Internet Cowardice

[Hr2]

Re: Internet Cowardice

You know what, that is one of the great things about the internet, you don't have to be like you are in real life and no one expects you to. This is a whole different ball game! Your internet personality is only the shadow you project of your real life self. I'm not saying I'm drastically different in real life, I can't describe how I am in real life, you'd have to just meet me yourself, which will probably never happen for the overwhelming majority of you, but that doesn't matter. What does matter, is that people have the right to make socializing on the internet whatever is most fun to them, the internet is for two things, information and entertainment. If you're not learning and communicating, and you're not having fun, then what the hell are you doing on the computer?

If you're not satisfied with your personality in real life, but for whatever circumstances cannot change it, who says you can't be a better, or worse, person on the internet?

[Laharl]

Re: Internet Cowardice

I'd like to say thank you to Cavernio and Hr2 for not having predisposed notions of who I am as the OP of this thread and therefore adding meaningful, insightful posts. I was beginning to think the anti-Laharl sentiment ran deeper than just Spec, Rai, and Banditcom.

Anyway, on to specific points:

I think you are being 2-faced to a certain extent if you put on one show at church and another in a bar, as your example goes. I'm going to assume said person in the example is religious, probably following the notion that being sober and respectful are good things and the correct way to be. The very act of being in the bar in the first place would be contradictory to that. Alternatively, that same person might revel in drunkeness, partying and having a good time being the things he most believes in. If that is the case, then what reason does he have in any church?

I see your point about arguing and opinions being expressed when one might not be able to do so in person. However, I'm not against freedom of thought. I really hope I don't come across that way. Freedom of thought is in fact one thing I heavily support and believe in. It's more the manner in which most people try and get their ideas across, I find particularly distasteful. If you're not overly rude when voicing an opinion in person, then why be overly rude while voicing an opinion online? The same rules of human conduct should apply to both aspects. I believe they do, regardless. If you're an ass to people, either online or off, no one else will listen to what you have to say or rather take it seriously. (Guilty as charged, although I hope others recognize themselves doing the same.)

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Internet Cowardice

You know what, that is one of the great things about the internet, you don't have to be like you are in real life and no one expects you to. This is a whole different ball game! Your internet personality is only the shadow you project of your real life self. I'm not saying I'm drastically different in real life, I can't describe how I am in real life, you'd have to just meet me yourself, which will probably never happen for the overwhelming majority of you, but that doesn't matter. What does matter, is that people have the right to make socializing on the internet whatever is most fun to them, the internet is for two things, information and entertainment. If you're not learning and communicating, and you're not having fun, then what the hell are you doing on the computer?

If you're not satisfied with your personality in real life, but for whatever circumstances cannot change it, who says you can't be a better, or worse, person on the internet?

I somewhat disagree here.

The internet is an extension of your RL self because that is undeniably you behind those words. If you're an asshole or generally just a bad person on the internet, it's not because something magically changes in you once you open up IE, no, it's because there's a part of you which is actually a bad person. That part of you is suppressed most of the time because being a bad person is generally unacceptable, but you generally don't have to answer to your actions on the internet (barring getting Wenzeled, but that's an extreme case). So you only act out when you can't get in trouble. What's that called? Oh yeah, cowardice.

You're right in that nobody can tell you what you can or can't be on the internet, but how you act online most certainly reflects who you are, same as how you act in real life.

I guess what I'm getting at is that being on the internet doesn't give you a free pass to be an asshole and then completely excuse it because you were online (an excuse I've seen way too many times here, and it sickens me). No, you may be able to avoid the face rearranging for which you asked, but your actions to merit it won't be wiped off your character record.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Cavernio]

