CritialGaming said:
Also here is a theory about why so many people seem to be more asshole-ish on the internet. It's because the internet allows people to express their views without fear of getting punched in the face. Seriously the worst thing that can happen to 99% of shitposters and dicks on the net is a ban from a current forum or website, which is usually easy to get around if you really wanted to.
That freedom allows people to talk without needing any kind of PC-filter. This goes for everyone no matter what your views are.
And it happens on both sides. Look how much I got called a "victim blamer" regardless of what your views on the situation are people are quick to ignore the question I have repeated here and in other thread of, "How is no one held somewhat responsible for their actions?" and instead of saying "here's why" or whatever, people just label it victim blaming and offer no other recourse.
People have an attitude these days that the moment you question someone's beliefs or feelings, you immediately are accused of being insulting and then labeled which ironically is insulting the very person you said is insulting you. Why are questions insulting? Are people's feelings and beliefs so shallow that they can't defend them without resorting to some sort of bashing?
Clearly people think I'm victim blaming. Why? In what reality should someone be able to do something, talk about something and expect no response? If you really thought that a thread about harassment was going to have everyone suddenly hold hands around the Christmas tree and sing "Joy to the World" like its the fucking Grinch Who Stole Christmas if shows how incredible naive you must really be. If that was the response there wouldn't even have needed to be a thread about harassment in the first place. Obviously that kind of topic was going to get a fairly aggressive response. And if you couldn't see that or expect it, then lesson learnt right? Now next time she writes an article like this, if there ever is a next time, then hopefully she'll have some knowledge of the kind of response she'll face.
That doesn't mean I say the response is okay, because it's not. There is simply a reality to how the internet works, and it isn't going to change anytime soon if ever.
Maybe Google needs to invent an AI that polices what people say online. "I'm sorry you are using the word fuck too much and you have been locked out of the internet for 72 hours."
Accusing someone of "victim blaming" when they are just questioning whether someone might have been better off doing something differently in order to avoid a bad result is a cop out argument. To me it's the flipside of when someone screws up and tries to explain why it happened, and then they get shouted down and told that nobody wants to hear their "excuses." Both tactics are cheap.
Looking at the whole picture and analyzing why something happened and what could be done differently in the future is a good thing, a constructive thing. It's how you get better results in the future. To summarily dismiss it all as "victim blaming" or "excuses" is lazy and not constructive at all.
As far as the internet, it's the wild west out there, and that's not going to change without the greater evils of censorship and freedom of speech infringement.
If you're going to be a public internet figure, you need to accept that your words could piss some people off and it could result in harassment. And there is nobody out there to protect you from that. And just saying you "should" be able to say whatever you want and not get harassed is another lazy argument that has no meaning. Because there's nobody out there to enforce the violation of what "should" have been possible, and there probably never will be.
As a modern example, there was that guy who recently went over to North Korea and came back a vegetable. Yeah, he "should" have been able to go over there without coming to harm. But maybe it was a bad idea? It "should" be okay to ask that question without being accused of "victim blaming."
