Social Networking and Social Responsibility

[Tiassa]

What are our social obligations in a semi-anonymous social network?

• Once upon a time the moderators of this site had occasion to consider whether a discussion of suicide related to one of our members should be taken seriously.

• Internet communities often have, in addition to their administrators and moderators, self-appointed vigilantes who pursue all manner of perceived offenses from poltical incorrectness to hypocrisy, argumentativ fallacies to open hatred. Furthermore, many of us, especially in religious, political, and ethical discussions, attack not only the views of members in any given discussion, but entire paradigms and perspectives.

• Sometimes we joke about the developmental and psychiatric fitness of our neighbors at Sciforums, and on occasion we genuinely wonder.​

Once I got into a tremendous row because someone thought I'd made a crass suggestion about another poster killing himself. I admit I found that one annoying because one of my inner sentiments is that there are people whose best contribution to humanity, life, the Universe, and everything would be suicide, but in this case I had actually taken a measure to avoid that slight. It is, after all, a vicious one.

Of late, I managed to gravely insult another poster by trying to make a point about judging the moral value of other people according to certain criteria. I've actually considered apologizing, but even in doing so I sound like I'm insulting someone: "I didn't realize you were going to take me so seriously. I'm sorry." I mean, there is, at least, an interpretation of that makes it sound half-assed. I mean, really. It's a member I don't genearlly get along with, and even though we've had a couple of lighter moments in recent days, I ought to know better than to take such swipes. One cannot presume that things have suddenly become "just fine" between us.

And in dwelling on that point, I came to wonder about cruelty in general. Because the flip side of apologizing is that I really didn't think this one was beyond the pale of what usually flies around here. So part of me wonders why I should worry about it when the mundane is generally even stronger and sharper.

Part of disagreeing is that we're going to sometimes find other people's beliefs utterly repugnant, and that means occasionally people are going to find what I believe repugnant. This should neither surprise nor bother me.

But I'm curious about people's emotional investments. We aren't spending words on such considerations in order to waste time, right? I mean, people who feel injured by a sense or tone of mocking actually feel that injury, right? We're not just stepping aside and worrying about how offended someone is when they're not actually offended, right? I mean, think about that: The idea that complaints about people's tones, characterizations, or behavior are just time-wasting methods because the topic itself is too hard to discuss. Isn't that just a bit off balance?

The whole thing starts to run into contradictions: I perceive many people whose rhetoric is fiercely sharper than what they're able to withstand. How is it that, for instance, someone whose argument tends to justify theories according to which he or she gets to "downgrade" other people's human worth can't handle a little bit of sarcasm? I mean, there is something inherently cruel in arguing that one gets to decide who is less than human.

So either way it's worrisome. Either way it seems just a bit insane.

And that's at the heart of the question: Given that there are human beings behind these avatars and façades, what responsible consideration do we owe potential emotional and psychiatric fragility?

 

[Baron Max]

Geez, Tiassa, you're being awfully sensitive, aren't you?

This is all just a game, didn't you know that?

We're all hiding behind anonymity, so we can do and say whatever we want, and no one can do much about it. It's just a game, a fun little game, ...even if it sometimes gets a bit out of hand, it's still a stupid little game. If it weren't, we wouldn't all hide behind anonymity.

I would suggest, Tiassa, that you get a real life ...but then that might come out like a slap in the face - and that's not the way I intend it to be. This is just a game, Tiassa, an't nothin' more, and nothin' less.

And I think that if something that's said here bothers you as much as you've noted above, then perhaps you should go somewhere else? Like, fairytales (dot) com or luvy-duvy-liberal-doo-gooders (dot) com or such sites. And, yes, that goes for everyone, not just you, Tiassa.

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

I think we should realise that people tend to be a little less restrained online where the dishing out is concerned but as vulnerable where the taking it is.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think we should realise that people tend to be a little less restrained online where the dishing out is concerned but as vulnerable where the taking it is.

Astute comment.

Edit: Wait! you mean the posters are all humans?

 

[sniffy]

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Oh wait that's crap isn't it.....?

 

[Read-Only]

And that's at the heart of the question: Given that there are human beings behind these avatars and façades, what responsible consideration do we owe potential emotional and psychiatric fragility?

Absolutely no responsibility toward them at all!! Their "potential emotional and psychiatric fragility" is solely their own responsibility to develop properly or correct when needed. When a statement is made here there will be those who will understand it properly and some weak-minded fools/idiots who completely lack the wherewithal to comprehend that Tuesday always follows Monday. I have no sympathy for such stupid individuals and could not possibly care less what effect my statements might/might not have on them.

