Have You Been Abused Or Bullied On The Internet

[lulzfish]

So I guess when the "bullying" extends to sending families phone calls to torment them over their child committing suicide then they must be spineless for being upset over it. Trolling on the internet doesn't really know any limits.

I would say it's limited to the Internet. Now, if you called them over VoIP.

 

[Exophase]

I would say it's limited to the Internet. Now, if you called them over VoIP.

Okay, I really meant trolling initiated over the internet, and that there's no real boundary that some internet troll won't pass. Would a better example be hacking into someone's bank account and stealing all their money?

 

[SNESFAN]

I've been made fun of on account of my ethnicity and my taste in classical music on Youtube.
Here, well... I'm not going there :lol:

TELL ME WHO IS PICKING ON YOU SO I CAN GO BEAT THEM UP AND TELL THEIR PARENTS THAT THEY WERE HARASSING YOU. DOUBLE WHAM!

POW!!! Mother F**king Catalina Wine Mixer!

 

[lulzfish]

I would say it's limited to the Internet. Now, if you called them over VoIP.

Okay, I really meant trolling initiated over the internet, and that there's no real boundary that some internet troll won't pass. Would a better example be hacking into someone's bank account and stealing all their money?

Most people have limits, but some of them don't, so you are technically correct. For some people (usually on 4chan) there is no boundary between OTI and IRL trolling.

 

[quote]

Back in 2003 on these boards, I was 13, and got pushed around a bit by Klown and Bringoutthegimp.

I don't blame them. Your name was 'wolly wotsit'.



Jokes.

 

[Fishbong]

Ah, the usual apologetic bullshit for assholes on the internet.

I do not think i have apologized for anyone or anything. And what makes you call me an asshole? Is it because i have a different opinion?

So I guess when the "bullying" extends to sending families phone calls to torment them over their child committing suicide then they must be spineless for being upset over it.

You are talking about rare and extreme cases. The telephone terror you describe isn't cyberbullying anyway.

Trolling on the internet doesn't really know any limits. You can choose not to ACT in response something, but a choice not to feel bad about how someone treats you is by and large a myth. In my opinion, a lot of strategies to ignore negative feelings are actually unhealthy.

I agree. Once an insult gets to you, you cannot ignore it. But why does anyone have to acknowledge insults on the internet? It is, after all completely different from the "real world" where you have to live with the conduct of your peers. Why take serious the words of a stranger who doesn't know you?

Regardless of what one tells themselves, people generally don't like being singled out and embarrassed, especially if it's in a group they'd like to be a meaningful contributor to. "Bullies" are not always isolated individuals but can be an entire mob herded against someone. You can call this meaningless attention to popularity, but the opposite extreme of being popular is being completely alone, and nobody wants that.

This applies only in real life, where you often cannot choose the people that surround you. On the internet, you can.

Thinking that people who intentionally seek to upset others don't have a problem with them is a broad assumption

It is also one i didn't make.

In my opinion, the blanket "internet is serious business lolz" response is a coping mechanism, and borders on delusional. Having self-esteem and "individuality" doesn't mean that suddenly nothing matters to you.

What it does mean is that you should put into perspective what you read and hear. For instance, you calling me an asshole in your reply doesn't matter, since i don't know you and i dont care what you think about me anyway. If you said that to my face however, i think i would be pretty offended.
Furthermore it is a way - the only way - to combat trolling. As long as they are being taken serious, you can't fight trolls. Should be pretty obvious.

What matters to a person, and therefore what should be taken seriously, is a subjective matter that's dictated by their circumstances, desires, and personality. For people who spend several hours a day worth of energy trying to upset others I would certainly expect that it matters to them on some personal level and that they're not acting completely arbitrarily. And to tell people the "right" way something should make them feel certainly doesn't seem to be promoting individuality to me.

Right. People will always get upset about meaningless things. Some are even looking for things to be upset about. But that should not mean that these things should be of concern to anyone else.

At any rate, regardless of what you feel about the victims, I don't see how that excuses the behavior of the tormentor.

Me neither.

Given that people are often more quick to insult the victim than help them I am lead to believe that they're really just defending bad behavior, ie painting a picture where the other person deserves it. I can only wonder why someone would do this - it could be that they themselves are pricks online, or maybe they want to show how secure and confident they are in comparison.

