The danger of online trolling

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a25443/charlotte-dawson-dead-suicide-trolling/

Not everyone tells you their real life circumstances online. They may feel threatened by you because you don't seem to have any serious level of conscience and many people keep things private for a reason - private things cannot be exploited by strangers, who's intentions a person cannot know, truly.

This is especially true for vulnerable people.

Being 'woke' does not give you any right to attack a persons belief systems, even if you think they are 'stupid', from your perspective. That is called being entitled. And we all know how entitled white folk are.

Don't be that person.

I don't quite understand how your comments relate to the linked article -- although your comments do make some worthwhile points in and of themselves.

Be that as it may, the linked article is:


Charlotte Dawson commits suicide following extreme trolling
The latest suicide victim of vile internet abuse
By Sophie Goddard
Cosmopolitan Newsletter
Feb 24, 2014

At least the celebs can afford bodyguards. The rest of us can't.

The single greatest problem with social media is the almost total lack of moderation. This actively allows bad attitudes to fester and grow encouraged by others who may or may not be sock puppets.

I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting these fetid people gone from the net.

The comments were related to the topic of the article, i.e, online trolling, not the specifics of the article itself.

To be honest, the biggest amount of hatred I have seen during my lived experience is from 'woke' warriors. Trump voters typically are not educated or cultured enough to do any serious emotional damage to their opponents, and cannot typically manipulate a political opponent as opposed to vice versa. They come off as looking stupid rather than 'hitting at the core' of their political enemies, from the perspective of wokeologists.

Woke cultists are vicious and Nazi like, in their tactics - although obviously their theoretical ideology is different from Nazism.

Authoritarianism is cancer in whatever form, from my perspective.

Wrong again.

The right to speak freely is an inherent right — woke or I woke — and a right that is being willfully suppressed by evangelicals, nationalists, and trolls trying to impose their own beliefs on others while denouncing any factual knowledge.

Do not be a troll.

Okay, I shall rephrase that to make you understand what I meant. When I said 'attack' there - I meant a 'troll' attack as a wokeist, as opposed to a well thought out & respectful response.

I see a lot of people making ill thought-out rebuttals to arguments put forth by persons of right-wing belief systems.

I agree that if someone thinks they can impose their beliefs systems onto you - you should resist that. But not if they are simply arguing a theoretical point rather than trying to make you come onboard to their way of thinking.

Tolerance is a two-way street.

You have missed the point, again.

I addressed the right to speak freely, to complain, and to even criticize others’ beliefs.

Please try to keep up.

I am keeping up. I wasn't disagreeing with your free speech sentiment, I am in support of it.

It is you who is not hearing me here, not the other way around.

Okay, I'll add to that. I am a free speech absolutist. I am trying to encourage you here to make reasoned arguments - because if you do not, you will come off as the bad guy and lose your arguments.

That is all.

If being trolled on twitter, why not just cancel the twitter account.

Hey neat, I remember that thread. If you read carefully, Fnord does not actually say that THEY smash the report button, but rather suggests that course of action to another member whom you were attacking personally / spreading lies about. Kinda like what you're trying to do to Fnord right now. It's almost like you're trying to cancel him by undercutting his credibility rather than addressing his actual arguments. "HeRe's WhAt ElSe FnOrD sAiD!! !"

And, realistically, even if Fnord was a vicious Report-troll, does that mean he can't have a valid point? If he is wrong, you should be able to disagree with is reasoning, without needing to resort to attacking him personally, to make your point. So far I've heard you attack Fnord, but not actually refute his reasoning. You've merely invented an excuse to not listen to him, and reject his reasoning out of hand. Which seems like a pretty "Woke" thing to do, based on the whining going on in this thread.

And, even if Fnord was a vicious report troll, it's still up to the mods as to whether or not they'll take action. Surely the mods know when to ignore a facetious or disingenuous complaint. Oh, right, you think the mods cave in to peer pressure or something, and feel compelled to smite thee with the mighty ban hammer just cos enough people fussed about it. C'mon now... And in all fairness, if other people are complaining about you that much that often, maybe the problem isn't actually the other people...

Regarding free speech absolutism: If you believe that all free speech is allowed, and nobody should have to be silent, then people should be allowed to express their opinions of your opinions, and expecting them to move on without saying anything is merely expecting them to be silent, rather than expressing their opinions equally freely.

