Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby Lori Koonce » Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:16 pm

I said what I said in part one to say this; why is it that some people choose to treat people online in manners that they never would if that person was sitting across a table from us.

I'm really beginning to understand why HE hates the internet the way he does. It allows the dregs to spread their vitrol and stupidity even further that usual. The only benifit of dealing with them in the media environment, I can turn the computer, TV or radio off if they get me to the point of wanting to shout.

Please tell me I'm not the only one!

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:48 pm

I've already given enough clues that I do the Alice Cooper thang here but am a sweet angel in person.

Sweet as butter on the farm, I is.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby Steve Evil » Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:01 pm

When you can't look someone in the eye, empathy tends to shut down. It requires effort of will to otherwise attain one's standards.

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby markabaddon » Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:35 pm

To follow up on Mr. Evil's pont, the Internet breeds anonymity. Anonymity can lead to a lack of accountability. There are certain personality types who feel that, if they cannot be tracked down for their comments, then that gives them free reign to unload from the deepest recesses of their id (why do I have a sudden desire to watch Forbidden Planet again?)
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

Kafkahead
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:12 am

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby Kafkahead » Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:07 pm

There's been a study on it. Google the GIFT phenomenon, please.

K.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby Ezra Lb. » Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:27 pm

If I may...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GIFT

The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. First given a name by the boys at Penny Arcade, it is a theory that seeks to illuminate why so many people seem to degenerate into antisocial jerks online, when they are only mildly unpleasant in-person.

The equation, illustrated here is this:

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad

This phenomenon has been studied in an academic setting, and by all accounts PA's satirical analysis is spot-on; normal people seem to degenerate when they think that their behavior carries no real-world consequences. In other words, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Hence the [depressingly large] number of people who think that being a Troll is funny. The academic name of the phenomenon is the Online Disinhibition Effect, but even leading researchers use GIFT outside the trade journals.

In short: when people do not have to worry about upsetting their friends and family, getting into a direct physical altercation with anyone, or having their name and face attached to their attitude, they feel they have nothing to lose being annoying, bastard-coated douchebags.


So more interesting might be why folks like me are the same live and in person as they are on the Internet? Why don't I feel the need to attack?
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby Chuck Messer » Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:10 pm

I like the image of Monsters from the Id roaming the quiet countryside of the internet. Very evocative.

I do think it is the anonymity of the internet, combined with the ease with which any chimp can post whatever is on their tiny little mind. Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, but the comments section for many a blog or article on the net reminds me of a room full of enraged, poo-flinging monkeys. It used to be letters to the editor, signed Name Withheld by Request, but that was too difficult for some people. Not so with the internet. No need to wait! And you can invent all kinds of creative ways to spell words and use punctuation, which comes in handy for those having trouble with that opposable thumb thingy.

Of course, I can think of any number of movies that could be improved by adding a bunch of enraged, poo-flinging monkeys, but it kind of sucks in real life.

Chuck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby markabaddon » Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:15 am

Chuck, thanks, it seemed oddy appropriate somehow

Ez, I am unable to shed light on why people would be different online or in person. Those here who have met me or spoken with me on the phone can pretty much verify I ain't no different. I will say that I do like the theory of GIFT and want to think more about this.

Thanks,

Mark
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby Lori Koonce » Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:18 pm

Thanks Guys!

I kinda agree with Ezra on this one. Other than being a little bit MORE of myself, I'm really not different here than in person. Just ask Barber or David Silver, they have both met me in person (and lived to tell despite what some may want you to think)!

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 12:03 pm

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby admin » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:07 pm

Lori Koonce wrote:why is it that some people choose to treat people online in manners that they never would if that person was sitting across a table from us.


Renaming the "Bulletin Board" to "Unca Harlan's Art Deco Dining Pavilion" was a very specific choice, and I think you can see why I chose it over something like "Harlan's New-Timey Cantankerous Flaptrap Machine."

I should probably write up more specifics about what I mean by people behaving as though they were actually hanging out with a few other folks in the actual Pavilion. I think of it like you're having a conversation or a small party and everyone is going to politely listen when you're talking. Even if you don't like Harlan or someone else, or disagree strenuously with them, you should still behave as though you were a guest in Harlan's home. It also explains how long at maximum posts/anecdotes/poems should be, if ya think about it...

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby Lori Koonce » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:35 pm

Rick

Here's my problem. To keep up with the party analogy, No matter how much you plan a party there will always be a person or two who just act like asses, no matter what you do or how you treat them. And they are usually people you like when you are alone with them.

Those are the people I wonder about.

Anthony Ravenscroft
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 4:04 am
Location: Crookston, MN
Contact:

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby Anthony Ravenscroft » Sun Nov 14, 2010 9:18 pm

Someone once said that "ethics" is what you say should be done, & "morals" is what you do when nobody's looking. On the one hand, the Internet means that everyone's looking, even if they haven't been born yet. On the other, it means that nobody's looking, because I'm here tippity-tapping in the kitchen.

I started working on a theory back in the mid-1990s -- before I had any hands-on experience with them darned Interwebs -- about three personality types. As I've been a slow-moving bastid for even longer (I'm only 52, but I have pretensions), it's still in the outline stage. Anyhow, there's three basic types, & the first sees great value in bullying, will do it at the drop of a metaphor, even when shutting the hell up (which is actually easy) would make it all go away. Forum anonymity allows this to run rampant, & such bullying is even encouraged because it's "free speech," a Freedom Hall gone bad.

About 2000, I started using either some version of my real name, or one of the pseudonyms that's easy to identify with me. I don't think I'm inherently a nicer person than bullies & trolls, but the fact that I can be held personally accountable -- likely as long as computers exist -- for my lapses is something that helps keep me honest.

And hereabouts, I've actually met some of you, if only briefly at Minicon. Those I saw there for The Great Ellison Visit seemed like nice folks -- why the heck would I want to abuse you? In my mind there's faces attached to the posts here. Those of you I might still be able to identify likewise know others here, so it'd be rude of me to needlessly insult your friends.

Thus, I tread a bit lightly, simply because I don't see any reason to be mean.

User avatar
Rick Keeney
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:40 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

i think

Postby Rick Keeney » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:52 am

I think it would be a sure sign of group maturation if we would all learn that not replying to trolls is the best policy. Harlan and Rick have repeatedly ask that we leave off rejoindering with the fuck nuggets, but we just keep doing it. Even those I deem "the best of us" continue to do so. The bastards are sustained by any reaction, whether ours or Harlan's.

On the other hand, the bastards wilt from lack of attention.

Since MadCon I've tried to cease responding to those who set off my GIFT alarm. The reward is not one I’m accustomed to. And, trust me, I’m not lording this modified behavior over anyone; frankly, I irritate the shit out of myself. I’m tempted to blast Dave from Cleveland in the Pavilion...you know I am.

Even as I edit this I have to remove a barb I placed to slam one of you. See? Irritating as hell.

Lori, your question reminds me of those horrifying studies we reviewed in PSYCH 101, where people were asked if they would commit certain crimes if they knew they would not get caught. You know how that kind of thing plays out. GIFT behavior is an example of people at their cowardly worst. All there is to it.

We should all get together for drinks, Goldberg will buy.

...is what i think,
Keeney

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby Steve Evil » Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:12 pm

It's anti-bully week here in the UK. I tried to talk to my Grade 4's about it; I fear the only ones who got the point were the ones who didn't need to. . .

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Defeinding bad behaviour (part 2)

Postby Lori Koonce » Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:26 pm

Maybe Steve

But, you cannot measure the FUTURE impact your words may have on your students. So good on you my man!


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests