Entertainment For Lively Minds
Trolling
Posted by simontyler on 13 September 2011 - 10:44pm.
It happens on many internet sites, here, FB, Twitter, YouTube etc etc etc...does the medium bring out the worst in people or just offer a higher profile for morons?
- More from simontyler.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I'm not defending what this particular chap did.
He posted some seriously sick and upsetting comments which caused a number of grieving families untold distress.
But according to this story he has Asperger's Syndrome. For me, that puts a slightly different slant on things. If he does have this condition, then he cannot empathise with others. His brain doesn't work that way. People with Asperger's are on the high end of the autistic spectrum, which means they cannot understand the effect their words or actions have on other people.
Without wishing to minimise the pain he caused, I can't help thinking the money spent on sending him to prison would surely better be spent getting him some support.
In conclusion: The Beatles are well shite, aren't they?
Drakey
I done a proper LoL at your concluding comment.
Nice work girl!
Hmm not so sure about that
Aspeger's has different levels. In fact there are many undiagnosed people who have traces of what is sometimes rather loosely referred to as "Asperger's syndrome" in their character. Indeed any obsessive behaviour is now sometimes referred to with this handle.
Psychologists say that "sociopaths" are those who are incapable of caring about others. Because they haven't developed the means to do this. But there is a difference between this sociopathic lack of concern for others, and downright malicious behaviour. Which is deliberately designed and intended to hurt. "Evil" I believe was the word used in clearer headed times.
DG I respectfully disagree with you conclusion
the Beatles are great.
Yes spending money on supporting people with Aspergers Syndrome is important , but so is ensuring they understand their actions do have an effect on others. People with Aspergers have an "Impairment" in empathising with others rather that a total lack of ability in this area, and so it is crucial that their condition, which I agree makes life very difficult in the extreme , is not a blank cheque for anti social , and in some cases , illegal behaviour.
I think you know
that I don't really think The Beatles are shite...
And I don't think that having Asperger's excuses any behaviour. But I think it goes a long way to explaining it. From the facts that we've been told about this case (and obviously bearing in mind we only know what we've been told), it sounds like this man could have used more help than he was getting. That doesn't mean society doesn't need protecting from what he did. It's the old Care In The Community debate. Without the appropriate resources and professional care, leaving those unable to function safely in society without the help they need is a dangerous policy.
Why would you punish
Someone who appears to genuinely not understand that what he did was wrong and why it was wrong?
I'm against blank checks, and speaking as a normally part of the "lock 'em up" brigade, I was troubled by what I read in the report.
It isn't that simple
Just because Duffy has asperger's, it doesn't follow that he had *no idea* that what he was doing was wrong, or that it would hurt others.
True
And I know it's his defence lawyer, so she will obviously have a bias but she did say:"She said his condition meant he was not aware of the effect he was having on his victims."
Hye's 25, lives alone, and over drinks.
Something tells me he has difficulty interacting with Society.
Asperger's
Though his illness may have impaired his ability to empathise with his victims, it doesn't mean he didn't know that what he was doing was wrong.
you wouldn't,
you shouldn't and I wouldn't punish some if they didn't know it was wrong or why it was wrong. They would be no point. I was just highlighting that someone with Aspergers Syndrome may well have an understanding that it is wrong. It may not be a perfect understanding, but it wouldn't be a void. Therefore a consequence, whether punishment or some kind of reprobation, would be appropriate response to aid the individuals understanding of the wrong doing.
I do not have aspergers (I think, pricks)
But if I did, I'd struggle to understand why something is wrong, but would I not accept the greater knowledge of others and accept that, even if I don't know why something is wrong, would I not believe others telling me and take their superior knowledge into account?
Three angels on the head of that pin by the way...
Natasha MacBryde's father...
...deserves an up for his measured and humane statement in the Guardian.
I'm pretty sure Duffy will make the connection between what he did and the punishment he's got, though I doubt his condition will be improved by spending 18 weeks in jail. Five years without Facebook, YouTube etc should do the trick, I'd have thought. But his life after jail will be just as bleak and miserable as his life before.
I have a relative with Asperger's, whose behaviour is frequently irritating, not to say exasperating, but who thanks to the love and protection (and patience) of his family has been able to live a relatively normal life. Duffy appears to have been abandoned by his family, or has abandoned them, and there was nobody to keep the nasty streak in check.
