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

[Thaluikhain]

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

Eh, is that the only term there that doesn't have a bizarre sexual meaning?

More seriously, the term is very often used to insult and dismiss anyone and everyone talking about social justice, which is rather different from the definition given at UD.

 

[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

Eh, is that the only term there that doesn't have a bizarre sexual meaning?

More seriously, the term is very often used to insult and dismiss anyone and everyone talking about social justice, which is rather different from the definition given at UD.

Well I guess "shallow" and "well-thought-out" are fairly subjective. What may not seem shallow or well-thought-out to one person, may seem that way to someone who might have a more in-depth understanding of the subject.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

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.

Hey, I'm one of those! Wait, no I don't think I am.

constantly angry about everything in society being so terribly wrong

That's me!

seems like they're...

That's not me! I tend to not express my impotent rage at the sheer awfulness of modern civilisation and the state of modern humanity*, at least, it's certainly not the majority of my online presence, so I don't seem like I'm constantly angry.

I'm certainly in favour of social justice, as a nebulous concept, but in a more global 'justice for all' kind of way, rather than a more specific 'we must help X minority group (racial/sexual/whatever) with problem Y with no consideration for the root causes or how problem Y and/or it's root causes also cause problems for society as a whole'.

[small]*So it's not all bad, but I despair at how much better it could be than it is, if everyone were to stop being dicks to each other, and co-operate.[/small]

OT:
I think the reason people make a distinction between online and real life is that it can be incredibly hard to build a picture of another human being on the other side of an internet debate, as words and avatars provide such a narrow view of that person. There's also the difference in how people act online to offline, and we tend to find ourselves drawn into groups that share some, if not all of our views, so coming across wildly different views online probably doesn't feel like the communications people normally have with their fellow humans.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

What grinds my gears is when you draw attention to such dickheaded behavior and people shug it off saying "It's the Internet" as if it being the internet makes it acceptable. I know it's the internet, but it's still wrong!

 

[2xDouble]

You, my friend, need to familiarize yourself with the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19]. In long form: people are not themselves online; not people at all, in fact. You/we are blinking lights on a screen. Humans individually anthropomorphize these lights because they resemble images humans both recognize and identify with and assume that a being similar to itself created them - the arrogance and hubris of man made manifest. Though partially correct, the thoughts and expressions were indeed recorded by other humans, the records contained herein are not beings themselves, and worse yet, neither exist as nor represent beings identical to oneself. To reiterate, human socialization instinct takes these fractional remnants of beings and uses aspects of his or her self to construct them into different beings - a grave error by itself - then assign human morality and values to such ersatz beings based on their own morals and values... the very definition of the "straw man" fallacy.

I'm not trying to talk over people's heads, that's just how I think. Don't worry, it annoys me too; I'll go back to killing it with alcohol shortly.

TL;DR: fuckwad /= person, therefore "people" /= "internet"

 

[Yopaz]

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.

Yeah, this was more or less the exact thing I was thinking. The internet doesn't prevent us from showing our worst sides. Along with that we may also admit things we wouldn't and be more open. Anonymity allows us to show sides of ourselves that we're embarrassed over for better and for worse.

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.

Social justice warrior is a term to describe the people who are outspoken about social justice online, but don't really care enough to do anything about it outside arguing in forums. Social justice warrior is a term intended to be an insult to these people.

However, you say this is a load of bollocks. Do you often encounter gay couples who tell people to go kill themselves? Personally I haven't really seen this myself, but based on what you see and what I have encountered on various forums this is quite common and based on what you said people don't act differently on the internet than they do in real life.

It is quite possible you misunderstood something here and that's fine, we all do at times.

Here's a reference.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social+justice+warrior

 

[inmunitas]

What grinds my gears is when you draw attention to such dickheaded behavior and people shug it off saying "It's the Internet" as if it being the internet makes it acceptable. I know it's the internet, but it's still wrong!

The Internet is inherently anonymous and there are few regional restrictions, you can quite literately be talking to anyone or anything from anywhere, so most people don't think it's worth their energy getting worked up over it. i.e. For all you know I could be a spambot posting random things and it's just a coincidence that what I've posted can be perceived as relevant to your conversation.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

You, my friend, need to familiarize yourself with the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19]. In long form: people are not themselves online; not people at all, in fact. You/we are blinking lights on a screen. Humans individually anthropomorphize these lights because they resemble images humans both recognize and identify with and assume that a being similar to itself created them - the arrogance and hubris of man made manifest. Though partially correct, the thoughts and expressions were indeed recorded by other humans, the records contained herein are not beings themselves, and worse yet, neither exist as nor represent beings identical to oneself. To reiterate, human socialization instinct takes these fractional remnants of beings and uses aspects of his or her self to construct them into different beings - a grave error by itself - then assign human morality and values to such ersatz beings based on their own morals and values... the very definition of the "straw man" fallacy.

I'm not trying to talk over people's heads, that's just how I think. Don't worry, it annoys me too; I'll go back to killing it with alcohol shortly.

