• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Discussion Why can we be so mean online?

I'm surprised no one has pointed out the anonymity aspect of it. Sure, some people will put their real name to stupid bullshit online, but far more often people hide behind avatars like a cat playing N64 and stupid made-up names like "hologram"
 
bellydrum said:
Ah, you're right. Sometimes I watch season 6. Wish there were more than four seasons though.
Click to expand...
Season 5 erasure!

A2bcBSUKAzne0elSSjSmTx_OwlirI6LYC3ouVH0OTxM.png
 
bellydrum said:
oof you will not like my latest comment in the Community thread
Click to expand...
Nah, I respect the point of view. I watched all of Community in one go, basically, so it's possible I was more accepting the later seasons, warts and all, since I missed all the contextual drama. imo 1-3 is the clear peak, 6 is surprisingly strong, and 5 is enjoyable, but 4 never quite gets over the hump of feeling like it's a photocopy of itself (see also: Gilmore Girls season 7). Still one of the all-time sitcoms, though.
 
kvetcha said:
Nah, I respect the point of view. I watched all of Community in one go, basically, so it's possible I was more accepting the later seasons, warts and all, since I missed all the contextual drama. imo 1-3 is the clear peak, 6 is surprisingly strong, and 5 is enjoyable, but 4 never quite gets over the hump of feeling like it's a photocopy of itself (see also: Gilmore Girls season 7). Still one of the all-time sitcoms, though.
Click to expand...
Just can't bring myself to disagree with any criticism of Season 4. Yeah. Although the best I can say is that while it's clearly run by different people, many of the same writers were involved, and at the very least, it's trying to be delightful and fun.

All in all, yeah. Great show. What was this thread about again?
 
0
It's just that the Internet is a big melting pot of normal people and antisocials, and by antisocials I don't mean shy or introvert people, but mean jerks who lack basic empathy. Sane Internet users develop a system of stereotypes and prejudices with the purpose of sniffing out the antisocials, which result in a toxic environment where everybody is at each others throats. It doesn't help that many of these antisocials reside in echo chamber places where they assimilate a hivemind and become walking stereotypes in the process, ultimately reinforcing the stereotypes and prejudices other people create.

The hyperbolic nature of hot takes makes them very compatible with this set of prejudices / stereotypes, which is why users who express these takes are the target of suspicion and toxicity.

To illustrate my point let me give you a terrible example:

If somebody in the Internet says that The Last Jedi is the worst movie they've ever seen, I will probably will just jump to the conclusion that said user is one of those soupbrain culture war critics, you know which ones. This is a big prejudice from my part, because there is nothing inherently wrong with disliking TLJ, however I come to this conclusion over the fact that this opinion is incredibly common among a toxic group of people.

If somebody tells me the same thing in real life, I will probably think "well, that's an interesting opinion" and my perception of said person will not be affected in the end. This is mainly because I've never met any of these culture war people in real life, hence there is no existing stereotype of "TLJ critics" in this space. This is different on the Internet because I know that they are abundant there and I have previous experience with these people infiltrating the spaces I frequent online.

What separates the expectations we have in the Internet from those we have IRL is that the antisocials only have presence and power in one of these spaces. The antisocials you see in the Internet are often bullied, mocked, isolate and/or punched in the face IRL, which is why these rarely leave their caves. Of course I'm grateful that I, and I assume most people here, haven't met a lot of awful people in our lifetimes, which is why we are very trusting of people we end up meeting IRL. People who grew up surrounded by jerks, on the other hand, end up developing defensive mechanisms and trust issues, not very different from those you see in online spaces (although these people are in way harsher situation than the typical cyberbullying an online toxicity we are familiar with).

Now, if there was an hypothetical scenario where people couldn't punch faces or inflict any sort of physical pain IRL, I would say that our interactions in the real world would remain most likely the same. The thing is that empathy is a basic human function that most of us have, and those who don't have it will likely be marginalized in some way or another. This cannot happen in the Internet because people cannot be identified, hence little action can be taken against any kind of individual, antisocial or not (which is both a blessing and a curse).

So yeah I'm gonna say that is less "homo sapiens were assholes all along" and more like "The Internet is a big Among Us game where a small minority of antisocials infiltrate the spaces of normal people and causes them to withchunt after each other while trying to find the impostors"
 