 

[Baron Max]

I'm really surprised that so few people have commented on this threa. But I think I know the reason ......it's Tiassa's tendency to be so wordy and convoluted that causes a bit of confusion as to what the fuck he's talking about.

If he'd just say or ask what the fuck the point is, without all the bullshit history and background, then maybe more people would respond.

Basically he's asking if we, as forum members, have any personal responsibilities towards all the other members ...including the idiots and fools and whiney wimps. Well, ...do you?

Baron Max

 

[Jenyar]

Trust Tiassa to be the one who lures me back into sci-feelums!

I consider myself a pretty empathic person, but often in emotional arguments my left brain tends to take over, and I violate that principle of good communication: focus on feelings rather than content, the process rather than its peculiarities.

That's left me in some tricky situations, where I'd find myself knee-deep in things that someone had read between the lines, and trying to dig my way back out by fielding one irrational accusation after another, which only gets me deeper into trouble. And I'm not even sure apologies are much use at that point. Someone who is quick to take offence is often slow to forgive.

While many come to a forum like this with their personalities firmly in place and their insecurities safely locked and labelled away like in Stephen King's Dreamcatcher, many others invest themselves deeply in the virtual world and won't make the distinction between their arguments and their egos. It seems an unfair burden for someone else to place on me, that I should be the one who has to watch my step when they have ventured into the gauntlet unprepared, but if you place any value on social responsibility and emotional maturity, that's the price you pay for it. Even games have rules. Unless you like making kids cry, it's always good form to play nice.

So my own conclusion has been to take every poster as a unique person, with idiosyncrasies and hidden offline variables, find and engage them on a level I'm personally comfortable with, and then let them lap on my shores or beat themselves up against my cliffs as they like. I generally treat people as I would like to be treated. After all, I'm also an anonymous poster/poser as far as they're concerned.

But we can't take responsibility for other people's emotional and psychological stability, or we'll end up riding the rollercoaster with them.

 

[Baron Max]

So my own conclusion has been to take every poster as a unique person, with idiosyncrasies and hidden offline variables, ...

That's something that's always bothered me a little about Internet forums ...treating the words typed on a screen as an actual person rather than what it is ...a bunch of words typed on a screen.

I'm not saying that I'm completely free of that odd feeling or sense, but I typically respond to the words typed, not to some "person" that I've conjured up in my own mind. I find that something like arguing with a book you're reading ....would you do that? Would you get angry at the book? Do you get angry at the newspaper over something printed in it?

Perhaps a good or better question here would be why do we "invent" personalities and characteristics for these ...anonymous posters?

Another a good question is ...are all of these anonymous posters actually and honestly representing themselves with the words they type? Or are they lying about it? And how do you know? Or for example, could you, or anyone, register as a different name, and post the exact opposite of what you really feel and think?

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

This is all just a game, didn't you know that?

I suspected. I'm just glad you finally admitted it.

. It's just a game, a fun little game, ...even if it sometimes gets a bit out of hand, it's still a stupid little game.

A very stupid game.

I would suggest, Tiassa, that you get a real life ...but then that might come out like a slap in the face - and that's not the way I intend it to be. This is just a game, Tiassa, an't nothin' more, and nothin' less

I would suggest, Max, that you reconsider a certain point. Most likely, we all need to get lives. But in the meantime, your "game" goes out of its way to disrupt other people's discussions.

And I think that if something that's said here bothers you as much as you've noted above, then perhaps you should go somewhere else? Like, fairytales (dot) com or luvy-duvy-liberal-doo-gooders (dot) com or such sites. And, yes, that goes for everyone, not just you, Tiassa.

Actually, Max, you've provided part of the response I was seeking. I know better now how to treat you and your ilk.

• • •​

Absolutely no responsibility toward them at all!! Their "potential emotional and psychiatric fragility" is solely their own responsibility to develop properly or correct when needed.

Noted.

• • •​

But we can't take responsibility for other people's emotional and psychological stability, or we'll end up riding the rollercoaster with them.

In the same context, though, should we go out of our way to agitate people? For instance, the number of ESL members we have around here generally discourages what was once a common argument, that one's opponent needs to learn to read. Now, given that there are some native-English members whose posting life depends almost entirely on semi-literate, knee-jerk reactions, don't you think it a fair point?