So i should defend victims of cyberbullying and trolling, thus further validating the insults and attacks?
I think this is what's called "feeding the trolls".

In your whole big rant i could not find a single sentence on how to handle the troll/cyberbully problem. If ignoring them isn't the way, than what is?

 

[Exophase]

For what it's worth, the sort of stuff I'm speaking out against seems much more severe to me than anything I've seen on this board... even PoisonedV and quasist were pretty low on my personal scale. But that's all really subjective. Still, by and large I find these boards really mature and hospitable compared to most...

Something else I feel I should mention is that I'm not automatically excusing the behavior that invites insults. And when I say it's natural for people to feel bad and not want to put up with it I don't mean it's okay for them to go on ridiculous tirades and try to get revenge that's way out of proportion to anything said to them, or to be a big hypocrite about the whole thing (cough, Kalisiin...). Just, the behavior of the "victim" and the "aggressor" should be assessed separately. They can easily both be in the wrong on several counts.

 

[Exophase]

I do not think i have apologized for anyone or anything. And what makes you call me an asshole? Is it because i have a different opinion?

An "apologetic" is not an apology, it's a justification; I encourage you to look up the definition. I also was not calling YOU an asshole, I said that you were rationalizing behavior of assholes, I'm sorry if you took it as a personal insult.

You are talking about rare and extreme cases. The telephone terror you describe isn't cyberbullying anyway.

I took it to such an extreme to show that generalizations such as you have made are not appropriate.

I agree. Once an insult gets to you, you cannot ignore it. But why does anyone have to acknowledge insults on the internet? It is, after all completely different from the "real world" where you have to live with the conduct of your peers. Why take serious the words of a stranger who doesn't know you?

You don't have to acknowledge anything, but sometimes it's more productive to assertively address a problem than to ignore it and hope it goes away. As far as "the internet" vs "real life" and how people online are "strangers" goes, I think that I've addressed this in my earlier posts on this thread. I really don't think that it is completely different from the real world at all - by and large you are not forced to interact with other people, at least beyond a certain age. If you don't like your coworkers you can quit, if you don't like your neighbors you can move, if you don't like your acquaintances you can choose new ones.

These things all have an associated cost. But so do choices on the internet. If I had to leave this website I'd consider it a substantial personal loss, and I think the same goes for many who spend a lot of time posting here. If all of a sudden the entire board hated me and insisted I leave then yes, I would feel bad, and I probably would leave, ie acknowledging their response. The point I'm making is that just because something is online doesn't mean it doesn't matter, and just because something is in "real life" doesn't mean it's absolute.

This applies only in real life, where you often cannot choose the people that surround you. On the internet, you can.

See above response. I think even the common "non-real life" status of the internet is itself a delusion.

It is also one i didn't make.

Actually you did, in pretty plain English:

"In any case not because he has an actual problem with the victim."

What it does mean is that you should put into perspective what you read and hear. For instance, you calling me an asshole in your reply doesn't matter, since i don't know you and i dont care what you think about me anyway. If you said that to my face however, i think i would be pretty offended.

I explained I didn't call you an asshole, but why would you be more offended if I called you that to your face? It'd only be because you value internet contact less, not because I'd have had a different intention. Your valuations are a personal decision and completely irrelevant to anybody else. It's not appropriate for you to determine otherwise. There are people online whom I DO know (much better than many in person) and I DO care what they think, and that's not wrong just because you have a different worldview. That's the basic point I'm trying to make in all of this.

Furthermore it is a way - the only way - to combat trolling. As long as they are being taken serious, you can't fight trolls. Should be pretty obvious.

I disagree. For instance, banning trolls is a better way to deal with them than ignoring them.

.. quote block limit, to be continued -_-

 

[Exophase]

Part two :B

Right. People will always get upset about meaningless things. Some are even looking for things to be upset about. But that should not mean that these things should be of concern to anyone else.

"Meaning" is fully in the eye of the beholder. As far as I'm concerned no one has any business calling something that matters to someone else meaningless. This viewpoint extends well beyond how people regard the internet.

Me neither.

But I said that because your post is only reprimanding the victim.

So i should defend victims of cyberbullying and trolling, thus further validating the insults and attacks?
I think this is what's called "feeding the trolls".

Defending them validates the insults and attacks? That seems completely illogical to me. This whole stance seems like half-baked reverse psychology.

In your whole big rant i could not find a single sentence on how to handle the troll/cyberbully problem. If ignoring them isn't the way, than what is?

Get support of the rest of the community, particularly administration, to show that this kind of behavior is unwelcome. Often times people go along with something just because they think no one else cares. Meaning that you have a large group of people who actually do care but are silent on it.

 

[DisgruntleElf]

Sadly no one has heard or saw of these "online" people again.

I don't know if you're trying to make a point or be funny or what you're trying to say at all really...

Friends are friends, and sometimes they stop being friends. When you're used to talking to that person online or on the phone it's easier to maintain communication because it's not dependent on maintaining physical proximity.

Actually it was a poor attempt at humor. I was suggesting that you were an on-line stalker/killer luring poor unsuspecting friendless on-line souls to their certain doom. But I see that it was in bad taste as you take friendship very seriously and if the joke has to be explained it just sucks.

Oh, I thought the joke was that he was hallucinating all his Internet friends because he was a loner whose passing shall not be mourned.
But your joke was a lot better because it didn't imply he has a pathetic social life, just that he's a crazed killer.

I would not call Exophase a "crazed" killer. He's extremely intelligent and very articulate. I'd label him a "tactical strategic" killer. I do appreciate your effort to save this failed attempt at humor unless this backhanded cheap shot at me. Not sure yet.

 

[Fishbong]

Okay.
Seemingly you do neither know what a troll is nor how they operate.
Banning them is seldomly a solution. Dynamic IP and broxys make bans ineffective
Making a big drama and "show that this kind of behavior is unwelcome"? How naive are you? They know full well their behavior is unwelcome, that's the whole point of it. And this is also why defending the victim validates the attacks. To the bully/troll, this is just a satisfying confirmation that the attack was successful.
I may be reprimanding victims, but why shouldn't i? They are the ones that make cyberbullying possible. No troll would be successful if they wouldn't keep coming back for more again and again.

If someone keeps all his doors and windows open, his insurance won't pay in the case of theft. Is his insurance company "rationalizing the behavior of assholes"? No. And neither am i. The fact of the matter is that if you make no effort to avoid problems such as this, you are partially responsible for them. In the case of cyberbullying, you even have to actively communicate with the bully(s) to be bullied. Although the offender is to blame, a victim that helps the culprit by doing stupid things deserves no pity. Of course your opinion might differ, seeing as you are from a country where many people have gotten quite wealthy by doing stupid things.
You are being harassed on the internet? Just disregard it and don't react. Problem solved. You can of course write a big response on how you are totally not a fag and how you find their language offensive, but what's the point? They're just going to mock you more.

It is also one i didn't make.

Actually you did, in pretty plain English:

"In any case not because he has an actual problem with the victim."

I missed the "with them" in your original statement. You are right anyway, there are cases of cyberbullying where the bully has a problem with the victim, like the ever so popular channers vs. furrys.

"Meaning" is fully in the eye of the beholder. As far as I'm concerned no one has any business calling something that matters to someone else meaningless.

Oh really? What you deem important is not subject to objective evaluation? Then how can you challenge my opinion, which obviously has lots of meaning to me? Do you maybe believe that opinions too cannot be objectively judged? Then why have a dicussion?

 

[Exophase]

Okay.
Seemingly you do neither know what a troll is nor how they operate.
Banning them is seldomly a solution. Dynamic IP and broxys make bans ineffective

I disagree entirely. It doesn't matter if they keep evading if you keep banning them - it's substantially less work to do the latter than it is the former. If they fail to be detected as problematic then there is no longer a problem. The point of banning isn't to punish people, it's to keep disruptive elements out.

Making a big drama and "show that this kind of behavior is unwelcome"? How naive are you? They know full well their behavior is unwelcome, that's the whole point of it. And this is also why defending the victim validates the attacks. To the bully/troll, this is just a satisfying confirmation that the attack was successful.

It's not to show THEM that the behavior is unwelcome, it's to establish in the community that it won't be tolerated and something will be done about it. You focus so much on whether something satisfies them or not, but who cares? And how is that validation? Again, the point is to protect people from attacks, not to punish people for attacking. All this talk about "big drama" is just more internet stereotyping as far as I'm concerned.

I may be reprimanding victims, but why shouldn't i? They are the ones that make cyberbullying possible. No troll would be successful if they wouldn't keep coming back for more again and again.

You shouldn't be reprimanding them because they didn't do anything wrong. If you think troll behavior is so ultimately ineffectual to you then why do you even care who "enables" it...

If someone keeps all his doors and windows open, his insurance won't pay in the case of theft. Is his insurance company "rationalizing the behavior of assholes"? No. And neither am i.

The insurance company might not cover it, since they're a for profit organization that has to optimize profits by minimizing risk. But the police would still investigate it, and it would not be regarded as acceptable by the community.

The fact of the matter is that if you make no effort to avoid problems such as this, you are partially responsible for them.

Well I obviously disagree, that the victim shares responsibility for not preventing what someone does to them.

In the case of cyberbullying, you even have to actively communicate with the bully(s) to be bullied. Although the offender is to blame, a victim that helps the culprit by doing stupid things deserves no pity.

This is exactly what I mean by rationalizing their behavior. Of course, you automatically assume that the person being trolled is doing "stupid things", you don't think this shows sympathy for the ones trolling? People can troll for any reason, and what's regarded as a "stupid thing" is another one of those very subjective qualities.

I think people who are made to suffer through no fault of their own do deserve pity, regardless of the cause of that suffering. If people were more compassionate regarding how others felt rather than just how things make them feel then the world would be a much better place.

Of course your opinion might differ, seeing as you are from a country where many people have gotten quite wealthy by doing stupid things.

Bringing nationalism into this? How petty, yet disappointingly typical.

You are being harassed on the internet? Just disregard it and don't react. Problem solved. You can of course write a big response on how you are totally not a fag and how you find their language offensive, but what's the point? They're just going to mock you more.

You assume people will stop harassing you if you don't react because you think they only care about the response. But if they even think you MIGHT not like it they could continue. Trying to appeal to THEM was not the point and never a solution. On the other hand, a collective effort on the part of a community to disallow this kind of behavior CAN go a long way.

Oh really? What you deem important is not subject to objective evaluation? Then how can you challenge my opinion, which obviously has lots of meaning to me? Do you maybe believe that opinions too cannot be objectively judged? Then why have a dicussion?

Because whether or not something has meaning to someone on a personal level (ie, the internet mattering) and whether or not a stance is logically sound or fair given some basic standards of interpersonal conduct are not the same thing. Nice attempt at using my argument against me though.

 

[SNESFAN]

*eats popcorn*

*watches*

*cheers for exophase*

 

[Jourdy288]

*eats popcorn*

*watches*

*cheers for exophase*

Why does this feel like Gladiator?

Of course your opinion might differ, seeing as you are from a country where many people have gotten quite wealthy by doing stupid things.

There's your problem, using Fox News as a source.

 

[Nova]

Lmao.

 

[sam fisher]

Is that actually present on their site :blink: ?

 

[Username]

Is that actually present on their site :blink: ?

You could've right clicked it and clicked view image. But to answer your question, yes.

@Exophase: I can act like an ass and call Peter an anal douche, but he can just ignore me and then what the fuck can I do? Keep pestering him? Unless I manage to hack his email account or steam account etc nothing I do can actually piss him off unless he allows me to by responding.

Also I would like to add that you are an anal douche Peter and are in no way as good as the real Spiderman.

 

[lulzfish]

Lmao.

Is that actually present on their site :blink: ?

I don't get it, that isn't their slogan?

 

[Exophase]

@Exophase: I can act like an ass and call Peter an anal douche, but he can just ignore me and then what the fuck can I do? Keep pestering him? Unless I manage to hack his email account or steam account etc nothing I do can actually piss him off unless he allows me to by responding.

Still don't get this whole "you're only pissed off if you respond" idea, doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Personally, not responding to something makes me much more pissed off, if it's something that means anything to me. Of course I'm not talking about throwing around petty insults, but then again I'm not sure I ever was. I mean, like when someone on IRC says something very out of line to me, I feel much better if I tell them off than if I react politely and leave. Bear in mind, the latter is what I always strive to do, and that means I end up feeling bad from it. Suffice it to say, I don't go back on IRC channels that have very unreasonable people. But I hope you get my point, that venting and addressing people who bother you can make you feel better about it, otherwise you're liable to feel like you're okay with someone walking all over you.

But how people actually feel about things is going to vary a lot from person to person.

 

[Nova]

Lmao.

Is that actually present on their site :blink: ?

I don't get it, that isn't their slogan?

Are you kidding? Fox are SO biased.