Last edited:
chocolate_supra said:
Thankyoooooooouuuuu
I think it's part of why I use emojis so much actually, because in person I will be outrageously snarky but with a smile and a wink, and online if I just type what I'd normally say in person I fear it could come across as overly harsh without the vocal inflection and facial expressions to convey that I'm being lightheaded yall, so to get that across I just ๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿคฃ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ˜‰๐Ÿ˜˜ all the fuck over the place ๐Ÿ˜…
Click to expand...
I totally feel you on this! I dig emojis a lot in general, really. I'm always worried that if I use them too much, it'll come across childish, but screw it ๐Ÿ˜‚
Raccoon said:
I use yeahs as a nod more than anything else

you'll often see me yeah posts I disagree with or go against what I was saying just because I appreciate them
Click to expand...
I do this too, especially if the person I'm communicating with posted a highly thoughtful response.
hologram said:
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the anonymity aspect of it. Sure, some people will put their real name to stupid bullshit online, but far more often people hide behind avatars like a cat playing N64 and stupid made-up names like "hologram"
Click to expand...
I always, always picture your cat avatar in my mind so easily, but the controllers are never part of that mental image, to the point where if you'd asked me an hour ago if they were even there, I'd probably have guessed no! The cat itself is simply more dominant than video games, I guess.
 
Yzz said:
It's just that the Internet is a big melting pot of normal people and antisocials, and by antisocials I don't mean shy or introvert people, but mean jerks who lack basic empathy. Sane Internet users develop a system of stereotypes and prejudices with the purpose of snuffing out the antisocials, which result in a toxic environment where everybody is at each others throats. It doesn't help that many of these antisocials reside in echo chamber places where they end up becoming assimilating a hivemind and becoming walking stereotypes in the process, ultimately reinforcing the stereotypes and prejudices other people create.

The hyperbolic nature of hot takes makes them very compatible with this set of prejudices / stereotypes, which is why users who express these takes are the target of suspicion and toxicity.

To illustrate my point let me give you a terrible example:

If somebody in the Internet says that The Last Jedi is the worst movie they've ever seen, I will probably will just jump to the conclusion that said user is one of those soupbrain culture war critics, you know which ones. This is a big prejudice from my part, because there is nothing inherently wrong with disliking TLJ, however I come to this conclusion over the fact that this opinion is incredibly common among a toxic group of people.

If somebody tells me the same thing in real life, I will probably think "well, that's an interesting opinion" and my perception of said person will not be affected in the end. This is mainly because I've never met any of these culture war people in real life, hence there is no existing stereotype of "TLJ critics" in this space. This is different on the Internet because I know that they are abundant there and I have previous experience with these infiltrating the spaces I frequent online.

What separates the expectations we have in the Internet from those we have IRL is that the antisocials only have presence and power in one of these. The antisocials you see in the Internet are often bullied, mocked, isolate and/or punched in the face IRL, which is why these rarely leave their caves. Of course I'm grateful that I, and I assume most people here, haven't met a lot of awful people in our lifetimes, which is why we are very trusting of people we end up meeting IRL. People who grew up surrounded by jerks, on the other hand, end up developing defensive mechanisms and trust issues, not very different from those you see in online spaces (although these people are in way harsher situation than the typical cyberbullying an online toxicity we are familiar with).

Now, if there was an hypothetical scenario where people couldn't punch faces or inflict any sort of physical pain IRL, I would say that our interactions in the real world would remain most likely the same. The thing is that empathy is a basic human function that most of us have, and those who don't have it will likely be marginalized in some way or another. This cannot happen in the Internet because people cannot be identified, hence little action can be taken against any kind of individual, antisocial or not (which is both a blessing and a curse).

So yeah I'm gonna say that is less "homo sapiens were assholes all along" and more like "The Internet is a big Among Us game where a small minority of antisocials infiltrate the spaces of normal people and causes them to withchunt after each other while trying to find the impostors"
Click to expand...
Thats interesting. I think in person we are put on the spot more, and need to explain ourselves more succinctly, where as online that person that says the last jedi or captain marvel sucked may just ignore you, leading you to assume they are creatures of the deep.
 
Itโ€™s easier to talk shit behind a screen than it is in person, and I genuinely think the internet has created an environment where a) people think itโ€™s fine because itโ€™s online and b) some communities have encouraged it and made it okay to do so.
 
Beanstar40 said:
Thats interesting. I think in person we are put on the spot more, and need to explain ourselves more succinctly, where as online that person that says the last jedi or captain marvel sucked may just ignore you, leading you to assume they are creatures of the deep.
Click to expand...
To @Yzz's point, I think online we are far more liable to immediately put people in a drawer based on these sorts of opinions, while in person I think we are more likely to regard people as rounded individuals. There's not much sonder on the internet.

Beanstar40 said:
If Elroy and Frankie dont at least cameo in the movie ill be sad, though not as sad as I will be if Donald Glover and Yvette Nicole Brown donโ€™t sign on.
Click to expand...
What if Buzz Hickey has a major role. I love Jonathan Banks.
 
That's curious, I believe I behave worse in real life than on the Internet. I work in a restaurant so I've had my fair share of confrontations (generally only heated discussions) with very petty people and I generally put a stubbornly taciturn stance with others who speak too freely with me, if that makes sense. It's not common and it's not that I resort to violence but I don't have a problem letting people know what I feel, sometimes implicitly.

