples of sadists who could not be rehabilitated, your point would be obviously true. Unfortunately, there are many examples of sadists who resist rehabilitation. These people exist now, whether or not they could have been rehabilitated earlier by love and forgiveness. Even if you were strictly correct, you'd still have a bootstrapping problem, in the form of what to do with these people today.
I contend that there will always be people who become sadistic outside the reach of whatever institutions you attempt to create to shower love and forgiveness on them, and I further contend that many people who, once they become sadistic, cannot return to a state of empathy. For the first point, I only have to point to hunger. Food and shelter are obviously tractable problems, yet we continue to have a problem with hunger and homelessness. To think we can eradicate more complex social problems than those is really quite naive.
As to the second point I am open to scientific evidence to the contrary, but please bear in mind that from society's standpoint, a recidivism rate greater than zero may still be less preferable than lifelong incarceration for sadistic criminals. Most people would agree that once you've taken a few lives for the fun of it, it's not worth the risk to another member of society to "find out" whether you've been successfully rehabilitated.
As such, this is also one of the arguments for the death penalty. If that risk you speak of is too high to see any chance of rehabilitation, what good does incarceration do?
Still, this child has no repeat history that we know of, and probably wasn't reprimanded for his behaviour before. It is likely that he could be a psychopath with everything he said, but it is also likely that the veil of anonymity made him less sympathetic to the human plight of his victim, just as we all take what we see on the internet with a grain of salt.
EDIT: Ok, maybe not really a child, but in the eyes of the law you might as well consider a minor a child. However, I sure know few hackers who exploit their status as a minor as best they can to avoid legal consequences.
Still, this child has no repeat history that we know of, and probably wasn't reprimanded for his behaviour before. It is likely that he could be a psychopath with everything he said, but it is also likely that the veil of anonymity made him less sympathetic to the human plight of his victim, just as we all take what we see on the internet with a grain of salt.
EDIT: Ok, maybe not really a child, but in the eyes of the law you might as well consider a minor a child. However, I sure know few hackers who exploit their status as a minor as best they can to avoid legal consequences.
The point of not killing is that you can free the wrongly incarcerated when you discover a mistake. But I'm not arguing specifically for or against the death penalty here--my thoughts are so confused on that particular issue I could probably argue either way. Otherwise I agree with what you're saying here.
It seems it's much easier for someone who has experienced marginalization to advocate against it.
[deleted]
What if, due to his incarceration, the terrorizing he does for the half of his life where he is not in prison, is twice that of the terrorizing he would have done over the course of his whole life, where he never imprisoned?
>Frankly, given the choice of a rock and a hard place, it is better to have a criminal in jail half his life and terrorizing society half his life, then terrorizing society for his entire life.
If what you care about is the damage done to society, someone who spends half their life in prison and then gets out will (on average) do far more damage in that half-life than they would have done in a whole life spent outside prison. Prison is quite literally worse than nothing when it comes to preventing reoffending
(though community service is better than either prison or nothing, IIRC)
If what you care about is the damage done to society, someone who spends half their life in prison and then gets out will (on average) do far more damage in that half-life than they would have done in a whole life spent outside prison. Prison is quite literally worse than nothing when it comes to preventing reoffending
(though community service is better than either prison or nothing, IIRC)
Here's the thing: actions have consequences. Bad actions result in bad consequences. Such is the learning process of lots of species. Do you think training pets by reinforcing good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour is modern and supported by "state propaganda", whatever that means?
I do believe that prison systems can be good at rehabilitation. Maybe not in the US, where you seem to be from, but it's working in many other countries in the world, look at the Nordic countries' prison system if you want proof. And even if the prison system doesn't manage to rehabilitate the person, it serves as a punishment. I don't see what's wrong with punishing behaviour that has been deemed unacceptable by society. At least it's better than doing nothing, and in my opinion has more of an impact than doing nothing and surrounding him "with a loving community".
I do believe that prison systems can be good at rehabilitation. Maybe not in the US, where you seem to be from, but it's working in many other countries in the world, look at the Nordic countries' prison system if you want proof. And even if the prison system doesn't manage to rehabilitate the person, it serves as a punishment. I don't see what's wrong with punishing behaviour that has been deemed unacceptable by society. At least it's better than doing nothing, and in my opinion has more of an impact than doing nothing and surrounding him "with a loving community".
Who do you trust to administer punishment?
What did they do to earn that trust?
The concept that one class of humans is the "punishers" who are teaching the other class(es) underlies most (if not all) fascist/authoritarian/racist ideologies of the last 3 centuries.
Of course you don't see what's wrong with punishing behavior that has been deemed unacceptable by society. Unfortunately, behavior that society is largely OK with (e.g. drug use) is punished nontheless - unfortunately, society can (and has often been) quite wrong about what should be punished (homosexuality, female sexuality, prostitution, sexual "perversion," drug & alcohol use, to name a few).
The fact is that the kid involved in this story didn't do anything "wrong" that could be easily trained out of him. Probably he has a whole set of complicated complexes of problems. For instance, one thing that many people in the US and UK (and other places) seem to suffer from is sexual/touch deprivation. Maybe if the kid were getting laid instead of playing on his laptop he wouldn't have engaged in such weirdo behaviors. I'm just sayin' - legalize drugs and prostitution and 99% of these problems go away.
What did they do to earn that trust?
The concept that one class of humans is the "punishers" who are teaching the other class(es) underlies most (if not all) fascist/authoritarian/racist ideologies of the last 3 centuries.
Of course you don't see what's wrong with punishing behavior that has been deemed unacceptable by society. Unfortunately, behavior that society is largely OK with (e.g. drug use) is punished nontheless - unfortunately, society can (and has often been) quite wrong about what should be punished (homosexuality, female sexuality, prostitution, sexual "perversion," drug & alcohol use, to name a few).
The fact is that the kid involved in this story didn't do anything "wrong" that could be easily trained out of him. Probably he has a whole set of complicated complexes of problems. For instance, one thing that many people in the US and UK (and other places) seem to suffer from is sexual/touch deprivation. Maybe if the kid were getting laid instead of playing on his laptop he wouldn't have engaged in such weirdo behaviors. I'm just sayin' - legalize drugs and prostitution and 99% of these problems go away.
> I'm just sayin' - legalize drugs and prostitution and 99% of these problems go away.
While I mostly agree with you, this statement is quite a long shot.
While I mostly agree with you, this statement is quite a long shot.
>The concept that one class of humans is the "punishers" who are teaching the other class(es) underlies most (if not all) fascist/authoritarian/racist ideologies of the last 3 centuries.
So I'm Hitler now.
>legalize drugs and prostitution and 99% of these problems go away.
Seriously?
So I'm Hitler now.
>legalize drugs and prostitution and 99% of these problems go away.
Seriously?
I don't feed trolls.
Do you think kids should be trained like pets? It seems a lot of people do, they also think they own their kids somehow. Sad...
As I said in another comment: personally I hope my kid will end up doing what is right because he believes it the right thing to do, not because of fear of punishment.
Not saying that punishment is never necessary (I am not sure). Obviously it works, because people (and animals) can learn from pain. You learn if you touch the stove that it is hot and will burn you, so you will not touch it again.
Smart people might realize that their parents or society punishing them is not quite the same as a stove burning them, though. The one is a law of nature (heat burns), the other is just man made laws that can be resented and broken. Once you have installed that resentment against society and obedience in a person, you might have a real problem on your hands.
As I said in another comment: personally I hope my kid will end up doing what is right because he believes it the right thing to do, not because of fear of punishment.
Not saying that punishment is never necessary (I am not sure). Obviously it works, because people (and animals) can learn from pain. You learn if you touch the stove that it is hot and will burn you, so you will not touch it again.
Smart people might realize that their parents or society punishing them is not quite the same as a stove burning them, though. The one is a law of nature (heat burns), the other is just man made laws that can be resented and broken. Once you have installed that resentment against society and obedience in a person, you might have a real problem on your hands.
I do not think that kids should be trained like pets. They are more intelligent and react to a more nuanced approach. My point about punishment just means that bad actions should be sanctioned and good actions rewarded.
My parents never physically punished me, but as soon as I was old enough to understand what was going on, just knowing that I'd disappointed them would make me feel extremely bad. There's no resentment there. They taught me how to behave in a way that is acceptable in society and if I misbehaved I was aware that I was wrong. Hopefully that's how everything would go.
But as always, there will be bad apples (and good ones, too). What do you do when someone's such a sociopath that they don't care when they hurt other people? That's when I believe that punishment should be carried on by the society and not the parents, in the form of jail, probation, juvenile court, etc.
My parents never physically punished me, but as soon as I was old enough to understand what was going on, just knowing that I'd disappointed them would make me feel extremely bad. There's no resentment there. They taught me how to behave in a way that is acceptable in society and if I misbehaved I was aware that I was wrong. Hopefully that's how everything would go.
But as always, there will be bad apples (and good ones, too). What do you do when someone's such a sociopath that they don't care when they hurt other people? That's when I believe that punishment should be carried on by the society and not the parents, in the form of jail, probation, juvenile court, etc.
Sure - I think if people endanger other people, they should be locked away. In some (most?) cases we don't know how to "cure" criminals yet.
> Do you think kids should be trained like pets?
Is there any empirical evidence that operant conditioning doesn't work on humans?
Is there any empirical evidence that operant conditioning doesn't work on humans?
I am pretty sure it works, my question is do you want it for your kids?
Operant conditioning isn't actually harmful, as long as you're not operant conditioning your kids into doing harmful things or into not doing important things.
Well it seems to go against my values. I want my kids to think for themselves, not merely be executors of my authoritarian commands. I am not their boss.