Re: Internet Cowardice

Well, no actually, I wasn't referring to necessarily being a religious person in church. Church is just a place where you're expected to not be drunk, or swear, etc. That's the social norm of being in a church. As an aside to the main point, enjoying oneself in drunken revelery is not considered a sin for some denominations, at least not for Catholics, but I suppose they're generally shunned from the rest of the Christian community anyways. Also, believing in 'having a good time' and belief in God aren't mutually exclusive. I see little reason why they would be, actually. People don't develop faith because there's nothing else they want in life, nor does having faith mean you don't value fun. Regardless though, whether or not this is agreed upon by many, the fact is is that there are people who do both, go to bars and get drunk (or get drunk at home) and go to church. But I suppose you call them 2 faced then. I wouldn't, unless we ARE talking about a tremendously religious person who pretends they strongly believe that drunkenness is wrong.
No, I know you're not against freedom of thought or freedom of speech. I also don't think that people should be rude just because they can either. If someone's trying to foist ideas on people anyways, they're being very ignorant if they think that being rude to the people they disagree with will somehow change their mind. I suppose I was more referring to being more honest about what you really think, and if that so happens to include a large amount of anger and frustration, then so be it.
But since I also think acting very strongly to things just ends up being anti-communicative I suppose, cause no one will take what you say without vehemence. So I guess I'm kinda contradicting myself. But if saying what you really mean on the net and not saying those things in person is being a coward, then I'm glad that a lot of people are cowards.

[Laharl]

Re: Internet Cowardice

Also, believing in 'having a good time' and belief in God aren't mutually exclusive. I see little reason why they would be, actually. People don't develop faith because there's nothing else they want in life, nor does having faith mean you don't value fun. Regardless though, whether or not this is agreed upon by many, the fact is is that there are people who do both, go to bars and get drunk (or get drunk at home) and go to church. But I suppose you call them 2 faced then. I wouldn't, unless we ARE talking about a tremendously religious person who pretends they strongly believe that drunkenness is wrong.

I didn't mean to suggest that enjoying life and seeking fun were mutually exclusive from believing in a higher power. I simply meant someone who's main drive in life is simply to have fun, rather than a person who's main goal is to find the most enjoyable existance they can by looking at things long-term. I'm still not getting my point across very clearly here, so I'm just going to have to hope you're getting the gist of what I'm saying.

But since I also think acting very strongly to things just ends up being anti-communicative I suppose, cause no one will take what you say without vehemence. So I guess I'm kinda contradicting myself. But if saying what you really mean on the net and not saying those things in person is being a coward, then I'm glad that a lot of people are cowards.

I am of the mind that if you're not willing to speak up on the things you believe in person, then anything you say on the internet is more or less null and void. If push comes to shove and you don't stand up for what you believe in, then your conviction in the truth as you see it is inherently faulty and lacking substance.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Internet Cowardice

I am of the mind that if you're not willing to speak up on the things you believe in person, then anything you say on the internet is more or less null and void.

yes the medium through which you choose to state your opinion decides whether or not it's valid

it's especially invalid when stated through the most efficient and important means of communication on the planet

If push comes to shove and you don't stand up for what you believe in, then your conviction in the truth as you see it is inherently faulty and lacking substance.

yes your personality and skill at public speaking has anything at all to do with your ideas and whether or not they "have substance"

[Cavernio]

Re: Internet Cowardice

What if what you believe in includes only causing a fuss if someone's not going to get physically hurt, or includes not ever causing a fuss to someone who actually knows you?

[Anticrombie0909]

Re: Internet Cowardice

This thread is in a complete and total lack of



For chrissakes, really. Listen to yourselves, some of you. You sound like a bunch of bickering 12 year olds.

[JurseyRider734]

Re: Internet Cowardice

I agree with Anti.



But to be truthful, I pretty much act the same way online that I do offline. Except i'm probably a little more cautious offline, and i'm sometimes quiet when i'm around people I don't know. Otherwise i'm the same.

[Laharl]

Re: Internet Cowardice

yes the medium through which you choose to state your opinion decides whether or not it's valid

it's especially invalid when stated through the most efficient and important means of communication on the planet

What you say online has little bearing to anything. If you don't make a stand to what you believe in person, then there is no merit to your beliefs. You either do or do not believe something. You can't believe one thing on the internet and another in person.

yes your personality and skill at public speaking has anything at all to do with your ideas and whether or not they "have substance"

Actually, yes. That is why quiet, shy people aren't elected to positions where they can actually affect the course of something.