It comes off as confused when one says "I'm a free speech absolutist!" and then starts dictating terms of how people are required to reply, invoking arbitrary rules of your own creation that dictate "winners" and "losers", and expecting others to quietly move on without saying anything (aka BEING SILENT rather than voicing their opinions).

Not to mention, this is text on the internet. Whatever you posted, is posted. It's not like the next poster can make your post disappear, no matter how much caps lock they use. And if someone gets a thread locked, they've "silenced" themselves, too, in that thread. They, and you, can just make a new thread. It happens all the time. It's not like someone can literally get in your face and intimidate you. We're all computer screens! Nobody here can shout over you and make you unheard, it's all text, recorded and preserved. The most someone can do is hurt your widdle feewings by using mean nasty words! Oh no! Anything but WORDS! What shall we do?! I mean, you could take your own advice and let those mean nasty words just roll off your shoulder like they're nothing. No, that would be silly...

Now, bullying is bad, but this woman was 47 years old, and worked in the public spotlight. People are going to have negative opinions. You're gonna have to deal with that. Why could she not have simply rolled her eyes and ignored them, as seems to be expected of others? See, in the real world, if you put an opinion out in public, the public then has the ability, and the right, to respond - even negatively. Like seriously, we even get people on here that join just to tell us to go die, for being autistic. Ask any of our LGBT members if they've ever received death threats irl. People that work retail get death threats over stupid crap all the time. Nutters exist. Mean people exist. Bad people exist. Being part of the Real World means encountering them, and learning to deal with them. I'm sure The Universe apologizes most sincerely for any inconvenience. Take it up with the deity of your preference.

Now, if you want a happy sterile little bubble where nobody says anything except how nice and great and perfect you are, I believe the colloquial term is a "safe space". But free speech hardliners seem to supposedly dislike them, so that might be a little tricky.

It seems like a lot of "free speech absolutists" really just mean absolutism for themselves. Cos when you boil it down, it really does seem like the gist of their stance is "If you don't like what I'm saying, you can go away and keep it to yourself - but if I don't like what you're saying, you can go away and keep it to yourself".

Seems like "woke" is a cover word for "scrutiny", and "canceling" is a cover word for "consequences". As much fun as it is for The Smartest People On The Internet to call everyone else "sheeple", even the dumbest person isn't as hive-minded as they seem to think. More often than not, when agreement seems to sweep across a crowd in an infections manner, the crowd usually already shared the mentality to begin with. It may be relatively easy to get everyone chanting "lets go, ocelots!" if you're in the stands at a game for the Springfield Ocelots, but I think you'll find it may be a lot harder to get it to occur in the office at which you work - unless people there are by coincidence also Ocelot fans, and even then there's no guarantee.

"Everyone is against me!" MAYBE, just maybe, that's a clue that you might be wrong. You can call your opinion "unpopular" all you want, some opinions are "unpopular" for good reason.

Tolerance is a double-edged sword. It doesn't care who wields it, or why - the vicious can apply it just as readily as the virtuous. You can call anything a "different idea" and accuse people of being "intolerant" of it. Like the "Bullied Bully", who cries about being "bullied" when people turn against them for being a bully. "If you're so tolerant, then you should also tolerate obviously terrible behavior, too!" as though tolerance is an all or nothing affair. It ends up coming off as a no-true-scotsman, cos the only way to truly be tolerant, in some people's eyes, it seems, is to tolerate literally anything and everything, no matter how terrible.

↑ Thank you, Uncommondenominator.

I am already considered a "Bad Guy", and I do not mind.  Some people simply cannot handle having the truth pointed out to them because it makes them look like fools.  I am also unconcerned with "winning" or "losing" arguments.  Being factual matters more than victory because, in the long run, lies will be revealed and liars set themselves up for loss.

Oh, I did not realise you were considered a 'bad guy' around here.

Yes, being factual matters - I am with you there 100%.

And yes, liars eventually undo themselves or are revealed by the efforts of others, in many cases.

Last edited by blitzkrieg on 03 Jan 2022, 2:23 am, edited 3 times in total.

Good article for those who think it is okay to attack someone based on a perceived opponents religious beliefs, or to support others in a cyber-bullying campaign, based on fallacious claims/slander:

https://www.instantcheckmate.com/crimewire/post/can-you-be-arrested-for-cyberbullying/