Children are not small adults. There's a point in their lives when not throwing temper tantrums in public is what you want out of them and they're just not mature enough to negotiate with reasonably. This is also the age where hopefully you're going to have to install some sort of conscience, since kids aren't really born with one, either.
Do you really think that after that long sit-down with his victim he doesn't understand his behavior is unacceptable?
The authorities are precisely the proper people to turn the "child" over to. Only they would have the resources and skills required to determine whether the troll has performed similar acts before and whether he is a psychotic (of course the parents also likely know, but aren't likely to do anything effective).
Also because it provides a record of his activity for future reference.
I don't believe the "game" excuse - I think the troll is a full-blown psychopath.
Also because it provides a record of his activity for future reference.
I don't believe the "game" excuse - I think the troll is a full-blown psychopath.
Retribution isn't constructive, rehabilitation is. If the authorities were able to enter him into a programme of psychotherapy, perhaps this would have been the better option.
I think the young person who committed the abuse probably could be classed as someone with a (possibly extreme) personality disorder.
Bearing this in mind, turning the other cheek and allowing him to continue unhindered isn't going to be that constructive.
Counselling was mentioned - I really hope the perpetrator receives some; for his sake, and the sake of all those he comes into contact with.
I think the young person who committed the abuse probably could be classed as someone with a (possibly extreme) personality disorder.
Bearing this in mind, turning the other cheek and allowing him to continue unhindered isn't going to be that constructive.
Counselling was mentioned - I really hope the perpetrator receives some; for his sake, and the sake of all those he comes into contact with.
> For those of you who claim that the right thing in this situation would be to turn the child over to the authorities - what exactly do you think the authorities are going to do to make this situation better?
The authorities are going to stop the harrassment.
You seem to be under the illusion that harrassed people have some obligation to help their harrassers.
Feel free to help this wayward person but you're way out of line in complaining that the victim didn't do so.
The authorities are going to stop the harrassment.
You seem to be under the illusion that harrassed people have some obligation to help their harrassers.
Feel free to help this wayward person but you're way out of line in complaining that the victim didn't do so.
well said, the story seems a little too dramatic for me to believe is possible...wow ! I mean mailing stuff...May be the right thing to do is to show the damage done which the author did, and to let the kid off with some counselling and forgiveness allowing a chance for him to change his ways and have a shot at a bright future.
For what it's worth, if you're the target of especially terrifying harassment like this, it's important to keep two things in mind: the more targeted the harassment is, the easier it is to identify the harasser, and the more likely it is that there's some sort of personal connection.
If you're receiving stuff in the mail (like the lunchbox with ashes) or stuff literally just dropped on your doorstep (the dead flowers), it's extremely unlikely that someone on the internet you have absolutely zero connection with just randomly picked you to ruin your life that badly just for some lulz.
I'm glad the OP was able to take the steps he needed to identify his harasser, which I'm sure was a lot more empowering than living in fear and checking his door locks every night.
If you're receiving stuff in the mail (like the lunchbox with ashes) or stuff literally just dropped on your doorstep (the dead flowers), it's extremely unlikely that someone on the internet you have absolutely zero connection with just randomly picked you to ruin your life that badly just for some lulz.
I'm glad the OP was able to take the steps he needed to identify his harasser, which I'm sure was a lot more empowering than living in fear and checking his door locks every night.
A security professional once recommended Gavin de Becker's "The Gift of Fear" [1] to me as a source of excellent information to always have in mind.
One of de Becker's insight is exactly what you say here -- that most potential attackers are motivated by a personal connection, and that animus is also what makes it possible to identify and uncover them. He also has extensive thoughts about identifying if/when the harassment will cross over into physical attacks. I would recommend anyone read it, especially if you have loved ones who have lived in fear of stalkers.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Other-Survival-Signals-Protect-Violenc...
One of de Becker's insight is exactly what you say here -- that most potential attackers are motivated by a personal connection, and that animus is also what makes it possible to identify and uncover them. He also has extensive thoughts about identifying if/when the harassment will cross over into physical attacks. I would recommend anyone read it, especially if you have loved ones who have lived in fear of stalkers.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Other-Survival-Signals-Protect-Violenc...
That seems interesting. Will the book make me more or less obsessed with walking-on-the-street safety?
Of course, the flip side of this are all the terrible stories that keep flooding out of 4chan, where 'random' people HAVE been targetted.
Granted, they've usually done SOMETHING to piss off the hivemind, usually something involving posting a picture with something that ends up being identifiable (gps co-ords, school name on something in the background, etc.).
But even in those cases, though you may know where the attack is coming from, there's usually not much to help you figure out exactly who is behind it. At least in the news stories etc. that I've read, it's been a collection of bored 4chan denizens with not much else to connect them.
Granted, they've usually done SOMETHING to piss off the hivemind, usually something involving posting a picture with something that ends up being identifiable (gps co-ords, school name on something in the background, etc.).
But even in those cases, though you may know where the attack is coming from, there's usually not much to help you figure out exactly who is behind it. At least in the news stories etc. that I've read, it's been a collection of bored 4chan denizens with not much else to connect them.
It's difficult to read this and not think that a psychopath was let off the hook because he was young. Outing and labeling these kinds of people is important to curbing the amount of future damage they can do.
There is bullying, there is harassment, and then there is what the OP experienced. No reasonable, rational individual who is just "acting out" in adolescence takes it to these levels. As much as I feel for the OP he should have taken legal action and had the youth examined by a credible mental health professional if only as a favor to others.
There is bullying, there is harassment, and then there is what the OP experienced. No reasonable, rational individual who is just "acting out" in adolescence takes it to these levels. As much as I feel for the OP he should have taken legal action and had the youth examined by a credible mental health professional if only as a favor to others.
As much as I loathe being the guy defending trolls, the level of judgement expressed in this thread is a bit troubling.
Labeling this kid a 'pyschopath' might feel nice, but it's rather inaccurate. [1]. Specifically when he saw the damage he'd caused, a very human emotional response of remorse and regret kicked in. We have no reason to believe it's fake, especially given we weren't the one's there, and the author believed it to be genuine.
That said, I found this to be a really touching story, and am amazed at the kindness and wisdom of the victim.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
Labeling this kid a 'pyschopath' might feel nice, but it's rather inaccurate. [1]. Specifically when he saw the damage he'd caused, a very human emotional response of remorse and regret kicked in. We have no reason to believe it's fake, especially given we weren't the one's there, and the author believed it to be genuine.
That said, I found this to be a really touching story, and am amazed at the kindness and wisdom of the victim.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
It's very easy to fake a very human emotional response, especially when those around you are sympathetic (e.g your parents).
First, I'm well aware of the definition of psychopathy. Second, psychopathy is not a binary condition. An individual can be on a spectrum of severity, or (as has been noted by people researching the condition) psychopaths can and do mimic the responses to emotion that they see in others but do not feel themselves. Perhaps he is or perhaps he isn't, but without additional action of the part of the OP and the kid's parents there is no way he will be properly diagnosed until something similar, but more severe, might happen.
So, yes, we are making judgements in this thread, but not everyone here is being "judgmental." Making a considered decision about available evidence is a reasonable act. The repercussions of this young man's actions should not have been watered down because of his age, and especially not in light of the toll it exacted on his victim. Others might be calling for extreme punishment, but I am calling for appropriate response.
So, yes, we are making judgements in this thread, but not everyone here is being "judgmental." Making a considered decision about available evidence is a reasonable act. The repercussions of this young man's actions should not have been watered down because of his age, and especially not in light of the toll it exacted on his victim. Others might be calling for extreme punishment, but I am calling for appropriate response.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
You can read more about the value of tears of a psychopath here
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2...
Harris married his deceitfulness with a total lack of remorse or empathy—another distinctive quality of the psychopath. Fuselier was finally convinced of his diagnosis when he read Harris' response to being punished after being caught breaking into a van. Klebold and Harris had avoided prosecution for the robbery by participating in a "diversion program" that involved counseling and community service. Both killers feigned regret to obtain an early release, but Harris had relished the opportunity to perform. He wrote an ingratiating letter to his victim offering empathy, rather than just apologies. Fuselier remembers that it was packed with statements like Jeez, I understand now how you feel and I understand what this did to you.
"But he wrote that strictly for effect," Fuselier said. "That was complete manipulation. At almost the exact same time, he wrote down his real feelings in his journal: 'Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free? How come, if I'm free, I can't deprive a stupid f---ing dumbshit from his possessions if he leaves them sitting in the front seat of his f---ing van out in plain sight and in the middle of f---ing nowhere on a Frif---ingday night. NATURAL SELECTION. F---er should be shot.' "
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2...
Harris married his deceitfulness with a total lack of remorse or empathy—another distinctive quality of the psychopath. Fuselier was finally convinced of his diagnosis when he read Harris' response to being punished after being caught breaking into a van. Klebold and Harris had avoided prosecution for the robbery by participating in a "diversion program" that involved counseling and community service. Both killers feigned regret to obtain an early release, but Harris had relished the opportunity to perform. He wrote an ingratiating letter to his victim offering empathy, rather than just apologies. Fuselier remembers that it was packed with statements like Jeez, I understand now how you feel and I understand what this did to you.
"But he wrote that strictly for effect," Fuselier said. "That was complete manipulation. At almost the exact same time, he wrote down his real feelings in his journal: 'Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free? How come, if I'm free, I can't deprive a stupid f---ing dumbshit from his possessions if he leaves them sitting in the front seat of his f---ing van out in plain sight and in the middle of f---ing nowhere on a Frif---ingday night. NATURAL SELECTION. F---er should be shot.' "
Okay, that would demonstrate that we should place little weight on expressions of empathy, but I disagree if the implication is supposed to be that it's evidence of psychopathy.