According to my sister, who works in this area, most men are somewhere on the Asperger's spectrum. Obsessive listmaking? Check. Unfeasibly large record collections? Check. Fascination with trains and planes? Check. She was joking, but there but for the grace of God etc.
"I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
99% of trolling is vicious and awful. The other 1% is inspired. Bloodninja's chatlogs are hilarious, although definitely Not Safe For Work.
http://people.ambrosiasw.com/~andrew/funny/bloodcyber.html
that's hilarious
Rhinoceruses don't wear shirts
admit it, this is you isn't it? :)
You had me at "grunting like a troll".
Amazing.
troubling
This is a troubling case. He appears to be a pathetic individual whose horrible and stupid actions have caused a great deal of grief (and I take the point about his condition being a mitigating factor).
He most certainly should be punished for his actions and jail may, or may not, be the appropriate punishment.
I'm more concerned about the possible fall-out from this case. Criminalising (or pathologising) dissent was a favoured tactic of Uncle Joe Stalin. If we open the gates to the criminalisation of 'trolling', we really do face a bleak Orwellian future.
Some people are morons and have stupid, hateful, ill-informed opinions and internet traffic merely reflects the fact that it's just part of the human condition.
Indeed...
...when I'm feeling masochistic I occasionally paddle about in the vile, evil-smelling swamp that is the Daily Mail online, where morons vent spleen and spit bile and gnaw on their entrails. It amuses me to tweak their tails. Though technically I suppose it's trolling, I like to think of it as a public service...it would be a shame if they made it illegal.
Trolling
I think the offence in question went beyond trolling. I see trolling as coming on here and saying 'Here, Little Feat were gash'.
Mocking up comic pictures of a 16 year old suicide and showing them to her greiving parents is an entirely different offence, which deserves it's own name.
Yes, I agree
that there are degrees and that this is at best the very extreme end but more likely a different catagory altogether.
I've seen some very extreme commentsover the years on sites which in the context of the site and the dynamics of the posters were acceptable but if they were viewed on their own and out of context could hang the poster.
It's a dangerous road to go down and I think this case shouldn't be labelled as 'trolling' which is more 'wind up' as I see it than cruel and spiteful.
indeed
You are right, but look at the title of this thread and listen to how it's being reported on the news. It's being described as a 'trolling' offence and that is why I think we should all be concerned.
Hang on, I'm confused
What's the connection between an inability to empathise and the insulting of the recently dead and the hounding and taunting of a grieving family?
It seems to me to be about as cause-and-effect as the link between suffering from coeliac disease and glassing a baker in the face.
But surely it's possible there is *some* connection, Archie?
Of course what he did was atrocious and unforgiveable. Of course he should be punished for it. But I think it's also fair to suggest that his level of understanding of other people's emotions and how they are affected by his actions could be relevant?
Empathy is something I think about every day. My daughter has a different syndrome to Aspergers, but emotions can be a complete mystery to her sometimes. If she sees someone crying, she is genuinely fascinated. Even though she may have had a sobbing fit that very day - so has experienced feelings strong enough to upset her to that degree - she can look at someone in a similar emotional state with a kind of curious, rubber-necking glee. We try to teach her to be sensitive to other people and to recognise how her words and actions make them feel, but it's hard work, even within a loving family and with lots of support from friends, teachers, and health professionals.
I think it's fairly plain that Duffy hasn't had this kind of support. I accept also that maybe he didn't need it. I have no idea of where on the Aspergers spectrum Duffy falls. He may well be fully aware of what effect his actions would have. Just because you have a syndrome doesn't mean you can't be a nasty bastard. And I don't think anyone has suggested that he did this because he has Aspergers. But I don't think we can dismiss it as something that can't be connected in any way to this sad chain of events.
Totally agree with all that
But the crux of the issue for me is what you say about the tendency for syndromes, disabilities and conditions to be held up as factors not to explain but to mitigate appalling behaviour.
It's well known that almost all predatory paedophiles were themselves abused as children. Does that explain it? Yes. Does it excuse it? No. If it excused it the next step would be to claim that Josef Goebbels only hated Jews because he had a club foot.
And I think there's a gulf of a difference between the lack of empathy of the kind your daughter displays, which may result at worst in behaviour that can be embarrassing simply because it's socially unorthodox, and what this guy did. Merely being unmoved, puzzled or even amused when faced with the suffering of others can't be equated with callously taking direct action to worsen that suffering as much as you can. That's the connection I don't see.