On the Internet you don't have those cues so it's usually smooth sailing.
 
0
bellydrum said:
I think that's implicit with the whole discussion about having no repercussions online vs IRL
Click to expand...
I don't think anonymity is fully about repercussions, there's also perception. People don't like the idea of someone else thinking they're a bad person. Even online, in spaces without anonymity I tend to find things are more civil. Conversely, IRL spaces with anonymity (think masked parties or whatever) can lend themselves to people behaving in ways that they wouldn't usually, even if it's not necessarily in the same vein of espousing unpopular political beliefs or generally just being an asshole

Anyway TL;DR I think "fear of repercussions" and "fear of negative perception" are two big reasons why people are more civil IRL, and they're related but not identical
 
hologram said:
I don't think anonymity is fully about repercussions, there's also perception. People don't like the idea of someone else thinking they're a bad person. Even online, in spaces without anonymity I tend to find things are more civil. Conversely, IRL spaces with anonymity (think masked parties or whatever) can lend themselves to people behaving in ways that they wouldn't usually, even if it's not necessarily in the same vein of espousing unpopular political beliefs or generally just being an asshole

Anyway TL;DR I think "fear of repercussions" and "fear of negative perception" are two big reasons why people are more civil IRL, and they're related but not identical
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because my brain is cement due to being off my medications for about three weeks, but I don't really understand how this specificity is relevant - either way, the delineation is between IRL and online, and whether your real name is attached to something or not, actions are less filtered. Facebook is a perfect example. Whether your name is attached to your account or not, there's no real-time human empathetic feedback loop occurring in a conversation, and therefore there is much less likelihood of "holding back", if you will.

I'm not sure if you've been to a masked party IRL or not, but the level of discrepency in "normal behavior" at one of those is nothing compared to that of online vs offline
 
bellydrum said:
Maybe it's because my brain is cement due to being off my medications for about three weeks, but I don't really understand how this specificity is relevant - either way, the delineation is between IRL and online, and whether your real name is attached to something or not, actions are less filtered. Facebook is a perfect example. Whether your name is attached to your account or not, there's no real-time human empathetic feedback loop occurring in a conversation, and therefore there is much less likelihood of "holding back", if you will.

I'm not sure if you've been to a masked party IRL or not, but the level of discrepency in "normal behavior" at one of those is nothing compared to that of online vs offline
Click to expand...
You said that the point about anonymity and the point about lesser repercussions were the same. I was pointing out why that's not true. There can be multiple reasons!

People on Facebook, using their real names, are often worse than people IRL, but people using anonymous accounts on 4chan or whatever are much worse than that
 
To be a real participant in the conversation though I will say this:

The core root of the problem in my mind is that our brains did not develop as quickly as technology developed. Real names or not, when the generic person is talking to other people online, the brain is tricked into forgetting that a real, living, breathing human is on the receiving end of the message.

I think our sympathy and empathy is directly tied to being able to be in the presence of one another, to hear verbal & tonal cues, to see facial expressions, etc. When you remove that aspect of interaction, you are often removing a layer of empathy for anyone on the receiving end.

Not to say that everyone thinks like this, but I think the majority of people do. There's a lot to be said about the effects of the technology boom & how our physiology responded.
 
toastie said:
To be a real participant in the conversation though I will say this:

The core root of the problem in my mind is that our brains did not develop as quickly as technology developed. Real names or not, when the generic person is talking to other people online, the brain is tricked into forgetting that a real, living, breathing human is on the receiving end of the message.

I think our sympathy and empathy is directly tied to being able to be in the presence of one another, to hear verbal & tonal cues, to see facial expressions, etc. When you remove that aspect of interaction, you are often removing a layer of empathy for anyone on the receiving end.

Not to say that everyone thinks like this, but I think the majority of people do. There's a lot to be said about the effects of the technology boom & how our physiology responded.
Click to expand...
Thats part of the reason I'm glad mediums like tik tok have taken off, say what you will, but being able to see a face and empathize on social media will hopefully move people further away from knee jerk troll reactions.
 
Yeah, I actually totally agree with the notion that technology has boomed wayyyy quicker than our primitive village-ape minds have been able to adapt to.
Not that I'm knowledgable on the subject of human psychology at all (think Britta level), but I feel like looking at the general landscape of online interactions makes more sense when you look at it through that lens.

1677782627370.png
 
0
Beanstar40 said:
Thats part of the reason I'm glad mediums like tik tok have taken off, say what you will, but being able to see a face and empathize on social media will hopefully move people further away from knee jerk troll reactions.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think the new problem we are going to start (and already have started) seeing is kids on the internet thinking that they are anonymous/safe to say whatever they can think of because they aren't being taught the same media literacy as people at the start of the internet were, but that's a whole other pizza to slice.
 