Remember, genuinely remorseful people would say the same things to their victims. If you're going to take genuine-looking apologies as evidence for the psychopath diagnosis, then you're falling into the trap of "If she prays at the execution, that confirms she's a witch. If she doesn't pray, that confirms she's a witch."
The relevant evidence in the above link is the journal, not the apology.
Remember, genuinely remorseful people would say the same things to their victims. If you're going to take genuine-looking apologies as evidence for the psychopath diagnosis, then you're falling into the trap of "If she prays at the execution, that confirms she's a witch. If she doesn't pray, that confirms she's a witch."
The relevant evidence in the above link is the journal, not the apology.
I wasn't accusing or executing him -- just pointing out this other case I've read about (linked from HN, I think) where the psychopath faked emotions. I'm not even saying this boy faked them. Just that the fact that he broke down doesn't have to mean much.
So if he cries, it's because he's a witch trying to trick us?
Ummmm... my brother was a terrorist when he was 17. He used to blow up stuff on the posh estate and severely vandalise properties striking legitimate fear into the hearts of those that owned them (people moved their kids away etc).
I myself was charged for criminal damage, firearms and threatening behaviour when I was 15 years old.
When you have difficulties in both school and personal life you end up doing crazy things at these ages because you are so divorced from reality. You don't know responsibility because you don't have any you don't even understand how money _really_ works so you don't appreciate the value of other people's things. All you care about is your own pain and try to find an outlet for it. You're also a bit self-centred so you never appreciate the things others or your parents really do for you.
I actually think its relatively common for people around this age to do really scary things such as this. I personally believe its a product of our present system that treats teenagers effectively as second class citizens. Without choice and any control in their life the "worst cases" end up doing really strange stuff.
I myself was charged for criminal damage, firearms and threatening behaviour when I was 15 years old.
When you have difficulties in both school and personal life you end up doing crazy things at these ages because you are so divorced from reality. You don't know responsibility because you don't have any you don't even understand how money _really_ works so you don't appreciate the value of other people's things. All you care about is your own pain and try to find an outlet for it. You're also a bit self-centred so you never appreciate the things others or your parents really do for you.
I actually think its relatively common for people around this age to do really scary things such as this. I personally believe its a product of our present system that treats teenagers effectively as second class citizens. Without choice and any control in their life the "worst cases" end up doing really strange stuff.
If you haven't yet, I would like to encourage you to share more of your story. You seem to have both a fascinating history and solid self-awareness.
It's really not that special. It possibly sounds much worse on paper than it actually was. I pointed a replica gun at someone and my brother repeatedly vandalized a neighborhood over the course of a few weeks. With hindsight its the same as this kid, his crime was "just" sending abusive mail. It's only when you look at this from the perspective of those that suffered because of the actions that it feels so terrible.
We were just spoiled middle-class kids, my brother a militent marxist and myself just angry at being shut down due to my age all of the time. Compound that with the social cruelty of other children in school and home problems (relatively minor #firstworldproblems) and you get what I think is a relatively standard outcome. It might be alien to those that didn't have any difficulties in their childhood but I'd suggest its fairly common for kids to go off the rails like this.
The really interesting stories are probably from those that live in care. I used to hang around with some really troubled kids that came from proper, really difficult backgrounds (i.e. not just #firstworldproblems). Less of those people surface into what I imagine we'd call "proper society" as a lot of them understandably never lose their victim complex, constantly feel persecuted and continue to lash out throughout their entire lives. However a lot of them do patch over their past problems and become excellent contributors to society.
From my perspective it's amazing the difference in mindset that can happen to people as they grow out of their teens and into their twenties. To me it was like a completely different world and one that I was really good at and suited me much better. This is why I bitch a little about the school system and how we treat our children I personally think there is a severe disconnect between the two "worlds". That's what I really wanted to address to the parent of my comment. I think that calling someone a sociopath because of something they did in their teens suggests a lack of understanding in troubled childhoods.
We were just spoiled middle-class kids, my brother a militent marxist and myself just angry at being shut down due to my age all of the time. Compound that with the social cruelty of other children in school and home problems (relatively minor #firstworldproblems) and you get what I think is a relatively standard outcome. It might be alien to those that didn't have any difficulties in their childhood but I'd suggest its fairly common for kids to go off the rails like this.
The really interesting stories are probably from those that live in care. I used to hang around with some really troubled kids that came from proper, really difficult backgrounds (i.e. not just #firstworldproblems). Less of those people surface into what I imagine we'd call "proper society" as a lot of them understandably never lose their victim complex, constantly feel persecuted and continue to lash out throughout their entire lives. However a lot of them do patch over their past problems and become excellent contributors to society.
From my perspective it's amazing the difference in mindset that can happen to people as they grow out of their teens and into their twenties. To me it was like a completely different world and one that I was really good at and suited me much better. This is why I bitch a little about the school system and how we treat our children I personally think there is a severe disconnect between the two "worlds". That's what I really wanted to address to the parent of my comment. I think that calling someone a sociopath because of something they did in their teens suggests a lack of understanding in troubled childhoods.
Maybe you underestimate how charged today's atmosphere is. You get confronted with things like this every day - violence in the media, news, school yard, newspapers, books, video games. Peer pressure and what not. Kids beating each other up, filming it and putting it on YouTube.
I don't know if that kid is a psychopath but I can imagine lots of other reasons for how he got caught up in that "game".
Also I am not even sure about the psychopath verdict - I get that differences in the brain have been found (ie underdeveloped regions responsible for empathy). But that doesn't imply that it is genetic/not curable. I've read the same brain structures have been found in abused children, for example. And the famous London cab drivers with their enlarged brain regions for geo-spatial-whatever-things. They certainly were not born to be cab drivers - so if their behavior can make brain regions grow, why shouldn't it be possible to learn more empathy?
I don't know if that kid is a psychopath but I can imagine lots of other reasons for how he got caught up in that "game".
Also I am not even sure about the psychopath verdict - I get that differences in the brain have been found (ie underdeveloped regions responsible for empathy). But that doesn't imply that it is genetic/not curable. I've read the same brain structures have been found in abused children, for example. And the famous London cab drivers with their enlarged brain regions for geo-spatial-whatever-things. They certainly were not born to be cab drivers - so if their behavior can make brain regions grow, why shouldn't it be possible to learn more empathy?
The kid in this case needed help. Maybe he'll turn out as a bad adult, but its not too late for this behavior to be corrected so he can lead a normal life. Now, if you think the best way to do that is through the legal system, I'm not sure, especially if the legal system is more interested in punishing vs. reforming. The author did the right thing, I think.
What is the difference between a "reasonable, rational" individual and an "unreasonable, irrational" individual?
What is the basis of your faith in "credible mental health professionals?"
What is the basis of your faith in "credible mental health professionals?"
> What is the difference between a "reasonable, rational" individual and an "unreasonable, irrational" individual?
The degree to which the individual can co-exist with other members of society.
The degree to which the individual can co-exist with other members of society.
I think the OP opted for the latter ("credible mental health professional") when demanding counselling, but left off the former ("legal action").
I tend to agree with him, and I think in a way you are too... the important issue might not be in making him pay for his harassment, but understanding how and why he did those things (and then treating him if needed).
Criminalising him adds.. what?
I tend to agree with him, and I think in a way you are too... the important issue might not be in making him pay for his harassment, but understanding how and why he did those things (and then treating him if needed).
Criminalising him adds.. what?
What would you recommend for this kid, apart from counseling?
I would remove him from the environment that fostered the behavior. I'm surprised that the OP, the kid's parents, and no one else (I've seen) in this thread has mentioned this.
I'll speak for myself, as if I had a child that acted in this way.
The first, and most important response would be to establish why. With actions like this being carried out in and from my own home I would have to immediately reassess my level of involvement with my child and whether or not I was culpable via omission. Very soon thereafter I would seek out the advice of people directly involved with the study and treatment of psychopathy and sociopathy and have my child assessed. From there it would be up to the outcome of that assessment.
Perhaps that's not the kind of clear cut answer you were (possibly) looking for, but I think it comes down to whether or not it was an innate or developed problem.
The first, and most important response would be to establish why. With actions like this being carried out in and from my own home I would have to immediately reassess my level of involvement with my child and whether or not I was culpable via omission. Very soon thereafter I would seek out the advice of people directly involved with the study and treatment of psychopathy and sociopathy and have my child assessed. From there it would be up to the outcome of that assessment.
Perhaps that's not the kind of clear cut answer you were (possibly) looking for, but I think it comes down to whether or not it was an innate or developed problem.
Particularly for those who are new to remote communication, it can be as trivial as not groking that this kind of interaction is just as real as face to face conversations. Just because you don't see the reactions doesn't mean that they're not there.
As we grow up, we're socialised with other people in the same space and you get trained to a kind of empathy. The patterns of interaction we reach by the time we're 17 aren't a default - if you spend time with people who were home-schooled you can detect that they evolve differently to kids schooled in the common form.
When we encounter remote communication, it's a new world. There's a much thinner feedback loop. Perhaps you usually use the other person's expression as a guide in your interaction, and then feel uncontained when it's missing. Without this constraint, a normally civil person become a monster.
Evidence that normal people become monsters is all around us:
1) Internet trolls, "I have an opinion. You aren't playing along. My opinion is sufficiently correct and the matter important enough that it's justified for me to grind you into the ground." And there's no tangible payback.
2) The way people talk in customer-to-business relationships, particularly where there is a difference in leverage and it's a one-off relationship. People in high leverage positions become accustomed to doing things without regard for the people they affect (e.g. insurance companies). It's common for people in low-leverage positions to become extremely aggressive in their conduct to try and compensate for a strategically poor position.
3) The way people drive. The driver sees themselves in a situation where they are competing for position. Subconsciously, "I don't care what you think because I'll never see you again." This is moderated somewhat by mandatory training, and by the risk of an accident which could create an embarassing and costly situation
4) Look at the way we behave towards animals we eat vs pets. The complex supply and investment chains are a machine that takes all kinds of humanity out of the field.
I've found a taste of distilled evil in the online version of the board game Diplomacy. The game is oriented around deception, with only minimal details of the other players.
I thought the handling of the matter excellent.
As we grow up, we're socialised with other people in the same space and you get trained to a kind of empathy. The patterns of interaction we reach by the time we're 17 aren't a default - if you spend time with people who were home-schooled you can detect that they evolve differently to kids schooled in the common form.
When we encounter remote communication, it's a new world. There's a much thinner feedback loop. Perhaps you usually use the other person's expression as a guide in your interaction, and then feel uncontained when it's missing. Without this constraint, a normally civil person become a monster.
Evidence that normal people become monsters is all around us:
1) Internet trolls, "I have an opinion. You aren't playing along. My opinion is sufficiently correct and the matter important enough that it's justified for me to grind you into the ground." And there's no tangible payback.
2) The way people talk in customer-to-business relationships, particularly where there is a difference in leverage and it's a one-off relationship. People in high leverage positions become accustomed to doing things without regard for the people they affect (e.g. insurance companies). It's common for people in low-leverage positions to become extremely aggressive in their conduct to try and compensate for a strategically poor position.
3) The way people drive. The driver sees themselves in a situation where they are competing for position. Subconsciously, "I don't care what you think because I'll never see you again." This is moderated somewhat by mandatory training, and by the risk of an accident which could create an embarassing and costly situation
4) Look at the way we behave towards animals we eat vs pets. The complex supply and investment chains are a machine that takes all kinds of humanity out of the field.
I've found a taste of distilled evil in the online version of the board game Diplomacy. The game is oriented around deception, with only minimal details of the other players.
I thought the handling of the matter excellent.
He did demand that they go to counseling with the kid.
Interesting. I don't think I would have done the same, and even with time to think long and hard about it, I still would have gone after him with all my might. I don't think letting him off with just a warning is in any sense "justice" nor in the end was the smart choice.
There's something psychotic about harassing someone you know for YEARS, anonymously, in such a vicious way as he did. It's just cruelty on a level akin to torturing dogs for fun. "It was kind of a game" is hardly an excuse. "I will kill you, I will rape your wife, I will do <unspeakable things> to your wife's dead body..." Sending ashes. Putting dead flowers on the door step. Causing the man to be paranoid in his own house. Causing him to cry over the safety of his family. This is beyond harassment, and lasted daily/weekly over a period of years.
I almost don't believe this is real. How could a psychotic 17-year old be let off with a handshake and a look in the eye? He's going to kill someone someday. I'm stunned.
There's something psychotic about harassing someone you know for YEARS, anonymously, in such a vicious way as he did. It's just cruelty on a level akin to torturing dogs for fun. "It was kind of a game" is hardly an excuse. "I will kill you, I will rape your wife, I will do <unspeakable things> to your wife's dead body..." Sending ashes. Putting dead flowers on the door step. Causing the man to be paranoid in his own house. Causing him to cry over the safety of his family. This is beyond harassment, and lasted daily/weekly over a period of years.
I almost don't believe this is real. How could a psychotic 17-year old be let off with a handshake and a look in the eye? He's going to kill someone someday. I'm stunned.
I can't imagine that, as part of the deal, updates proving that counseling is happening aren't a part of the story. I agree with you that I wouldn't let it go without having some knowledge that he is getting the help he obviously needs.
I wouldn't want to ruin a 17-year-old's life, either, but I wouldn't hesitate for a moment if I felt my family was in any danger. We don't know the relationship between the OP and his friend that might mitigate the "any danger" part.
On the other hand, kids' lives are ruined in the US (and possibly other countries; I don't have enough experience to know) on a regular basis because we want to have "justice" at all costs. Justice is important, but so is mercy. Mercy (NOT rolling over!) is, ultimately, what will progress society.
I wouldn't want to ruin a 17-year-old's life, either, but I wouldn't hesitate for a moment if I felt my family was in any danger. We don't know the relationship between the OP and his friend that might mitigate the "any danger" part.
On the other hand, kids' lives are ruined in the US (and possibly other countries; I don't have enough experience to know) on a regular basis because we want to have "justice" at all costs. Justice is important, but so is mercy. Mercy (NOT rolling over!) is, ultimately, what will progress society.
If a person takes such a personal, aggressive, and malicious position towards you and your family, by reporting them to the proper authorities you haven't "ruined" their life. You shouldn't feel guilty bringing the perpetrator of a serious crime to justice.
If our penal system was able to rehabilitate, I would 100% agree with you. Unfortunately, given the incredibly high recidivism of convicts, I don't think that is true. Worse yet, prison appears to be a criminal training ground. As a result, I, personally, would be hesitant to throw somebody into that environment if I felt another option that could lead to rehabilitation existed.
The important piece is "another option". If it were my kid, you can bet he wouldn't he getting off easy, but I would hope for an opportunity to rehabilitate. On the other hand, if it were my kid, I would be he first to call the cops if that's what was necessary.
It's unfortunate that our zeal for "justice" has put us in a situation that we say "to hell with the people".
The important piece is "another option". If it were my kid, you can bet he wouldn't he getting off easy, but I would hope for an opportunity to rehabilitate. On the other hand, if it were my kid, I would be he first to call the cops if that's what was necessary.
It's unfortunate that our zeal for "justice" has put us in a situation that we say "to hell with the people".
The author avoiding law enforcement leaves the perpetrator no one to blame but himself. The author shows that he is innocent of the hate that was delivered to him, which leaves only the perpetrator responsible for the crime. If the author had involved law enforcement there is a reasonable chance the perpetrator could not have made the same connection.
I think the authors intent was to show the perpetrator why his actions were unjust, where law enforcement could only punish the actions for being illegal. Of course a judge or jury could lecture him but he already knew it was illegal and inhumane, that knowledge still didn't influence his behavior.
I think the authors intent was to show the perpetrator why his actions were unjust, where law enforcement could only punish the actions for being illegal. Of course a judge or jury could lecture him but he already knew it was illegal and inhumane, that knowledge still didn't influence his behavior.
What you've said is ideal, but it is important to remember that the degree of "justice" can vary significantly around the world. This is especially true within the US. A crime in one state may amount to a "slap on the wrist", while in another it results in many years of prison time.
Yeah, I think I would be hard pressed to not report this kid to the cops if only so that I never had to regret not making the police aware of him.
Well, we don't know enough about this case to really judge it. But my key take away is NOT that this kid is a future murderer, but rather the opposite, that internet harassment is something very different than real harassment, something normal people can get into, somewhere where it's too easy to disconnect emotionally from the target and the suffering of the target. The kid may not have been able to visualize the suffering that he caused, getting de-sensitized to the words and images used in the harassment (you don't need to stay long in 4chan for that to happen).
Of course, it doesn't make it more ok, it just means we shouldn't use the same ruler to measure internet harassment as real harassment.
How do you reckon what's described in this article doesn't count as “real” harassment? Just because the harassment is done anonymously online doesn't mean it's any easier to deal with, perhaps even the opposite. Not to mention the dead flowers and the other things which happened outside the web.
In the end I believe the internet just provides an easier way of stalking people than through the traditional means, but the victims are affected just as badly, so I don't think you shouldn't take internet harassment any more lightly.
In the end I believe the internet just provides an easier way of stalking people than through the traditional means, but the victims are affected just as badly, so I don't think you shouldn't take internet harassment any more lightly.
Wow ... I'd like to shake your hand because I think you handled your friend's son with an amazing amount of grace. It's horrible that you had to be tormented like that, but at 17 he may have learned how to be human. In my experience, not many of us understood empathy at that age.
Let me know when you're in the U.S. and perhaps I can buy you a dinner.
Let me know when you're in the U.S. and perhaps I can buy you a dinner.
Agreed. Always refreshing to see somebody putting in hard work to make this world a better place rather than taking the easier road (whatever that would have been).
My wife and I just had a baby and it has made me realize that I would burn the world to cinders in defense of my family. I have no idea how this guy reached through the fire and shook this kid's hand. Wow.
It's an amazing feeling isn't it! I have four kids with two now in college and I have a bit of advice. Tuck the memory of how instinctually protective you're feeling away so that you remember it when they're teenagers and have managed to inspire the opposite feelings in you.
It is an amazing experience to learn that there is somebody who is more important to you than you, isn't it? Whatever combination of biology, psychology and sociology that brings that about, it is something to experience!
I've got a nine-week old. Loved your comment and I'm passing it on to my wife. So true.
"Gort, Klaatu barada nikto. Klaatu barada nikto."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto
That's not a troll. And that's not harassment. That's a stalker. I'm shocked Twitter did nothing about this kind of repeated targeted abuse. And I'm very surprised that the police did nothing for someone who was receiving death threats at his front door.
The bit about the police not being "able" to do anything struck me as a bit bizarre as well...
"I got on to the authorities again but, polite and sympathetic as they were, there didn't seem much that could be done."
Err... Death threat... Contact Twitter and get the IP address of the user, then contact the ISP to get the home address.
Maybe the police couldn't be "bothered" to do anything, but they were certainly capable of it.
"I got on to the authorities again but, polite and sympathetic as they were, there didn't seem much that could be done."
Err... Death threat... Contact Twitter and get the IP address of the user, then contact the ISP to get the home address.
Maybe the police couldn't be "bothered" to do anything, but they were certainly capable of it.
This should be the top comment. Again and again we see Twitter, Facebook etc. being blamed for this type of stuff. But in truth these companies have well established processes to deal with requests from law enforcement authorities, as do ISPs. This situation is scandalous when you see how much time and effort is devoted to revenue raising through traffic and parking violations, but there is apparently no time to follow up death threats.
I remember reading a story about a man who was knocked unconscious by a group of kids as he was riding past them on a bicycle not too long ago. That story followed a similar trajectory including the writer not pressing charges under the conditions that he would be able to meet with the attacker and ask him questions about why he did what he did.
One of the things I remember about the article was the reaction from the police who said that the show of remorse from the attacker was a well-practiced show and that they had seen it many times in repeat offenders.
Does anyone remember more details about this that would help find it?
One of the things I remember about the article was the reaction from the police who said that the show of remorse from the attacker was a well-practiced show and that they had seen it many times in repeat offenders.
Does anyone remember more details about this that would help find it?
that is not "trolling", that's (pretty bad) harassment. I get the feeling this is a story written to prove a point. Nobody would refer to this as "trolling".
How would you define trolling and a troll? I'm sincerely asking since it is my understanding that these days harassment over the internet is often cited as trolling, as in for example "We trolled Jane by spamming her inbox full of animal abuse and violence lol".
I work part-time at a school with kids ranging from 7 to 16, and of what I've tried to inquire them about the subject(I'm 22 myself, so it's quite easy to go into the subject by mentioning some local websites and memes, kids open up voluntarily very well), it's exactly the online harassing and bullying which is considered(perhaps a form of) trolling. These are exactly the imageboard kids who find it cool to "piss people off". Why? "I dont know. For the lulz". It's like a hobby for some.
I personally find this stuff disgusting and directly relate it to bullying in school. Just because it happens online is not any more tolerable. Turns out many people disagree.
I work part-time at a school with kids ranging from 7 to 16, and of what I've tried to inquire them about the subject(I'm 22 myself, so it's quite easy to go into the subject by mentioning some local websites and memes, kids open up voluntarily very well), it's exactly the online harassing and bullying which is considered(perhaps a form of) trolling. These are exactly the imageboard kids who find it cool to "piss people off". Why? "I dont know. For the lulz". It's like a hobby for some.
I personally find this stuff disgusting and directly relate it to bullying in school. Just because it happens online is not any more tolerable. Turns out many people disagree.
Trolling, as I first encountered the term (on 4chan, many years ago, back when "trolling was a art") was nothing new. My dad's generation calls it "fishing", and engages in it offline by parroting Daily Mail-esque views in the pub because they know I will "bite".
These days it seems to be a cover-word for the sickest, most malicious bullying, and also the most yawn-inducing unimaginative pranks... basically, any behaviour that could possibly be frowned upon by anyone is defended after the fact with "no, I was trolling" (a valid defence when you're espousing views of the far right with no sincerity... a less valid defence when you actually have just done something terrible)
These days it seems to be a cover-word for the sickest, most malicious bullying, and also the most yawn-inducing unimaginative pranks... basically, any behaviour that could possibly be frowned upon by anyone is defended after the fact with "no, I was trolling" (a valid defence when you're espousing views of the far right with no sincerity... a less valid defence when you actually have just done something terrible)
Perhaps it's the intensity that's the real issue. I "troll" my friends with great frequency. Screw with them, tease them, hold clearly contrary positions just to get them riled up, but it's all in fun and stops before their feelings honestly get hurt (or if they are, I apologize). That's clearly a different level than the other sorts of trolling that I've seen. ... admittedly, people that are "from the internet" are familiar with trolling and know when they're being trolled. They can take the bait and play along, or stop it in its tracks by not feeding the troll the frustration he desires. People that aren't "from the internet", or perhaps aren't from the self-mocking parts of the internet haven't developed the thick skin (why should they?) required to deal with trolls.
... and I suppose some people just enjoy going after the people that aren't thick skinned. That's ... while fun to some, not really a civil thing to do. I suppose there's some level of initiation into the "Internet" that includes being trolled -- and trolling back, or growing some skin, etc. This wasn't one of those cases, from what I gathered (I didn't finish the article, as the very beginning it started looking clearly like harassment instead of the level of trolling I'm familiar with).
I started this response with a point, but I've lost it. Either way, there is clearly a level of taking it too far.
... and I suppose some people just enjoy going after the people that aren't thick skinned. That's ... while fun to some, not really a civil thing to do. I suppose there's some level of initiation into the "Internet" that includes being trolled -- and trolling back, or growing some skin, etc. This wasn't one of those cases, from what I gathered (I didn't finish the article, as the very beginning it started looking clearly like harassment instead of the level of trolling I'm familiar with).
I started this response with a point, but I've lost it. Either way, there is clearly a level of taking it too far.
Trolling is short term, it's fucking with someone for the sake of fucking with someone, anyone. If you attack one person over multiple years that becomes more than trolling, it becomes personal. Trolling is not personal. As you say, it's "for the lulz", it's to get a reaction, any reaction. If someone wants a reaction they don't care who from.
I've never met anyone that would call years of harassment that extended into real life "trolling". That's personal and it's a serious problem. I run a large forum (I'd guess some of the kids you mention use it) and I've had all manner of insults and threats, all of which are trolling, they're from people that want to annoy me or upset me but only because they see me as a target at that moment. If someone were to come to my house and leave things in my postbox, or mail me stuff, or follow me around the internet for years that would be harassment.
I just asked a bunch of my staff members (people that deal with this sort of thing every day) and everyone considers what the OP went through harassment, it's not in anyway considered trolling.
I've never met anyone that would call years of harassment that extended into real life "trolling". That's personal and it's a serious problem. I run a large forum (I'd guess some of the kids you mention use it) and I've had all manner of insults and threats, all of which are trolling, they're from people that want to annoy me or upset me but only because they see me as a target at that moment. If someone were to come to my house and leave things in my postbox, or mail me stuff, or follow me around the internet for years that would be harassment.
I just asked a bunch of my staff members (people that deal with this sort of thing every day) and everyone considers what the OP went through harassment, it's not in anyway considered trolling.
I am not saying it is not harassment. Though, I don't consider the terms to be orthogonal(as in, they can co-exist within the same context). I am saying it is my understanding that many kids(not all) consider the stuff in the blog post as very successful trolling in fact. The act of trolling, as I see it, is to delibirately cause harm and grief to the victim regardless of means. What differs it from just simply bullying the victim is that it happens online, and that's how many (victims) have put it too.
The term "trolling," as the folks I know use it, doesn't refer to stuff intended to cause harm or grief. Rather, it usually refers to something that would cause fleeting annoyance, or perhaps an eye roll. Or something designed to stir up a tempest in a teapot, e.g. an exaggeratedly controversial forum comment.
What the OP describes wouldn't be called trolling in my social circle. It would be called stalking. I think this goes far beyond a source of lulz.
What the OP describes wouldn't be called trolling in my social circle. It would be called stalking. I think this goes far beyond a source of lulz.
>* The term "trolling," as the folks I know use it, doesn't refer to stuff intended to cause harm or grief.*
That's very interesting. I don't think you'd have to look very hard to find someone who would include harm and/or grief short of murder as "trolling." Just making someone feel like they have a target painted on them can cause substantive harm to someone. Do this in the context of gender, and it can be called sexual harassment. Do this in the context of race, and it could be called racism or a hate crime.
I remember the time before 9-11 and McVeigh when talking about a bomb in the US was a joke, because it was inconceivable such a thing would really happen. Amazing how a change in experience changes that. All of you college students and suburban kids in your teens and 20's out there, keep in mind that there's a whole lot of experience out there you don't have.
That's very interesting. I don't think you'd have to look very hard to find someone who would include harm and/or grief short of murder as "trolling." Just making someone feel like they have a target painted on them can cause substantive harm to someone. Do this in the context of gender, and it can be called sexual harassment. Do this in the context of race, and it could be called racism or a hate crime.
I remember the time before 9-11 and McVeigh when talking about a bomb in the US was a joke, because it was inconceivable such a thing would really happen. Amazing how a change in experience changes that. All of you college students and suburban kids in your teens and 20's out there, keep in mind that there's a whole lot of experience out there you don't have.
We shouldn't let sociopaths define the language we use to describe them. That's how "hacker" came to mean "criminal."
I think the 4chan crowd would have considered what they did to Jessi Slaughter "trolling for lulz", yet I don't think you could reasonably say it wasn't harassment, too.
Off topic, but just a note: as a decidedly-not-teenage (by over 2x ;) person, thanks for Curse. It was a godsend during my WoW days.
Good definition of trolling. I have but one thing to add to it.
Trolling is a art.
Trolling is a art.
Trolling means posting something insincere to elicit a response. The point of trolling is to fool the target into investing time and emotion into responding seriously. Insincerity is the defining aspect of trolling, and seeing the victim's response is how the troll gets his kicks. What the asshole kid in this story was definitely stalking, but it wasn't trolling unless he posed as an antisemitic hate-filled stalker for the malicious fun of watching the victim react. Unlikely. Honestly, I think the guy is being way too easy on the kid by calling him a troll. The kid is a stalker. The police should have been called, because he's likely to do it again.
I think the terminology has evolved a bit(at least among the younger generation, those who are trolling almost as a hobby), although it might just be me since I don't spend time around communities dedicated for trolling.
Are you aware of Encyclopaedia Dramatica for example? Many of the 4chan stunts are done "in name of trolling" and "for the lulz", when infact they may involve stalking the subject and even physically being in contact. I think in cases like these it's first and foremost a social thing for the "trolls" to stir shit up, the more the better.
Or perhaps I'm just ignorantly stretching the term.
Are you aware of Encyclopaedia Dramatica for example? Many of the 4chan stunts are done "in name of trolling" and "for the lulz", when infact they may involve stalking the subject and even physically being in contact. I think in cases like these it's first and foremost a social thing for the "trolls" to stir shit up, the more the better.