I agree
that there's a gulf of difference and that it can't be equated. A bit of a digression on my part, to be honest.
Maybe it's semantics, but I still think there is a connection with Duffy's astoundingly callous actions and his impaired ability to empathise.
But as I said before, and as you articulate so well above, it definitely isn't an excuse.
Theory of mind and absence of moral choice
Studies of links between AS and crime have shown that those with AS have difficulties empathising with victims and have problems interpreting the reactions of people who express hurt or distress as a result of their actions (which can sometimes, in legal terms, be adjudged to be criminal).
However, studies have also shown that typically there is not the wish or intention by those with AS to cause that harm or distress. In crime, intention is a significant factor in assigning blame and guilt, e.g. the difference between murder and manslaughter is largely an issue of intent. Therefore, on that basis alone, AS can be regarded as offering potential mitigating circumstances. This is before one even starts to analyse the behavioural patterns that direct AS sufferers to act as they do.
The question of what prompted this man to commit the offences he did is a combination of understanding the limitations of his theory of mind (i.e. he did not know he was causing offence nor did he know he was committing a crime because AS limits his capacity to do so) and identifying what environmental conditions were in place that allowed him to repeat his behaviour and why those same environmental conditions did not give him cause to understand its devastating consequences. Trolling has some unique environmental conditions: anonymity, repetition of behaviour, lack of awareness of reactions of others etc. that, if combined with AS symptoms, could be aggregated to devastating effect.
Often AS sufferers are able to express regret when shown a victim of their actions BUT are simultaneously unable to actually associate that it was their own actions that caused the distress. There is a "blindness" in their mind to seeing, let alone understanding, their actions from the perspective of others, including the victim.
Repetitive and obsessive behaviour is common in AS sufferers but the risk that media reporting creates is to conflate and link that behaviour to crime as a common and inevitable trait. As with so much media reporting there is a tendency to simplify the complexity of the individual case through generalisation, to address an individual's actions in generalised terms in order to determine that there is enough of a typical pattern of behaviour by those with AS and/or those who troll (both spectrum conditions) to judge them all by one damning standard of judgement and to imply that there is one ultimate outcome if these people are unchecked: criminal activity.
The benefit of not having a mind detrimentally restricted by AS is that your own theory of mind gives you a moral shorthand, to know and understand comparatively and relatively easily and quickly the difference between right and wrong. AS sufferers typically don't have that ability.
Our instinctive desire as non-AS sufferers to rationalise the inappropriate or criminal behaviour of others (as evidenced in media reporting and legal sentencing) in order to "come to terms" with it at a moral and empathetic level often infers that AS sufferers are able to undertake the same causal behavioural journey despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I can't accept this sorry
There's a line to be drawn somewhere.
Two cases ..
Case 1: someone who through some sociopathic disorder, is incapable of identifying with the interests of others. Fascinated when they see emotion in others, because perhaps they don't believe other people have an entitlement, or even a tendency towards any emotional response.
Case 2: someone who deliberately and creatively tries to generate distress and pain in others. They are aware of this distress, because they are clearly looking for it. An example of this would be someone who goes out looking for those that have died in terrible and distressing circumstances. This person then posts a Youtube video about someone that died from an epileptic seizure. With the intention that their mother will see it, with the words ‘Happy Mothers Day’ attached. It's sometimes relatively the small acts that single these people out. Like throwing a cat into a bin.
Like I said above, there is a difference between conscious evil, and ignorance. Whatever means may have been used to try and excuse this man, his intent was obvious.
My observation is that there are those who are blissfully unaware that genuinely "evil" intentions actually exist at all. And they find it difficult to accept. Unfortunately there are those of us who have actually seen it, who know otherwise.
I don't understand
what aspect of my post you can't "accept".
I consciously made no attempt to justify or pass judgement on the actions of the individual in this case from information that is almost exclusively based on how the media have reported it and editorialised. I also tried to separate the legal determination of guilt from the moral one.
Right back to the 1940s studies have shown that AS sufferers will undertake aggressive and malicious acts against others without any regard for the impact their actions have on other people. Does that make them evil? Can you look at their actions and understand what their "obvious intent" is merely by observation? Can you simply read about it in the press and come to a similar conclusion that intent is obvious?
My post was an attempt to highlight with reference to AS symptoms that his actions, as reported in the media AND if considered from the perspective that it is claimed he suffers with AS, raise further questions about what prompted him to act the way he did and to what degree there was intent on his part to cause harm and distress.