Cause it's easy. I definitely had a habit of saying meaner stuff online, especially on forums than I ever would irl. I've definitely caught myself and don't do it anywhere near as often but there still times when I write something and immediately feel I went too far.
 
toastie said:
To be a real participant in the conversation though I will say this:

The core root of the problem in my mind is that our brains did not develop as quickly as technology developed. Real names or not, when the generic person is talking to other people online, the brain is tricked into forgetting that a real, living, breathing human is on the receiving end of the message.

I think our sympathy and empathy is directly tied to being able to be in the presence of one another, to hear verbal & tonal cues, to see facial expressions, etc. When you remove that aspect of interaction, you are often removing a layer of empathy for anyone on the receiving end.

Not to say that everyone thinks like this, but I think the majority of people do. There's a lot to be said about the effects of the technology boom & how our physiology responded.
Click to expand...
I think this is a really interesting perspective because it's almost kinda the opposite of the "repercussions" or "anonymity" arguments (or are they the same argument? ๐Ÿ˜Š). Are humans naturally empathetic, but the removal of face-to-face interactions robs us of that ability to empathize? Or would humans immediately go mask-off at the first opportunity, but social norms and/or the possibility of repercussions persuade us not to? Or is it possibly some combination of the two?
 
hologram said:
I think this is a really interesting perspective because it's almost kinda the opposite of the "repercussions" or "anonymity" arguments (or are they the same argument? ๐Ÿ˜Š). Are humans naturally empathetic, but the removal of face-to-face interactions robs us of that ability to empathize? Or would humans immediately go mask-off at the first opportunity, but social norms and/or the possibility of repercussions persuade us not to? Or is it possibly some combination of the two?
Click to expand...
both! there are a lotta different people with a lotta different mental constructs for existing in a society. I think anonymity plays on everyone a little bit differently.
 
hologram said:
I think this is a really interesting perspective because it's almost kinda the opposite of the "repercussions" or "anonymity" arguments (or are they the same argument? ๐Ÿ˜Š). Are humans naturally empathetic, but the removal of face-to-face interactions robs us of that ability to empathize? Or would humans immediately go mask-off at the first opportunity, but social norms and/or the possibility of repercussions persuade us not to? Or is it possibly some combination of the two?
Click to expand...

I think of it a lot like the "uncanny valley" effect. When we recognize someone is human, we have empathy. When we don't, it is a threat. If our brains don't recognize the other people on the internet as PEOPLE, then they become a being that we no longer need to have nicety toward. This allows us to then become (what some might call) uncharacteristically mean as a response.
 
In many instances, it's hard to gauge tone. If I say something like "That doesn't seem right" or "Not necessarily" the written form may come across as harsher than I intended and how I might intonate that in real life. We're hardwired to recognize a lot of body language, facial and vocal cues so without that information, we project a mood onto text. It's why I encourage emoji use ๐Ÿ˜—
 
hologram said:
I think this is a really interesting perspective because it's almost kinda the opposite of the "repercussions" or "anonymity" arguments (or are they the same argument? ๐Ÿ˜Š). Are humans naturally empathetic, but the removal of face-to-face interactions robs us of that ability to empathize? Or would humans immediately go mask-off at the first opportunity, but social norms and/or the possibility of repercussions persuade us not to? Or is it possibly some combination of the two?
Click to expand...
To me it kind of sounds like a deeper investigation into the fear of repercussions or anonymity topic, rather than some sort of conflicting position. It's positing some deeper psychology behind it, rather than conscious intention.

Also when did this become an argument

Actually, I take all that back, and will leave y'all with my closing statement:

65FC0A5D-01A3-435E-8CB6-BBD85D9E5828.jpeg
 
bellydrum said:
To me it kind of sounds like a deeper investigation into the fear of repercussions or anonymity topic, rather than some sort of conflicting position. It's positing some deeper psychology behind it, rather than conscious intention.

Also when did this become an argument
Click to expand...
I think maybe you're reading too much into the word "argument". Replace it with the word "hypothesis" if you like. It's likely every point raised in this thread contributes in some way to the differences between IRL and online behavior
 
Beanstar40 said:
With the way people speak to eachother on social media and forums, the impression that youโ€™d get is that everyone just hates each other. Im certainly guilty of this, some times its easier to post an ill advised hot take or snark laiden response than it is to formulate a well thought out, respectful reply when engaging in dissagreements. Another question is, if the thread of physical repercussions didnโ€™t exist in the real world (i.e. getting punched) would people be just as snarky offline?
Click to expand...

it has less to do with the threat of physical repercussions like getting punched in the face and more to do with the empathy response of seeing that something you did made someone else sad. its way, way harder to really lay into someone irl than it is online without feeling some type of way about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom