Meeting A Troll
traynorseye.com
traynorseye.com
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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)
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".
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.
So I'm Hitler now.
>legalize drugs and prostitution and 99% of these problems go away.
Seriously?
While I mostly agree with you, this statement is quite a long shot.
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.
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.
Is there any empirical evidence that operant conditioning doesn't work on humans?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
I wouldn't say that increasing it to the age of 40 would be crossing the maturity threshold, either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
What is the basis of your faith in "credible mental health professionals?"
The degree to which the individual can co-exist with other members of society.
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.
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.
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.' "
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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".
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.
Let me know when you're in the U.S. and perhaps I can buy you a dinner.
"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.
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?
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
Trolling is a art.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sociopaths benefit from counseling in that they become better able to fool counselors. We can only hope whoever he goes to realizes this.
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.
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, 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.
Let's say that "it should." and effort to make it that way in our own, personal lives :)
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.
I really hope restorative justice works. Well done for doing something that must have been incredibly tough.
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.
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.
Taking that IP and finding a street address is the tricky bit.
It can be done with court orders. (In England. I have no idea how Ireland does it.)
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.)
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.
Keep in mind he translated three ip addresses into street addresses and two of them turned out to be public hotspots.
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.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.
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?
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.
Troll doesn't quite cover it in my eye, its pure criminalized harassment.
Trolling is a art.
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?
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.
I call bullshit.
I admire the author for his actions, I hope the Troll will take a good lesson from it all.