@ Cavernio:
Good point. I suppose one can make a point to avoid confrontation with friends. I just wonder why that trait is only found in person and not online.

@ Anti-crombie: "ok"

[Cavernio]

Re: Internet Cowardice

So what you're saying Laharl is that one's actions should always strongly portray their beliefs? Maybe I just don't strongly enough believe in anything to see a prboelm with stating my beliefs online and stating them in person, which is why I don't have a problem with my beliefs.

Well, seeing people in RL is much more, uh, personal or something, and I think that people generally want to avoid conflict. Do people get more hurt in real life if someone shoots down their beliefs than if someone shoots them down online? Probably yes. Not only could a person become more hurt, the accuser might also develop guilt and feel pretty sorry if the person they're arguing with bursts into tears. No one wants that.

When I think about it, there's a lot more than just that taking affect into WHY people act up more online than in RL. Mainly, the time and space constraint is taken out. Pretend someone pissed you off by what they did earlier on during the day at work or school. Its very possible that you do, in fact, make a fuss about the situation then, with the person right there in front of you, and people around you. Chances are you won't, unless it was something extraordinarily out of line, and even then, yelling and swearing isn't necessary. 30 min later, you run into your friend, and you bitch to them about what just happened to you. You either talk about it for 5 min, and then you switch the subject, or you've only got 5 min to see them. You've ranted already, everything's done, finito, you're not thinking about it anymore, you're not pissed off still.
But what if you didn't happen to see your friend. Instead, you go to a computer somewhere and make a blog entry or say something in a forum you frequent. You make the initial post. This post is probably just as angry as what you would have told your friend, cept they're not there. But now, instead of talking about it, and its done, its sitting somewhere for everyone to read. Someone else reads what you've written, and disagrees. Because you happened to be so pissed at the time, they respond with equal vehemence at it. Now, a day later, when you go back to your post, you're not only instantly reminded of that incident, already making you upset again, but then you happen to read what someone else wrote. Of course, this just makes you more pissed, and now you make a post. This cycle can continue for quite sometime. Why? Because you're constantly reminded of what has happened. You can go back and cite what someone else said and did because it's right there. You don't have to rely on your memory, you will never argue so much that you'll forget what you were arguing about (which I'm sure has happened to more than just me in person) because you'll go back to refresh yourself. Also, no one stays angry for hours and hours in person; the emotion eventually dies down for awhile. RL has natural end points to arguments.
Secondly, if you're going to bother reading forums or surfing the net, you're going to be looking for something interesting. Controversy is interesting, whether you like it or not. So even if you're not feeling particularly upset about something, or are feeling strongly about anything in particular, you may just want to read about a particular topic, and as an outsider, upon reading an escalating argument, can easily get drawn in themselves. It's not that people will so much act as they wouldn't in real life, but more that the internet creates more intense, long-lasting situations which would otherwise never occur. But that's just my take on it.

[Jamaican Jew]

Re: Internet Cowardice

What you say online has little bearing to anything. If you don't make a stand to what you believe in person, then there is no merit to your beliefs. You either do or do not believe something. You can't believe one thing on the internet and another in person.

If someone believes strongly in something like, freedom of expression, but lives in a fascist dictatorship where anyone found expressing their opinion (one that goes against the teachings and ideals of the government) is killed, imprisoned, or otherwise tortured, does that make their belief in free speech invalid if they do not stand up for it?
And is that contradictory, does that make them a coward? I believe you'd say it would, but there is a distinct difference between cowardice and intelligence, and humans are inbred with a sense of self-preservation. All animals are.
I realize that you would be correct in stating that the stated scenario shows, to some extent, cowardice, since a person who did not stand up to their government was probably doing so for fear of their own well-being or their loved ones' well-being. This is admirable in some respects, but if things were truly as bad as I have stated above, we could not expect to let only those who have nothing to lose in life fight our battles for us.
The thing is, surely anyone who has enough freedom to feel secure in stating their opinions over the internet or through any other media without being killed, tortured, or imprisoned, will be willing (and ready) to do so. And like you said, there is a slim chance that many of these people talking online will ever meet each other in real life, so why would it matter what someone thousands of miles away thinks of you? Anyone who you have actually met in person would know better, and even if you still act like a prick in real life and they acknowledge that, someone else's feelings are no justification to bend your own words so that they magically are found inoffensive by everybody.
If we all cared about every single person's feelings, even those whom we have not met (and never will meet), we would comply to the downfall of self-expression and truth, and giving that up is far more tragic than having it taken away by any dictatorship.

[meno_rocks123]

Re: Internet Cowardice

pretty much the only difference for me is that on the internet im more likely to warm-up to a stranger than in real life.

All in all: people are usually more or less the same from when they're on the internet to when they're walking through school.

[Laharl]

Re: Internet Cowardice

If someone believes strongly in something like, freedom of expression, but lives in a fascist dictatorship where anyone found expressing their opinion (one that goes against the teachings and ideals of the government) is killed, imprisoned, or otherwise tortured, does that make their belief in free speech invalid if they do not stand up for it?
And is that contradictory, does that make them a coward? I believe you'd say it would, but there is a distinct difference between cowardice and intelligence, and humans are inbred with a sense of self-preservation. All animals are.
I realize that you would be correct in stating that the stated scenario shows, to some extent, cowardice, since a person who did not stand up to their government was probably doing so for fear of their own well-being or their loved ones' well-being. This is admirable in some respects, but if things were truly as bad as I have stated above, we could not expect to let only those who have nothing to lose in life fight our battles for us.
The thing is, surely anyone who has enough freedom to feel secure in stating their opinions over the internet or through any other media without being killed, tortured, or imprisoned, will be willing (and ready) to do so. And like you said, there is a slim chance that many of these people talking online will ever meet each other in real life, so why would it matter what someone thousands of miles away thinks of you? Anyone who you have actually met in person would know better, and even if you still act like a prick in real life and they acknowledge that, someone else's feelings are no justification to bend your own words so that they magically are found inoffensive by everybody.
If we all cared about every single person's feelings, even those whom we have not met (and never will meet), we would comply to the downfall of self-expression and truth, and giving that up is far more tragic than having it taken away by any dictatorship.

If your LIFE is in danger, that's another story all-together, man. There's a point in showing an extreme, and then showing an extreme that literally completely alters the situation.

We live in the United States (or Canada, and I think a few from various places in Europe) as far as I know, people that attend the FFR forums. I can't think of any first world country that limits free speech with death penalties for going against the grain of the ideals of the majority.

I also never said to magically be innofensive to everyone. Look at my reputation on these forums. I'm rather loud and obnoxious with the things I believe are correct. I'm also rather loud and obnoxious in person when something wrong is taking place and I'm the only one around that will speak up against it. My whole point is to be yourself in ALL aspects of life. Using the internet as a forum to get your opinions voice simply because you know there will be no retribution of ANY kind in your real life is two-faced.

[Jamaican Jew]

Re: Internet Cowardice

Being an asshole on the internet and soft-spoken in real life can still mean you're "being yourself" all the time. Just because you choose to keep part of yourself under wraps at certain times doesn't make it any less a part of you.

And obviously everyone posting on here is from America/Canada/other generally “free” countries, where free speech isn't punishable in such ways as stated before. If they weren't in a free country, they wouldn't be here posting, I was just saying that even though you don't speak up for an idea, it can still be a good idea.
If you truly believe in it and standing up for the idea doesn't have any bad consequences on your life, you should stand up for it. If you're better off not speaking up (for whatever reason) not talking about it isn't two-faced.

Also, I feel this thread is going to start getting repetitive... more so than it already has. I'll just say that what one considers cowardice is completely the opinion of that person. And, seeing as we all have the right to our opinions in this country, and the gist of them have been duly stated in this thread, I bid you adieu.