You can draw a line in the sand wherever you want: the law has done so. You can also choose, irrespective if the legal decision, to accept that AS creates another perspective on this or you don't.
AS sufferers often don't have the mental faculties to make such distinctions, the highlighting of which is the main purpose of my previous post.
Perspectives
Having the inability to make the distinctions is one thing. Duffys behaviour suggests that those distinctions are in fact being made very consciously, and he is aware of them. And that he's actually choosing to come round on the wrong side. That's what the court would have had to consider.
Unfortunately there has to be punishment for a demonstrated evil intent. Without that, no one is protected. And someone like him who is perhaps disadvantaged by his disorder, can never learn.
Intent
Duffy mocked up a picture of a recently deceased teenage girl with the slogan 'i caught the train to heaven lol' and uploaded it to a Facebook group started by one of her siblings. Why did he do it, if not to cause upset? Did he genuinely feel that they might welcome such a contribution, or laugh it off?
"Sunlight Is The Best Disinfectant"
The right of the Westboro Baptist Church to be as disgusting as they clearly are is enshrined in the US Constitution, and unless their protests incite violence or hatred, or disrupt public order, they're free to spray their effluence wherever they choose. Americans will never change that, even those who're hurt most by this stupidity.
In Europe and the UK, we have similar freedoms under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but UK and European legislation and draft legislation designed to protect minorities and religious groups from offence is putting those liberties increasingly at risk.
Like most people, I think that Sean Duffy and Shirley Phelps Roper alike are bottom feeders of the worst kind, and a dark part of me would happily stamp on the face of either if it was given the opportunity.
Like DC Eisenhower, however, I'm starting to worry about where things seem to be going, because I don't want hurt feelings alone to guarantee anyone recourse to the law for their perceived upsets.
When my sensibilities are guaranteed immunity from offense, it will be at the expense of my right to speak freely.
Wow...
...even Fox News hates her, that's off-the-scale craziness.
Duffy deserves jail
That Diet Coke campaign was abuse, pure and simple.
Strange fact
Sean Duffy's father is a comedy writer, and the man behind the Cheryl Kerl Twitter account.
Speaking as a Pro in these matters
Bearing in mind that this is what I do for a living and all that, and following on from the 'Mad v. Bad' debate that was happening earlier (ok, it was never called that but that was what was going on), I'd like to throw in an observation, hopefully in a non-attention seeking kind of way.
I'm privately fascinated by the mysterious alchemical process by which some individuals mutate from victims into villains.
Allow me to explain. By way of example: there are those out there who have suffered and endured an appalling upbringing. Stuff that keeps you awake at night, making you wish you hadn't heard about all that and wondering how people can do such things to other people, let alone their own children.
And then you hear that one of these children, for example, has had enough and has burned their house down. Unfortunately there were a few other people in there as well, but in the event everyone got out alive.
And then you may casually wish to notice how other's attitudes towards this person begin to change. Strange, but true.
Not strange, really
People naturally have sympathy for victims. That sympathy is bound to fade if the victim goes on to become a criminal or abuser.
Anyone would have sympathy for the young Rose West - I doubt anyone has sympathy for her now.
Tramp the dirt down
Here's a thought: What happens when Thatcher dies? There is bound to be an avalanche of nasty commetary online, which will no doubt prove upsetting to her loved ones. Are the perpetrators all going to get nicked?
That stupid song ..
What an idiot. I think most of the yoof who are liable to do that kind of thing won't remember her. To them she's nothing more than a historical figure, similar to Henry VIII.
As for "Costello" - what an idiot. Just the most hideously self-defeating, bad spirited, and tasteless statement. Put me off the "Costello" to such an extent, that I've not fully recovered. You can't get anyone who hated Thatcher at the time much more than me. But "Tramp The Dirt Down" jeezus.
What an idiot. Did I say that?
Similarly
What would have happened if the KLF had carried out their threat to cover NWA's "One Less Bitch" as a tribute to The Princess Of Wales?
What would have happened?
I'd have been writing to their record label to suggest the title should be "One Bitch Fewer," surely? That's what!
They did...
...as The Fucks. The single 'One Less Slag' was pressed as part of a run of limited 7"s, but never released. Bill Drummond has them all in his garage, apparently. They were pulled just before release when Bill felt they'd been rumbled and the idea that this was some sort of jape gave him the boak.
While I'm on: The WORD? Cunts' magazine.