Or perhaps I'm just ignorantly stretching the term.
Eh, I wouldn't call what 4chan does "trolling." They get their lulz by hurting people, both to prove they can do it and just to enjoy inflicting pain. They usually want their victims to know exactly what's happening, who's doing it, and why.
I hope trolling doesn't come to mean any kind of maliciousness, because it won't enrich the language much for it to take on such a broad meaning. Thanks to human nature, we already have a pretty comprehensive vocabulary for obnoxious behavior. Trolling in the narrow sense is a handy addition for a behavior that has emerged as an everyday fact of life in the internet age, but trolling used in the broad sense is usually a lazy replacement for a better expression.
Edit/PS: To be clear, what 4chan does is bullying. Harassment, spreading embarrassing information, vandalism, insults, reputational attacks: there is nothing novel about this pattern of behavior. In second grade (the early '80s) my entire elementary school was taken out of class so we could watch a short film about bullying. If I remember correctly, a kid was bullied until one day he fell over dead because he didn't want to live anymore. Cheesy, but it shows that 4chan's methods and intentions aren't new and don't merit a new name. The only novelty is that the bullies' unashamed voice has been added to the conversation, so now we know they do it for the lulz. (Which is what everyone assumed about bullies anyway until someone invented the idea that bullies were abused and miserable themselves, which became the new conventional wisdom until it was challenged recently, and now I think even the touchy-feely types think it's really all about the lulz. But I digress.)
I hope trolling doesn't come to mean any kind of maliciousness, because it won't enrich the language much for it to take on such a broad meaning. Thanks to human nature, we already have a pretty comprehensive vocabulary for obnoxious behavior. Trolling in the narrow sense is a handy addition for a behavior that has emerged as an everyday fact of life in the internet age, but trolling used in the broad sense is usually a lazy replacement for a better expression.
Edit/PS: To be clear, what 4chan does is bullying. Harassment, spreading embarrassing information, vandalism, insults, reputational attacks: there is nothing novel about this pattern of behavior. In second grade (the early '80s) my entire elementary school was taken out of class so we could watch a short film about bullying. If I remember correctly, a kid was bullied until one day he fell over dead because he didn't want to live anymore. Cheesy, but it shows that 4chan's methods and intentions aren't new and don't merit a new name. The only novelty is that the bullies' unashamed voice has been added to the conversation, so now we know they do it for the lulz. (Which is what everyone assumed about bullies anyway until someone invented the idea that bullies were abused and miserable themselves, which became the new conventional wisdom until it was challenged recently, and now I think even the touchy-feely types think it's really all about the lulz. But I digress.)
Yes, but calling it all "trolling" lumps it together. In the replies to your comment you can see people equating trolling to everything from slight teasing to serious harassment.
The problem with calling it all "trolling" is that it normalizes the seriously nasty things (e.g. threatening to kill someone's wife) by analogy to the less serious things ("I tease my friends all the time").
At some point, these are very different things. And they need to be treated very differently. Calling them different things (e.g. "harassment" or "hate speech" vs "trolling") helps set up that mental boundary in peoples' minds and helps them demarcate what's right and wrong.
The problem with calling it all "trolling" is that it normalizes the seriously nasty things (e.g. threatening to kill someone's wife) by analogy to the less serious things ("I tease my friends all the time").
At some point, these are very different things. And they need to be treated very differently. Calling them different things (e.g. "harassment" or "hate speech" vs "trolling") helps set up that mental boundary in peoples' minds and helps them demarcate what's right and wrong.
The original meaning of "trolling" comes from the fishing technique. It's not targeted, it's just provocation. Trolls might follow up, and target the people who took the bait (getting them more riled up, misinterpreting them, claiming they misinterpreted your point, accusing them of trolling), but they don't tend to hold a grudge. It's just a (juvenile) joke.
Harassment isn't trolling. It's goal is not provoking anyone who is un-savvy enough to take the bait, it's goal is to upset a specific person. It's harassment.
You're right that trolling means whatever people want it to (words mean whatever you think they do), but if you expand the definition "trolling" to include harassment, then it's no longer fair to say it's "just" trolling; under the assumption that "trolling" isn't a bad thing.
Harassment isn't trolling. It's goal is not provoking anyone who is un-savvy enough to take the bait, it's goal is to upset a specific person. It's harassment.
You're right that trolling means whatever people want it to (words mean whatever you think they do), but if you expand the definition "trolling" to include harassment, then it's no longer fair to say it's "just" trolling; under the assumption that "trolling" isn't a bad thing.
> He wanted to call the authorities there and then and turn him in. But I said no.
That's an impressive show of self control, but I wonder if his next victims will have preferred that you did contact the authorities. Presumably, at age 17 this guy won't be living with his parents for much longer.
That's an impressive show of self control, but I wonder if his next victims will have preferred that you did contact the authorities. Presumably, at age 17 this guy won't be living with his parents for much longer.
I really hope the OP didn't just leave it with "get him counseling" and then walk away. I hope he required follow-up that the counseling was happening and progress was being made.
In fact, if I was in that situation, I think I would want to be given the ability to talk to the counselor about the progress (or lack thereof) being made. Even if I knew he was going to counseling, I don't think I would be comfortable just washing my hands beyond that, for exactly the reason you point out.
In fact, if I was in that situation, I think I would want to be given the ability to talk to the counselor about the progress (or lack thereof) being made. Even if I knew he was going to counseling, I don't think I would be comfortable just washing my hands beyond that, for exactly the reason you point out.
Isn't that sort of information confidential between the counsellor and the patient? Even if it's not legally protected I don't think many counsellors would be happy telling you that sort of thing
You can always ask for copies of the bill.
> That's an impressive show of self control,
It would be, if this had happened. Which I sincerely doubt.
I do not doubt that OP went through some real awful stuff at the behest of his troll, or that he even met or confronted his troll, but this story is just too finely crafted to be a true reflection of real life. I could be wrong, but, honestly, I doubt it.
It would be, if this had happened. Which I sincerely doubt.
I do not doubt that OP went through some real awful stuff at the behest of his troll, or that he even met or confronted his troll, but this story is just too finely crafted to be a true reflection of real life. I could be wrong, but, honestly, I doubt it.
I have to ask. Why was this young man given the opportunity to escape the law despite committing a hate crime. He threatened murder and rape. Would he have been afforded the privilege of a hand shake rather than hand cuffs if he was... say a member of a outgroup, say for example, an Arab?
Showing the kid who the bigger man is by forgiving him has a diffusing effect on the situation. It shows compassion and empathy for him, (something the kid initially did not have for the OP). If the kid could produce so much hate out of thin air imagine how angry and hateful he could be if he blamed OP for incarcerating him. (as ass backward that logic is)
Agreed entirely. This sort of thing can turn into a vicious cycle in an instant; by forgiving him, the OP has almost certainly stopped that in its tracks.
However, I can't help but have concerns about the kid's future -- this sort of behavior over a long period screams mental illness -- and sincerely hope that counseling helps.
However, I can't help but have concerns about the kid's future -- this sort of behavior over a long period screams mental illness -- and sincerely hope that counseling helps.
Because the police were never involved directly. "He" was still legally a child, for one. For two, the author was unbelievably gracious enough to not take him straight to the cops.
A happy ending all around, really. Hopefully the teen idiot will have something good come of his counselling and the world will be a slightly better place.
A happy ending all around, really. Hopefully the teen idiot will have something good come of his counselling and the world will be a slightly better place.
[deleted]
> Hopefully the teen idiot will have something good come of his counselling and the world will be a slightly better place.
Sociopaths benefit from counseling in that they become better able to fool counselors. We can only hope whoever he goes to realizes this.
Sociopaths benefit from counseling in that they become better able to fool counselors. We can only hope whoever he goes to realizes this.
You trolling? It never ceases to amaze me that people who read a blog post suddenly form hard lined opinions about a real world situation.
To me, it's a bit sociopath-like to be so vindictive about a situation that you know next to nothing about. What's the relationship between the poster and the kid? He most likely knows the boy's past, he knows the family, and yet it's all too easy to forget all that and condemn someone.
If only there were more people in the world like the OP, and less knee jerkers.
To me, it's a bit sociopath-like to be so vindictive about a situation that you know next to nothing about. What's the relationship between the poster and the kid? He most likely knows the boy's past, he knows the family, and yet it's all too easy to forget all that and condemn someone.
If only there were more people in the world like the OP, and less knee jerkers.
I hope I'm wrong and that the troll isn't a sociopath.
In all honesty, I didn't mean to jump all over your comment, there's plenty of worse offenders in the thread for that kind of reply.
However, it still stands that we just don't know enough to make any judgement call. It's in society's hands as it were now anyway, and all the best we can do is hope for something good to come out of this.
However, it still stands that we just don't know enough to make any judgement call. It's in society's hands as it were now anyway, and all the best we can do is hope for something good to come out of this.
I forgot to add, A white Irish kid likely is in the 'outgroup' from the perspective of a middle aged Jewish man. The converse was the entire premise of the harassment.
I see where you're going with this, and let's take this another way.
Let's say that "it should." and effort to make it that way in our own, personal lives :)
Let's say that "it should." and effort to make it that way in our own, personal lives :)
I suppose the key aspect here was the parents actually being friends with the victim, not the ethnicity of the stalker.
That is a pretty compelling story. I'm not sure I could let it go without a bit more narrative around the 'game thing.' It sounds too much like 'making your bones' in a street gang.
About how he'd become engrossed in conspiracy sites.
I view it less as a street gang game, and more of a game of 'hunt the Illuminati'. Doesn't make it any less despicable. If anything these conspiracy sites (and its posters) carry part of the blame for incitement.
When I read that, I thought it was a reference to the movie The Game: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119174/
> I responded: "I'm not criminalizing a 17 year old kid and ruining his future.
I really hope restorative justice works. Well done for doing something that must have been incredibly tough.
I really hope restorative justice works. Well done for doing something that must have been incredibly tough.
I'd love to have an update in a few years. Do things end up better for having let him off, or does he cause even more damage?
I think it's unlikely that the author was the only person threatened, and also unlikely that a "talking to" will prevent others from being victims as well. While I'd like to think that people can make a full turn around from evil to good, in this case I'd bet against it. If things are as described, the kid is not a wayward youth but a psychopath.
Certainly from the child's perspective it's better not to involve the authorities. But my greater concern is for the rest of society. No, there is nothing magic the authorities can do that will help this individual, but unlike a counsellor they might be able to restrict his ability to further harm others.
I think it's unlikely that the author was the only person threatened, and also unlikely that a "talking to" will prevent others from being victims as well. While I'd like to think that people can make a full turn around from evil to good, in this case I'd bet against it. If things are as described, the kid is not a wayward youth but a psychopath.
Certainly from the child's perspective it's better not to involve the authorities. But my greater concern is for the rest of society. No, there is nothing magic the authorities can do that will help this individual, but unlike a counsellor they might be able to restrict his ability to further harm others.
Do we have to be careful not to brand this sort of behaviour as trolling? Trolling to me is often mild and more for a laugh rather than for quite malicious purposes. It's easier to ignore.
Anything that constitutes targeted harassment, stalking, bullying and the like should always be framed around those stronger terms. They cannot be things that kids grow up doing for a laugh with friends. They need to be clearly framed as the sort of things that have repercussions, put you on the flipside of society, etc.
Anything that constitutes targeted harassment, stalking, bullying and the like should always be framed around those stronger terms. They cannot be things that kids grow up doing for a laugh with friends. They need to be clearly framed as the sort of things that have repercussions, put you on the flipside of society, etc.
compelling story, but I'd like to know how he translated an ip address in to a street address.
Perhaps it was something like:
1. OP finds an IP in [insert-not-so-large-irish-city-name-here].
2. OP remebers having a friend in [not-so-large-irish-city],
somehow obtains his IP (which is not a hard thing).
3. Bingo, adresses match!
4. OP is confused, but then remembers that his friend has
teenage soon, so he calls the friend to ask about the kid.
Or maybe Chloe tried to slip through the subnet while Miles traced his physical location by looking at the binary (http://blog.sfgate.com/tgoodman/2006/04/25/this-doesnt-make-...). That last season of 24 made me realize how little I knew about networking.
Here's a possibility: On his blog he has a field to enter in your email address to subscribe to posts. If he's recording IP addresses there's a good chance his friend (not the son) would have put in his email to follow. Once he got the IP address of his Troll he could have just looked in his registration table on an off chance there was a match.
Well, there's a few possibilities. For example, if the ip address was associated with a DN, you could do a reverse-lookup and then do a whois.
Also he might know the friend's ip if the friend sent him an email.
I'm also curious about this.
One option would be to lure the troll to a site & pull down the location info from his browser - I'm not sure how readily the troll would authorize that, but maybe with some clever social engineering it could be done. His father did mention he was on his mobile a ton, so it's possible he got pretty accurate data, instead of just his local ISP. (Related - I'm on Clear right now, and apparently I'm in Portland. I'm actually up near Canada.)
One option would be to lure the troll to a site & pull down the location info from his browser - I'm not sure how readily the troll would authorize that, but maybe with some clever social engineering it could be done. His father did mention he was on his mobile a ton, so it's possible he got pretty accurate data, instead of just his local ISP. (Related - I'm on Clear right now, and apparently I'm in Portland. I'm actually up near Canada.)
It could have been something as simple as politely asking the ISP or the police. Given some of the circumstances which transpired and how difficult it may or may not be to get the ISP to give you the street address, I wouldn't be surprised if they went, or at least tried, that route.
Keep in mind he translated three ip addresses into street addresses and two of them turned out to be public hotspots.
Keep in mind he translated three ip addresses into street addresses and two of them turned out to be public hotspots.
I doubt asking kindly would yield personal information. This kind of social engineering can be used for bad as well and I'd doubt they'd leave the justice and investigative powers in the hands of a citizen.
That was my first thought too. My guess would be a shortened URL that redirected to a private server, which then redirected to some Facebook contact form. Facebook message times could then be roughly correlated with IPs harvested from logs from the private server.
Find the ISP and ask for the user's information, either formally (with police assistance) or informally (pay someone for the info).
One potentially but as of yet unmentioned aspect is the "game thing" itself. The fact that he refers to this as a "game," indicates that by means of some conspiracy theory site or other, he was more or less interacting with others in competitive harassment.
Take the following potential scenario:
Take the following potential scenario:
Impressionable youth joins conspiracy site, finds lots of anti-semitic information.
The youths of the forum are encourage to pick a Jew and harass them, recording both their creations (i.e. a plastic container filled with ashes), and the responses of the person they are harassing.
Within the context of a game this harassment can immediately seem quite harmless. I am actually not thinking much about the person who is on the receiving end of my "prank" anymore, I am simply thinking of the optimal reaction I can get from my "innovative" creation in the harassment sector.
Anyways, easy to see how something like this could get out of hand. Very out of hand in this case.My thoughts as well. It was likely too difficult or embarrassing for him to reveal his true motivations and intentions in front of his family and his victim. Leo should have dug deeper.
There is an alarming amount of laziness in the conclusion of this affair. I'm hoping that significant actions were left out of the post.
Who has the kid been talking to online? What else has he been up to? Who else is he harassing? How was he going to escalate the "game"?
It seems that the author wanted a peaceful resolution so badly that he manufactured one falsely.
Who has the kid been talking to online? What else has he been up to? Who else is he harassing? How was he going to escalate the "game"?
It seems that the author wanted a peaceful resolution so badly that he manufactured one falsely.
I hope that The Troll learned something from this experience. It is truly interesting to me what kind of mental processes drive this kind of behavior.
I am truly amazing by this post. What an incredible human being the OP is. If faced with a similar situation I'm quite certain I lack to moral fiber to conduct myself with that level of class. Odds are excellent I would have pasted that kids guts all over the street.
Having someone arrested is not "lack of moral fiber". It may be the opposite - the courage to bring a criminal to justice, testify against them, potentially lose his friendship... What the 17-year old did was vicious and clearly criminal.
Courage, as a word, stems from cor -- one's heart and innermost feelings, and so courageousness is the resolve to express one's heart.
Therefore, it is literally more courageous to confront an attacker directly and to express one's feelings honestly, than it is to run to the authorities, even when one is entitled to do so. It's more courageous to confront someone face-to-face, tell him how you were hurt by what they did, and communicate that you still care about him and want to be involved with his correction.
To say that "it may be the opposite..." i.e. it may be cowardly to directly confront someone who hurt and frightened you, is just bizarre and I suspect reactionary tough-guy talk. In what world would it be cowardly to confront and attacker and show both your vulnerability and your determination to work with him, but courageous (in any sense of the word) to send the police over to his house to pick him up?
Therefore, it is literally more courageous to confront an attacker directly and to express one's feelings honestly, than it is to run to the authorities, even when one is entitled to do so. It's more courageous to confront someone face-to-face, tell him how you were hurt by what they did, and communicate that you still care about him and want to be involved with his correction.
To say that "it may be the opposite..." i.e. it may be cowardly to directly confront someone who hurt and frightened you, is just bizarre and I suspect reactionary tough-guy talk. In what world would it be cowardly to confront and attacker and show both your vulnerability and your determination to work with him, but courageous (in any sense of the word) to send the police over to his house to pick him up?
Here's a funnier take on confronting an internet troll. Comedian Chris Gethard talks to a commenter who really didn't like his performance in the show "Big Lake."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s10F4ulkLY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s10F4ulkLY
If you've ever seen very young puppies playing, you know that it's not as cute as it sounds. There's yelping and pain, and often even blood as the puppies bite one another mercilessly. But as the days and weeks pass, that stops; by being bitten, the puppies learn that biting hurts. It takes a little while, and is perhaps not the most pleasant of methods, but it's what their minds can process.
Some people are the same way. It's a cruel thing to force a bully (or its net-cousin, the troll) to look in the mirror and see what they've really done; what they really are. It messes with a person's head in a way that those who haven't experienced it cannot understand. But many of them legitimately NEED that kind of cruelty; it's the language they speak, the stimulus they know how to sense.
It's still cruel, mind you; it shouldn't be shied away from, but it shouldn't be glorified or looked forward to either. Sometimes it's not even possible, especially in the age of the Internet. But when it can be done, I'd call it preferable to bringing in the authorities. It's less wasteful, on account of not throwing up lifelong obstacles for the troll to overcome, and when properly applied it hurts worse than the law would allow our authorities to inflict anyway. Justice and vengeance, all wrapped up in a nice, neat package.
Some people are the same way. It's a cruel thing to force a bully (or its net-cousin, the troll) to look in the mirror and see what they've really done; what they really are. It messes with a person's head in a way that those who haven't experienced it cannot understand. But many of them legitimately NEED that kind of cruelty; it's the language they speak, the stimulus they know how to sense.
It's still cruel, mind you; it shouldn't be shied away from, but it shouldn't be glorified or looked forward to either. Sometimes it's not even possible, especially in the age of the Internet. But when it can be done, I'd call it preferable to bringing in the authorities. It's less wasteful, on account of not throwing up lifelong obstacles for the troll to overcome, and when properly applied it hurts worse than the law would allow our authorities to inflict anyway. Justice and vengeance, all wrapped up in a nice, neat package.
It's disturbing how terrifying and malicious this suburban 17-year old kid could be.
Am I the only one who feels like this story is hugely, hugely embellished? It is just too picture perfect. And absolutely none of the comments herein seem to question any aspect of it whatsoever. It is straight-up revenge-porn. My bet is that certain aspects of this actually happened, but things just don't happen this smoothly in real life.
Pains me to see this kinda stuff go on...
Troll doesn't quite cover it in my eye, its pure criminalized harassment.
Troll doesn't quite cover it in my eye, its pure criminalized harassment.
I would have prosecuted the little shit.
Deliberate and targeted anti-semitism, stalking, death threats that moved offline from a 17 year old who says "thanks for giving me a break dude" and parents who don't want to go to the police themselves? All Leo wants to do is write about it.. I would've either prosecuted or put his name and photo (and all the threats and screenshots he sent) on my blog for 10 years.. that could've been the choice for the parents.
I'm honestly astonished at how little Twitter seems to care about abuse and spam. I actually wrote an article about this last night (https://tyler.menez.es/articles/twitters-empathy-problem.htm...), when - after going through blog posts - I realized the spam problem there hadn't gotten any better since I first wrote about it in 2007!
Seems like a hard problem to solve.
That's not a troll, that's just a run-of-the-mill dickhead.
Trolling is a art.
Trolling is a art.
I do not believe that this is an act by an individual. Even though the author tracked it down to one attacker, there is something much bigger behind attacks of this caliber.Right now there is a movement underway, a Troll movement.It has been around for no longer than a decade, but already it has shown the signs of a serious problem to come. It's essentially a gang mentality that ropes these "kids" in to participate in trolling. In the 90's I was lucky enough to have not grown up in the circumstances that would lead me into joining a gang. A desire to feel like your a part of something combined with the desire to feel powerful is a tool for whoever is recruiting these trolls(mostly older siblings or friends cause them to want to imitate).Just as these kids,imagine your self put under the wrong(for a successful life) circumstances at that age,you may have been persuaded into trying new drugs, or gang banging.
By meddling with the lives of others, one can get a feeling of true power. This feeling of power when combined with the comradeship of fellow trolls can be a very dangerous mix. Gangs recruit new members by playing on both those desires, first they are given a gun (they are now powerful, They hold the power over human life in their hands), next they are given comradeship (a feeling of belonging, they are now a part of something). At the age of 17, these kids, placed under the right(to this way of life) circumstances are soooooo susceptible to the gang mentality. The gang mentality is present everywhere you look, its just at different levels of activity. Give a kid a bat or ball, surround him with teammates, and give him something to do; Compares with giving a kid a computer, surrounding him with fellow trolls, and something to do (harassing and cyber attacking);Now lets throw in actual street gangs for a third level of comparison with the past. Give a kid a gun, surround him with fellow gang members, and something to do. Although baseball has stayed offline and in the ballpark to this day; The street gangs have moved online in the form of a 17 year old kid with a computer.
This is only a preview of whats to come. Imagine second generation trolls. These kids have had access to a computer, ipad, laptop, cell phone, since they were truly children(3-12). These trolls can hack,they are tech savvy, they can find your address, access all your online resources. They now have the power over a human life. Unlike street gangs of the 90's, the internet has allowed them to be apart of something big, bigger than any street gang has ever had the opportunity to reach. Where a gang was always limited by location, Trolling is only limited by language. A troll hierarchy has formed in several different hives. Troll soldiers are dispatched in the thousands, maybe even millions, in strategically placed cyber attacks. Worse these troll soldiers, at the easily corruptible age of 17, will have the mentality of an anarchist,ego of a street banger, and posses the technical ability of a hacker. Where a banger would steal and old ladies purse, they will get into her bank account. Where a banger would shoot someone for initiation, these trolls would attack every online outlet you use, ruin your name and image. Even worse, for the most part they need not be money motivated, their parents are paying the cable bill.And since this would for the most part be completely anonymous, they wouldn't have to watch as they shoot you in the face just as a street banger has to. They wont feel the blood splash their face as your life crumbles beneath you.
I can only hope measures are taken against the Trolls fast. It is not a hacker mentality they posses, but that of an anarchist and street banger.Those in power at the time it becomes apparent, will, as with every other threat to humanity, not act until it is too late.These kids do this because there is a lack of communication from the ones who raise them, they need attention, advice,something to do (baseball?). The authorities cant fix this, further separating the parents from the kids will only strengthen the bonds of the trolls. Who do you think they will go to after their parents have further distanced themselves from their kid by sending him off to juvy? Their friends who were a part of their bad way of life? The gang?
By meddling with the lives of others, one can get a feeling of true power. This feeling of power when combined with the comradeship of fellow trolls can be a very dangerous mix. Gangs recruit new members by playing on both those desires, first they are given a gun (they are now powerful, They hold the power over human life in their hands), next they are given comradeship (a feeling of belonging, they are now a part of something). At the age of 17, these kids, placed under the right(to this way of life) circumstances are soooooo susceptible to the gang mentality. The gang mentality is present everywhere you look, its just at different levels of activity. Give a kid a bat or ball, surround him with teammates, and give him something to do; Compares with giving a kid a computer, surrounding him with fellow trolls, and something to do (harassing and cyber attacking);Now lets throw in actual street gangs for a third level of comparison with the past. Give a kid a gun, surround him with fellow gang members, and something to do. Although baseball has stayed offline and in the ballpark to this day; The street gangs have moved online in the form of a 17 year old kid with a computer.
This is only a preview of whats to come. Imagine second generation trolls. These kids have had access to a computer, ipad, laptop, cell phone, since they were truly children(3-12). These trolls can hack,they are tech savvy, they can find your address, access all your online resources. They now have the power over a human life. Unlike street gangs of the 90's, the internet has allowed them to be apart of something big, bigger than any street gang has ever had the opportunity to reach. Where a gang was always limited by location, Trolling is only limited by language. A troll hierarchy has formed in several different hives. Troll soldiers are dispatched in the thousands, maybe even millions, in strategically placed cyber attacks. Worse these troll soldiers, at the easily corruptible age of 17, will have the mentality of an anarchist,ego of a street banger, and posses the technical ability of a hacker. Where a banger would steal and old ladies purse, they will get into her bank account. Where a banger would shoot someone for initiation, these trolls would attack every online outlet you use, ruin your name and image. Even worse, for the most part they need not be money motivated, their parents are paying the cable bill.And since this would for the most part be completely anonymous, they wouldn't have to watch as they shoot you in the face just as a street banger has to. They wont feel the blood splash their face as your life crumbles beneath you.
I can only hope measures are taken against the Trolls fast. It is not a hacker mentality they posses, but that of an anarchist and street banger.Those in power at the time it becomes apparent, will, as with every other threat to humanity, not act until it is too late.These kids do this because there is a lack of communication from the ones who raise them, they need attention, advice,something to do (baseball?). The authorities cant fix this, further separating the parents from the kids will only strengthen the bonds of the trolls. Who do you think they will go to after their parents have further distanced themselves from their kid by sending him off to juvy? Their friends who were a part of their bad way of life? The gang?
[deleted]
17 is OLD. This is a high school kid, and maybe he's immature, but he crossed a very serious line. The line between prank phone calls, and the types of coercive intimidation tactics he employed shouldn't be glossed over.
One other comment about this anecdote: I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Revealing your true identity online, on the internet can be very, VERY risky. Downright dangerous. The fact that Google+ and Facebook encourage this as a normal, casual practice is irresponsible.
The internet is high-powered super-charged tachnology, which needs to be respected as such. It's not like putting your name in the phone book. VIPs who retain attourneys, hire personal assistants, and hire other staff (possibly even professional security) have adequate countermeasure to cope with online stalkers. Average individuals do not.
Consider that in ye olden days, predating even dial-up, there were notorious problems with local TV stations who would hire pretty women as their meteorologists. These were professional broadcasters that had problems with public exposure.
Craigslist has a firm understanding of some of the cold realities of the internet, in particular, prostitution, and they advise their users with very little whitewash. Twitter, Facebook and Google+ should do the same.
One other comment about this anecdote: I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Revealing your true identity online, on the internet can be very, VERY risky. Downright dangerous. The fact that Google+ and Facebook encourage this as a normal, casual practice is irresponsible.
The internet is high-powered super-charged tachnology, which needs to be respected as such. It's not like putting your name in the phone book. VIPs who retain attourneys, hire personal assistants, and hire other staff (possibly even professional security) have adequate countermeasure to cope with online stalkers. Average individuals do not.
Consider that in ye olden days, predating even dial-up, there were notorious problems with local TV stations who would hire pretty women as their meteorologists. These were professional broadcasters that had problems with public exposure.
Craigslist has a firm understanding of some of the cold realities of the internet, in particular, prostitution, and they advise their users with very little whitewash. Twitter, Facebook and Google+ should do the same.
Theres something about this story that just doesn't sit right with me. Why would a 17 year old go through so much trouble to harass someone just for the heck of it? The guy had to have done something to the kid. Normal people don't spend hours of their lives to harass a single person for no reason.
I call bullshit.
I call bullshit.
The son had become engrossed with conspiracy sites - the ones that blame jews/zionists/everyone for all the ills on the planet, and was a shutin, unable to attach a human face with the victim of his trolling attempts.
I admire the author for his actions, I hope the Troll will take a good lesson from it all.
I admire the author for his actions, I hope the Troll will take a good lesson from it all.
It's called trolling, and it's a well known and written about phenomenon. There doesn't even have to be a reason.
Assuming this story is true, what OP did was the right, human, adult thing to do - to treat the child as a human being capable of change and growth and to see to it that the community accepted him and moved him towards change. Concepts like "justice" and "psychosis" are easy to throw around and are very practical, but their use is typically the root of more harm than good.