Trolling is Wrong

Just a quick note, Con has not offered any case of his own. Thus, this debate will be structured around my own initial arguments. C1: I have three responses to Con here. I'll give each in turn. (1) Con queries why targeting the vulnerable is wrong. Philosopher Martha Fineman argues in her voluminous and varied works that the vulnerable occupy a special moral position in society. That because they are more susceptible to harm, we must be ever more cautious about how we treat them. To do otherwise would be to immorally expose them to harms that the non-vulnerable person would be able to cope with. In this sense, targeting the vulnerable is wrong because it is making the weak weaker--its sadistic. (2) Con suggests that trust in vulnerable forums was lacking to begin with. The point of the argument is that trolls not only destroy the trust that does exist (however minimal), but it also crucially prevents trust from forming, and thus impedes communication altogether. (3) Con proposes a plan regarding face-to-face contact. This may be desirable, but is, of course, not always feasible. Con, on the basis of his incomplete analysis, then claims that the problem lies in the means of communication, but not the trolls themselves or who they target. This is wrong. People should not be forced to change the way they communicate by cruel comments--those cruel comments shouldn't have been made to begin with. Regardless of the means of communication, that does not excuse the trolling behavior. Notice also, that Con never rejects the notion that trolls target the vulnerable; Con just tries to downplay that fact. C2: Con makes two unique attacks which I shall address. (1) Anonymity - the point of this argument was not who uses screen names, but rather the fact that screen names empower would-be trollers because they feel as if they can sew havoc with impunity. Yet, this was not even the crux of my argument--it's more an ancillary point. The main argument I was attempting to convey was that trolls " are unlikely to experience feelings of regret, sympathy, or compassion toward the victim. Harmful messages intended to undermine the reputation of a victim can be far more damaging than face-to-face altercations." This was never directly addressed by Con. (2) Con is misconstruing my source here. By "text" the author is not just referring to statements made by the victim which are circulated in a humiliating fashion, but also statements made by the troll which are intended to defame the victim. For example, in the case of Anonymouse, he would call users fascists and shills. Had he done this in person, his remarks would only be heard by a few people, but on the internet, his slurs can be broadcast to literally dozens of users. The more people on a forum, and the more damaging/vitriolic the insult, the worse damage done to the victim is. Also, consider that if trolls are targeting the most vulnerable groups, that they are inflicting pain on those least able to bear it, heightening the risk for psychological damage. It also seems logical, that people shouldn't have to be prudent, trolls should just stop. If an inebriated woman walks down a dark alley and is raped, the fact that she made a foolish choice does not exonerate the rapist. The same applies to the troll. Finally, by cyber-abuse, I am referring to "harassing or insulting language...e-defamation." Someone who calls people sluts or spreads rumors about them is defaming them and harassing them. C3: I am sorry about the sources. I could access it fine. I searched for it through google scholar if that is any help. If the problem persists, I'll try and find some way around it. Search for trolling, and it should be one of the first results. Also, what do you mean by IMHO. C4: Con focuses on the word "disruptive." That is hardly very key to my argument. It was a rhetorical flourish to emphasized the inappropriateness of trolling. Trolling--disruptive or not--is unethical. Finally, antagonism on its own is fine--it's free expression. It only crosses the line when it becomes defamatory, insulting, or cruel. C5: Everyone can be deceived--that does not excuse the deceiver. Everyone falls for a lie or bad advice at some point, and the impacts of that can be mild, or they can be severe. This is different from being the devil's advocate--it is one thing to lie and sling about insults, and to argue the Con, as you are doing here. As for na"ve questions, the point here is that the questioner could be labeled as a troll and be stuck with that label. This could ruin their online reputation. The na"ve can learn, and most people will give the na"ve some slack. Trolls aren't granted that same sort of slack--they are more widely disliked as my sources indicate. Basically, that last point argues that trolling wastes much of the processing energy exhausted by the site and the computers participating in the forum. This is more of an ancillary point to my other arguments. Deontology - trolling is wrong because it violates the rights of others not to be defamed. Utilitarianism - trolling inflicts harms on individuals Conclusion: Con, throughout his rebuttal, tries to redirect the blame from the troll to the online community. From his intoxicated women example and his face-to-face plan, to his arguments about recognizing bad advice and acting prudently, he attempts to say that it is the community's fault that they fall prey to a troll. This is a ridiculous accusation. The blame for the wrong doing should not be placed on the victim. Being drunk does not absolve the rapist who takes advantage of you. Being na"ve and scammed by a conman does not exonerate the swindler. Being vulnerable and trolled upon, does not excuse the troll. The trolls acts are still unethical, regardless of the community's situation. Thus, trolling is categorically wrong. I look forward to Con's round three arguments.