• • •​

That's something that's always bothered me a little about Internet forums ...treating the words typed on a screen as an actual person rather than what it is ...a bunch of words typed on a screen.

Actually, you are responding to your own projection of a person. By eliminating the actual person behind the words, you're allowing yourself to invent what is simply the most convenient effigy to encourage your hateful behavior.

• • •​

Thank you all for your input. And, indeed, don't let me stop the discussion. Your answers have helped me figure out what to do about a number of members who go out of their way to be dishonest and offensive, yet whine like brats whenever they face any sort of opposition.

Max, I want to thank you especially. You've been very helpful.

 

[mikenostic]

Tiassa,
(I'm legitimately asking this)...hehe, like Baron said eariler, What is your point exactly? I ask this because you cover several topics. Did you have one specific point or were there several you were trying to get across?
I'm asking for clarification so I can (like you mentioned) respond to your material, under the correct interpretation of it.

Buy I'll also respond according to how I have interpreted it so far.
I think a lot of the perceptions come from just that, perceptions. Different people percieve things differently. And reading someone's post on an internet forum can skew those perceptions even more. To clarify what I mean; you can neither read facial expressions, nor hear voice inflections. Things can get easily taken out of context.
An 'insult' intended to be a joke towards someone can get misinterpreted.

I made a post on one of my mtn bike forums about jumps made of dirt vs. jumps made of wood. I asked the posters to discuss what the advantages and disadvantages were.
I also came to the conclusion, and posted it to where a blind man could see it; What you build your ramps out of depends on your locale and available help and materials.
Even though I made that statement, I still wanted to debate (tactfully) why this was this and this was that, to get different opinions and why they build what they build. However, one poster, screwed that up by being condescending and started talking shit about his superior knowledge about everything. I tactfully defended myself and left the thread. I didn't feel like having a childish argument, because....someone misinterpreted what I was trying to get across and wouldn't listen. He even made a valid point about dirt jumps that I would have otherwise conceded to, but since he wanted to be a dick about it, I left the discussion.

 

[Read-Only]

Tiassa,
(I'm legitimately asking this)...hehe, like Baron said eariler, What is your point exactly? I ask this because you cover several topics. Did you have one specific point or were there several you were trying to get across?
I'm asking for clarification so I can (like you mentioned) respond to your material, under the correct interpretation of it.

Buy I'll also respond according to how I have interpreted it so far.
I think a lot of the perceptions come from just that, perceptions. Different people percieve things differently. And reading someone's post on an internet forum can skew those perceptions even more. To clarify what I mean; you can neither read facial expressions, nor hear voice inflections. Things can get easily taken out of context.
An 'insult' intended to be a joke towards someone can get misinterpreted.

I made a post on one of my mtn bike forums about jumps made of dirt vs. jumps made of wood. I asked the posters to discuss what the advantages and disadvantages were.
I also came to the conclusion, and posted it to where a blind man could see it; What you build your ramps out of depends on your locale and available help and materials.
Even though I made that statement, I still wanted to debate (tactfully) why this was this and this was that, to get different opinions and why they build what they build. However, one poster, screwed that up by being condescending and started talking shit about his superior knowledge about everything. I tactfully defended myself and left the thread. I didn't feel like having a childish argument, because....someone misinterpreted what I was trying to get across and wouldn't listen. He even made a valid point about dirt jumps that I would have otherwise conceded to, but since he wanted to be a dick about it, I left the discussion.

I constantly find myself doing the same thing here, Mike. There are far to many idiots present to make it worth trying to carry a discussion very far. It's been that way since day-1 for me when some dolts took a statement from my very first post and "perceived" it as a valid death-threat to one very dense member. So that experience is always in the back of my mind every time I type a response. Someone is always going to CHOOSE to take the wrong interpretation of anything you say.

 

[mikenostic]

I constantly find myself doing the same thing here, Mike. There are far to many idiots present to make it worth trying to carry a discussion very far. It's been that way since day-1 for me when some dolts took a statement from my very first post and "perceived" it as a valid death-threat to one very dense member. So that experience is always in the back of my mind every time I type a response. Someone is always going to CHOOSE to take the wrong interpretation of anything you say.

That's true. It will probably always happen. But, it doesn't have to be destructive.
(not so common) sense would tell a person to politely/tactfully ask for clarification on something to which they aren't sure how to interpret.
Or common sense would tell the person making the statement to ensure it doesn't get taken the wrong way. For example, a joke or fun-insult post towards another member could be followed with an "LOL" or or something like that. In person, facial expression and voice inflection would immediately tell the other person you are being facetious.

