Why Do People Think "The Internet" and Other People Are Two Different Groups?

[KissingSunlight]

This has been one of my peeves for a while. I constantly see people making a difference between what happens online and what happens in real life. It seems like people are refusing to acknowledge that there are actually other people contributing these weird, wacky, insulting, abusive, etc. posts, pictures, videos, etc. online. Why is there a divorce from reality about "the internet"? Why do people think "the internet" and other "real life" people are two different groups?

 

[Queen Michael]

Probably because people act differently online than in real life. You know the social justice people on Tumblr? The kind that don't care about social justice, and just want lots of people to see how good they're being, disapproving of the right things and telling the right people to kill themselves? They rarely act like that IRL.

 

[Barbas]

I think it's ultimately just a little bit of laziness. We're told to treat people as we'd want to be treated, but we're really speaking to the idea of a person since we can't see or hear them. The rest is up to our own self control, so some would prefer to blow off steam rather than restrain themselves when it comes to speaking to people online. It's also easier to blame the idea of a person and use them for a scapegoat rather than admit that something is your own fault or that you've mucked up.

I don't think that's healthy behaviour to slip into, though. Most times someone talks about the disconnect, it's been to try and justify the inexcusable.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

People often distinguish between 'online' and 'real life', as though the things they are doing online are not occurring in real time in their real life. It's a curious point of cognitive dissonance.

As to why people might behave differently online, that's pretty obvious, isn't it? Anonymity allows people to vent sentiments they might otherwise keep to themselves, either in obeisance to social nicety or because they fear repercussion. It is very easy to identify ideological allies and enemies, appoint targets, and call them lots of colorful names. All the whilst believing oneself above the fray, and quietly critical of their shenanigans whilst wholeheartedly engaging in the very activities one pretends to condemn.

In fact, someone is no doubt reading this now, nodding sagely at the idiotic behavior they identify in their enemies, and completely overlook in themselves. Tis the nature of man.

 

[TKretts3]

Probably because people act differently online than in real life. You know the social justice people on Tumblr? The kind that don't care about social justice, and just want lots of people to see how good they're being, disapproving of the right things and telling the right people to kill themselves? They rarely act like that IRL.

I'm sorry, but that is just one great big load of bullocks. I can tell you, from observation and first hand experience, that the people who support and are vocal social justice initiatives on the internet do carry that into real life. A same-sex couple that wants to get married doesn't suddenly lost their interest in that once they step outside, neither does anybody else in a similar situation, nor their friends, family, and supporters.

 

[CymbaIine]

This has been one of my peeves for a while. I constantly see people making a difference between what happens online and what happens in real life. It seems like people are refusing to acknowledge that there are actually other people contributing these weird, wacky, insulting, abusing, etc. posts, pictures, videos, etc. online. Why is there a divorce from reality about "the internet"? Why do people think "the internet" and other "real life" people are two different groups?

Well, personally, it's because that is my experience. For instance when Gamergate was blowing up nobody knew about it. I know real life feminist activists (some quite hardcore ones) and I know plenty of 'hardcore' gamers. The former group knew nothing at all about it and some of the latter vaguely knew but gave not one iota of a fuck.

There is a 'subculture' that socialise on the internet. When I talk about 'The Internet' I mean those people (myself included) that keep up with the goings on in the social corners. I am explaining this badly. I mean forum goers and channers as opposed to Facebook.

Just a couple of weeks ago I used the old "In Mother Russia..." at work (cringey I know), people thought it was really funny as it was so random... they had never heard it before.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Just a couple of weeks ago I used the old "In Mother Russia..." at work (cringey I know), people thought it was really funny as it was so random... they had never heard it before.

You mean "In Soviet Russia, X Y's you?" Because a comedian named Yakov Smirnoff made a career out of doing that in the 80's. It's big online today mostly thanks to a Family Guy gag that referenced him, and it's kind of surprising people wouldn't get it even in the "real world."

 

[Zontar]

Probably because people act differently online than in real life. You know the social justice people on Tumblr? The kind that don't care about social justice, and just want lots of people to see how good they're being, disapproving of the right things and telling the right people to kill themselves? They rarely act like that IRL.

I'm sorry, but that is just one great big load of bullocks. I can tell you, from observation and first hand experience, that the people who support and are vocal social justice initiatives on the internet do carry that into real life. A same-sex couple that wants to get married doesn't suddenly lost their interest in that once they step outside, neither does anybody else in a similar situation, nor their friends, family, and supporters.

I think he was talking about the radicals who do things like complain about manspreading or that sexism against men is impossible, the type of thing that moderates look at and either face-palm or are revolted by. Saying Same-sex marriage is a social justice issue is kind of insulting in this day and age due to the implications that it's on par with the issues brought up by keyboard warriors.

 

[CymbaIine]

You mean "In Soviet Russia, X Y's you?" Because a comedian named Yakov Smirnoff made a career out of doing that in the 80's. It's big online today mostly thanks to a Family Guy gag that referenced him, and it's kind of surprising people wouldn't get it even in the "real world."

Obviously I had no idea where it originated, for me it was an internet thing -it's not the first family guy reference that has gone over my head in internet land-. It's actually a good example of what I am talking about. Family Guy is very much an internet thing to me. It's massive with the tweens and while everybody I know has likely seen/heard of it I have never heard any non-teen quote it (indeed I could count on one hand the times I have heard anybody talk about it at all) in real life. It's not 'like real' life people (I am talking very generally here, my friends, friends of my spouse, colleagues, relatives etc etc) don't quote shit and talk about shows, it just tends to be different ones. I would suggest it's maybe because I am British but Brits seem to be fairly represented in the internet sphere I am talking about so I don't know if it's that.

Maybe it's my age and gender.

 

[TKretts3]

Probably because people act differently online than in real life. You know the social justice people on Tumblr? The kind that don't care about social justice, and just want lots of people to see how good they're being, disapproving of the right things and telling the right people to kill themselves? They rarely act like that IRL.

I'm sorry, but that is just one great big load of bullocks. I can tell you, from observation and first hand experience, that the people who support and are vocal social justice initiatives on the internet do carry that into real life. A same-sex couple that wants to get married doesn't suddenly lost their interest in that once they step outside, neither does anybody else in a similar situation, nor their friends, family, and supporters.

I think he was talking about the radicals who do things like complain about manspreading or that sexism against men is impossible, the type of thing that moderates look at and either face-palm or are revolted by. Saying Same-sex marriage is a social justice issue is kind of insulting in this day and age due to the implications that it's on par with the issues brought up by keyboard warriors.

It is a social-justice issue. Just because some people get overly upset by relatively small things doesn't mean that social justice in general is harmed. And, just as a side-note, I disagree wholeheartedly with you using 'keyboard warriors' as a demeaning term. Just because somebody complains about, or goes against, something over the internet doesn't make it any less valuable or meaningful. Negative attitudes, ignorance, or just general disinformation should be argued against, - or to go with the 'warriors theme, fought against - everywhere. They shouldn't be allowed a safe haven just because it's online. Even if they're just spreading awareness, they're helping.

And manspreading is a big fudging problem. Do you know how crowded the subways are? MOVE YOUR LEGS AND LET ME SIT DOWN, *******!

 

[DementedSheep]

Wishful thinking I guess. The bigotry and stupidity on the internet is not some separate thing from "RL". The only difference is people are too pussy to say this shit when people can see their face.

 

[Zontar]

It is a social-justice issue. Just because some people get overly upset by relatively small things doesn't mean that social justice in general is harmed. And, just as a side-note, I disagree wholeheartedly with you using 'keyboard warriors' as a demeaning term. Just because somebody complains about, or goes against, something over the internet doesn't make it any less valuable or meaningful. Negative attitudes, ignorance, or just general disinformation should be argued against, - or to go with the 'warriors theme, fought against - everywhere. They shouldn't be allowed a safe haven just because it's online. Even if they're just spreading awareness, they're helping.

And manspreading is a big fudging problem. Do you know how crowded the subways are? MOVE YOUR LEGS AND LET ME SIT DOWN, *******!

If it is a social justice issue, it's one where the vast majority of its support comes from outside social justice, because those who are social justice warriors are a very small but vocal minority in society, one which alone would be incapable of causing any change.

As for manspreading, I have yet to see a single image of it (because I've never even seen it in person) where a person's legs are out wider then their shoulders. It's a none-issue, and there's no getting around that.

 

[TKretts3]

It is a social-justice issue. Just because some people get overly upset by relatively small things doesn't mean that social justice in general is harmed. And, just as a side-note, I disagree wholeheartedly with you using 'keyboard warriors' as a demeaning term. Just because somebody complains about, or goes against, something over the internet doesn't make it any less valuable or meaningful. Negative attitudes, ignorance, or just general disinformation should be argued against, - or to go with the 'warriors theme, fought against - everywhere. They shouldn't be allowed a safe haven just because it's online. Even if they're just spreading awareness, they're helping.

And manspreading is a big fudging problem. Do you know how crowded the subways are? MOVE YOUR LEGS AND LET ME SIT DOWN, *******!

If it is a social justice issue, it's one where the vast majority of its support comes from outside social justice, because those who are social justice warriors are a very small but vocal minority in society, one which alone would be incapable of causing any change.

As for manspreading, I have yet to see a single image of it (because I've never even seen it in person) where a person's legs are out wider then their shoulders. It's a none-issue, and there's no getting around that.

It depends on how you define social justice warriors. The wording of the term implies that it is people who are in support of, or act towards (Fight for), social justice initiatives, in which case the numbers would be very high. There are various social justice events that take place every year, whether they be conventions, votes (Referendums), support groups, protests, et cetera; if you vote in favour of a social justice initiative (Marriage equality, equal wages for equal work, income inequality, et cetera), if you voice or otherwise raise awareness in support of a social justice issue, if you campaign for positive social change, et cetera.

Your definition seems very strange, as you seem to be saying that even if you support and act in favour of social justice initiatives, you aren't a social justice warrior/supporter. May I ask, then, what your definition of the term would be?

And the 'manspreading' (Or, let's be real here, leg-room) thing really is just mis-sorted. It's not really a social justice issue, but a common courtesy issue. Don't take up so much space, especially on a crowded bus is all.

 

[Zontar]

It depends on how you define social justice warriors. The wording of the term implies that it is people who are in support of, or act towards (Fight for), social justice initiatives, in which case the numbers would be very high. There are various social justice events that take place every year, whether they be conventions, votes (Referendums), support groups, protests, et cetera; if you vote in favour of a social justice initiative (Marriage equality, equal wages for equal work, income inequality, et cetera), if you voice or otherwise raise awareness in support of a social justice issue, if you campaign for positive social change, et cetera.

Your definition seems very strange, as you seem to be saying that even if you support and act in favour of social justice initiatives, you aren't a social justice warrior/supporter. May I ask, then, what your definition of the term would be?

I'm using the common use of the term online, which has little (if anything) to do with social justice. The term is used mostly for radicals, usually ones who unironically fight for social justice while also being regressive. It's like being for equality of the sexes while also not being a feminist, most people support the act but most also refuse to call themselves feminists due to the political baggage the term has. Last time I checked, for the Us it was only 1 in 4 women and 1 in 5 men supporting feminism despite the majority of both wanting equality, social justice is like that but with the divide between those supporting the stated goals and those which are part of the group being even wider.

 

[FalloutJack]

This has been one of my peeves for a while. I constantly see people making a difference between what happens online and what happens in real life. It seems like people are refusing to acknowledge that there are actually other people contributing these weird, wacky, insulting, abusing, etc. posts, pictures, videos, etc. online. Why is there a divorce from reality about "the internet"? Why do people think "the internet" and other "real life" people are two different groups?

Oh, that's easy. Not everyone's a savvy net-goer in the world. Real life is nothing like net-life, as your parents can probably tell you. Mine personally struggle to understand computers daily. There must be a disconnect, because some people just aren't into it the same way as everyone else.

 

[Queen Michael]

I think he was talking about the radicals who do things like complain about manspreading or that sexism against men is impossible, the type of thing that moderates look at and either face-palm or are revolted by.

You nailed it, Zontar. That's the kind of person I was talking about. The kind of person who seems like they're constantly angry about everything in society being so terribly wrong.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You nailed it, Zontar. That's the kind of person I was talking about. The kind of person who seems like they're constantly angry about everything in society being so terribly wrong.

For every one person I've witnessed who seems "constantly angry about everything in society being so terribly wrong", I see fifteen to twenty people who seem constantly angry at the existence of the former. Indeed, I wasn't even aware of the term "social justice warrior", that Tumblr hosted a variety of politically correct whining in addition to cats and porn, that Anita Sarkeesian was a person who said and did things, or any of an innumerable host of other intolerable scourges until the ceaseless yowling from a population of this forum brought them to my attention on an hourly basis. Truly, these are dark times we live in.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You nailed it, Zontar. That's the kind of person I was talking about. The kind of person who seems like they're constantly angry about everything in society being so terribly wrong.

For every one person I've witnessed who seems "constantly angry about everything in society being so terribly wrong", I see fifteen to twenty people who seem constantly angry at the existence of the former. Indeed, I wasn't even aware of the term "social justice warrior", that Tumblr hosted a variety of politically correct whining in addition to cats and porn, that Anita Sarkeesian was a person who said and did things, or any of an innumerable host of other intolerable scourges until the ceaseless yowling from a population of this forum brought them to my attention on an hourly basis. Truly, these are dark times we live in.

Yeah, second that. Though, very much depends on whether or not you think various elements of society are terribly wrong.

 

[Queen Michael]

You nailed it, Zontar. That's the kind of person I was talking about. The kind of person who seems like they're constantly angry about everything in society being so terribly wrong.

For every one person I've witnessed who seems "constantly angry about everything in society being so terribly wrong", I see fifteen to twenty people who seem constantly angry at the existence of the former. Indeed, I wasn't even aware of the term "social justice warrior", that Tumblr hosted a variety of politically correct whining in addition to cats and porn, that Anita Sarkeesian was a person who said and did things, or any of an innumerable host of other intolerable scourges until the ceaseless yowling from a population of this forum brought them to my attention on an hourly basis. Truly, these are dark times we live in.

I've never seen a robbery in my entire life, but they still happen.

 

[inmunitas]

It depends on how you define social justice warriors.

The term has been pretty well defined since 2011 according to http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social+justice+warrior