A good example of lack of facial expression/voice inflection would be from my WRX forums.
One of the mods sent me a PM saying he deleted one of my posts. I sent him back a PM asking "Hey, what the hell is this?" (the tone I meant it in was one of just curiosity). Because it was a very old post and I didn't know what was going on. He didn't take it that way and sent back: "Hey, don't be sending me PMs talking to me like that." He thought I was asking in the stern, disrespectful tone. I clarified for him and we were cool. But it's a good example of misinterpreting internet font.

 

[Read-Only]

That's true. It will probably always happen. But, it doesn't have to be destructive.
(not so common) sense would tell a person to politely/tactfully ask for clarification on something to which they aren't sure how to interpret.
Or common sense would tell the person making the statement to ensure it doesn't get taken the wrong way. For example, a joke or fun-insult post towards another member could be followed with an "LOL" or or something like that. In person, facial expression and voice inflection would immediately tell the other person you are being facetious.

A good example of lack of facial expression/voice inflection would be from my WRX forums.
One of the mods sent me a PM saying he deleted one of my posts. I sent him back a PM asking "Hey, what the hell is this?" (the tone I meant it in was one of just curiosity). Because it was a very old post and I didn't know what was going on. He didn't take it that way and sent back: "Hey, don't be sending me PMs talking to me like that." He thought I was asking in the stern, disrespectful tone. I clarified for him and we were cool. But it's a good example of misinterpreting internet font.

I understand what you're saying, Mike, and I agree. Just don't ever forget, though, that there are people here who will do their best to FIND a way to misinterpret what you say.

 

[mikenostic]

I understand what you're saying, Mike, and I agree. Just don't ever forget, though, that there are people here who will do their best to FIND a way to misinterpret what you say.

That's fine. Because I always enjoy a good flame/banter war too!
If they want to misinterpret what I say on purpose, then I have no sympathy for them and it's ON!

 

[Read-Only]

That's fine. Because I always enjoy a good flame/banter war too!
If they want to misinterpret what I say on purpose, then I have no sympathy for them and it's ON!

Once again we agree perfectly! And that's one of the reasons why I'm perceived as being mostly negative toward all the dummies.

 

[Tiassa]

Interesting question, Mike

(I'm legitimately asking this)...hehe, like Baron said eariler, What is your point exactly? I ask this because you cover several topics. Did you have one specific point or were there several you were trying to get across?
I'm asking for clarification so I can (like you mentioned) respond to your material, under the correct interpretation of it.

My point is essentially the last question in the topic post. There are a number of reasons I wonder:

• Some months ago, the moderators actually had a moment to pause and consider whether or not one of our members was suicidal. Life, as far as I can tell, goes on for everyone involved.

• Some people consider themselves self-appointed judges of reality who do nothing but complain about their neighbors and generally be rude in any discussion they're in. And yet when the community bites back, these provocateurs whine and complain like petulant children. In this, I think it's important to realize that there's something wrong with these perpetual pessimists: they lash out according to only one reference point, which is a mysterious locale in their own psyches. On the one hand, they really ought to take it easy on people in case they actually slap a delicate psyche; to the other, there's something amiss in their own outlooks, and I, at least, feel some measure of responsibility inasmuch as I should at least verify that these twats simply are playing a game. When they stop and complain because someone meets them according to their own method, a legitimate question arises. Do they really not see? If the answer is that they really don't see, then we need to tread gently. If the answer is that they really don't care, my opinion is that they need to be removed from the community. There are enough hard feelings that come up in the course of our everyday savagery around here. Seeking excuses to behave in a hurtful manner is symptomatic of a sickness that either needs to be addressed, or surgically removed from the community.

• Really, no matter how much someone like Max wants to be a prig, it would bug me to think that I was actually shitkicking a psych case. Part of me thinks that's what it comes down to anyway, and in that case, I need to figure out what Max's (or any other two-bit, wanna-be bully around here) boundaries are.​

I do not dispute that people have the right to assert that communication is only acceptable in order to prevent communication. But this community does not orbit that center.

It is enlightening to see our members admitting that their only acknowledged relationship to the people behind the handles and avatars is one of contempt. It's a bit sad, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it. And it would be fascinating if it wasn't so absolutely common to read how people like Max refuse to judge people according to the bits and pieces shown at a site like this, and thus choose to judge them according to nonapplicable criteria that allow the judges to hold everyone in contempt.

Of course, it is important, also, to not let the prigs and hatemongers write the argument for everyone else. "We're all hiding behind anonymity, so we can do and say whatever we want," is a fine rejection of community, integrity, good faith, and good character. It's entirely possible that not all of our rough players feel that way.

What I'm getting from this, Mike, is a strong persuasion that, much like real life, there are some determined to prove that rules are insufficient, and they ought to be treated accordingly.

 

[Baron Max]

... And it would be fascinating if it wasn't so absolutely common to read how people like Max refuse to judge people according to the bits and pieces shown at a site like this, and thus choose to judge them according to nonapplicable criteria that allow the judges to hold everyone in contempt.

...LOL! Part of my original post was to try to tell you, to convince you, that I usually, typically, don't respond to a "personality", but rather to the words on the screen.

For me to read some words on a screen, then "invent" a personality to go with those words is the height of folly, at best, totally ignorant at worst.

I would also caution all of you, and you in particular, Tiassa, that lying is one of the things that humans do best. And in an anonymous environment like the Internet, I think that tendency is multiplied a thousand fold.

So now, not only are you asking us/me to figure out and/or invent a human personality to go along with words that are typed on a screen, but you're also asking me to make the giant leap of faith that the person typing those words is actually telling the truth!! ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

[Read-Only]

Tiassa, I'd like to make my position on this whole topic as clear as possible.

My choice is treat EVERYONE here exactly the same. And by that I'm going to continue assuming that they have an IQ of at least 100 and a reasonable enough vocabulary to understand English words that are in common use. I will make no exceptions for someone who is "mentally deficient" in any way, just a child or who has suicidal tendencies.

Besides, those things are very difficult (and often actually impossible) to judge simply from what they choose to write here. And just because some kid mentions suicide doesn't mean they are being truthful - that's one of the oldest methods used when trying to do nothing more than gain attention or sympathy.

As I have repeatedly stated in several threads/discussions, I have NO hidden agendas of any kind. I make every effort to clearly state what I want to convey and there's no need to ever try to "read between the lines." Anyone who attempts to do that is just as stupid as someone who believes there are hidden messages to be found via "Bible Codes" and similar nonsense.

I have compassion for ignorance, since that word simply means "not knowing", but I have NO compassion for stupidity. A fool and his money are soon parted but the fool has their stupidity forever - it cannot be cured so I won't be bothered with trying.

 

[Jenyar]

That's something that's always bothered me a little about Internet forums ...treating the words typed on a screen as an actual person rather than what it is ...a bunch of words typed on a screen.

I'm not saying that I'm completely free of that odd feeling or sense, but I typically respond to the words typed, not to some "person" that I've conjured up in my own mind. I find that something like arguing with a book you're reading ....would you do that? Would you get angry at the book? Do you get angry at the newspaper over something printed in it?

Perhaps a good or better question here would be why do we "invent" personalities and characteristics for these ...anonymous posters?

Another a good question is ...are all of these anonymous posters actually and honestly representing themselves with the words they type? Or are they lying about it? And how do you know? Or for example, could you, or anyone, register as a different name, and post the exact opposite of what you really feel and think?

That's a good point. There is definitely a limitation to how much we can actually know about the person behind the words. But it's the nature of the medium that we have to make do without nonverbal cues and the other interpretative aids we are used to in conversation. Not even a short CV with every post would leave us any better off!

We are always interacting with a persona made up out the information available - we work with what we have, whether it's genuine or not. It's not so much an invention as a mental construct that gives some context to what we read. A book constructs its own context, and a good author is one who conveys a context that is conducive to his meaning. Unfortunately very few posters are good authors, and understanding suffers.

In the same context, though, should we go out of our way to agitate people? For instance, the number of ESL members we have around here generally discourages what was once a common argument, that one's opponent needs to learn to read. Now, given that there are some native-English members whose posting life depends almost entirely on semi-literate, knee-jerk reactions, don't you think it a fair point?

This connects to what I said above. Language is the frontier of understanding, and we're at the mercy of a poster's words. You can communicate with some and not get anywhere with others.

You can't really force anyone to improve their language and communication skills, and you can only adapt so far before communication breaks down anyway. Bad communication goes with the territory. I think it's good exercise. If our expectations are too high we're bound to be disappointed, but in the struggle to convey meaning you also get better at it. You gradually learn what works and what doesn't (like writing in all caps or not using paragraphs). But if someone doesn't learn (or simply isn't interested in communicating), taking it personally or getting road rage will only make it worse.