TL;DR: fuckwad /= person, therefore "people" /= "internet"

Nailed it. If the only thing you ever see is text written by a person, you don't perceive them like you would a live person you're having an actual conversation with. The self I project on the Internet is not the self I project in person, because on the Internet I have total control (for now) over how I can make myself seem and what I say.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

What grinds my gears is when you draw attention to such dickheaded behavior and people shug it off saying "It's the Internet" as if it being the internet makes it acceptable. I know it's the internet, but it's still wrong!

The Internet is inherent anonymous and there are few regional restrictions, you can quite literately be talking to anyone or anything from anywhere, so most people don't think it's worth their energy getting worked up over it. i.e. For all you know I could be a spambot posting random things and it's just a coincidence that what I've posted can be perceived as relevant to your conversation.

It's still bugs me that being an asshole on the internet has become acceptable instead of an issue that should be addressed. Also I don't think anonymity has anything to do with it. It's more the lack of immediate consequences for being an asshole.

 

[inmunitas]

What grinds my gears is when you draw attention to such dickheaded behavior and people shug it off saying "It's the Internet" as if it being the internet makes it acceptable. I know it's the internet, but it's still wrong!

The Internet is inherent anonymous and there are few regional restrictions, you can quite literately be talking to anyone or anything from anywhere, so most people don't think it's worth their energy getting worked up over it. i.e. For all you know I could be a spambot posting random things and it's just a coincidence that what I've posted can be perceived as relevant to your conversation.

It's still bugs me that being an asshole on the internet has become acceptable instead of an issue that should be addressed. Also I don't think anonymity has anything to do with it. It's more the lack of immediate consequences for being an asshole.

Typically is best to ignore such behaviour, giving such behaviour undue attention or recognition only reinforces such behaviour as being acceptable, it's a weird physiological thing, like when your training a pet you only reward good behaviour with a treat and/or attention. Hence the "Don't feed the trolls" meme.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

What grinds my gears is when you draw attention to such dickheaded behavior and people shug it off saying "It's the Internet" as if it being the internet makes it acceptable. I know it's the internet, but it's still wrong!

The Internet is inherent anonymous and there are few regional restrictions, you can quite literately be talking to anyone or anything from anywhere, so most people don't think it's worth their energy getting worked up over it. i.e. For all you know I could be a spambot posting random things and it's just a coincidence that what I've posted can be perceived as relevant to your conversation.

It's still bugs me that being an asshole on the internet has become acceptable instead of an issue that should be addressed. Also I don't think anonymity has anything to do with it. It's more the lack of immediate consequences for being an asshole.

Typically is best to ignore such behaviour, giving such behaviour undue attention or recognition only reinforces such behaviour as being acceptable, it's a weird physiological thing, like when your training a pet you only reward good behaviour with a treat and/or attention. Hence the "Don't feed the trolls" meme.

Yeah, but when training a pet you don't ignore the bad behavior either. Problem is it's hard to bring about immediate consequences for bad behavior on the Internet. Even if a site has rules, breaking them doesn't carry an immediate consequence as it takes time for the moderators to notice the violation and take action.

 

[wAriot]

It's still bugs me that being an asshole on the internet has become acceptable instead of an issue that should be addressed. Also I don't think anonymity has anything to do with it. It's more the lack of immediate consequences for being an asshole.

People are assholes inside and outside the Internet; if you want to stop assholery on the internet you'll have to change people altogether (good luck with that).

I agree with the second part of your post though; people insult and threaten others even if they know each other personally.

 

[inmunitas]

Typically is best to ignore such behaviour, giving such behaviour undue attention or recognition only reinforces such behaviour as being acceptable, it's a weird physiological thing, like when your training a pet you only reward good behaviour with a treat and/or attention. Hence the "Don't feed the trolls" meme.

Yeah, but when training a pet you don't ignore the bad behavior either. Problem is it's hard to bring about immediate consequences for bad behavior on the Internet. Even if a site has rules, breaking them doesn't carry an immediate consequence as it takes time for the moderators to notice the violation and take action.

Indeed, unfortunately someone has yet to invent a better solution then "block" and "report".

 

[Canadamus Prime]

It's still bugs me that being an asshole on the internet has become acceptable instead of an issue that should be addressed. Also I don't think anonymity has anything to do with it. It's more the lack of immediate consequences for being an asshole.

People are assholes inside and outside the Internet; if you want to stop assholery on the internet you'll have to change people altogether (good luck with that).

I agree with the second part of your post though; people insult and threaten others even if they know each other personally.

Yes I know assholes exist IRL, but the internet seems to bring out everyone's inner asshole; even in those who are not normally assholes IRL. I myself have said things on the internet that I've ended up regretting later.

 

[FalloutJack]

What grinds my gears is when you draw attention to such dickheaded behavior and people shug it off saying "It's the Internet" as if it being the internet makes it acceptable. I know it's the internet, but it's still wrong!

The Internet is inherent anonymous and there are few regional restrictions, you can quite literately be talking to anyone or anything from anywhere, so most people don't think it's worth their energy getting worked up over it. i.e. For all you know I could be a spambot posting random things and it's just a coincidence that what I've posted can be perceived as relevant to your conversation.

It's still bugs me that being an asshole on the internet has become acceptable instead of an issue that should be addressed. Also I don't think anonymity has anything to do with it. It's more the lack of immediate consequences for being an asshole.

Typically is best to ignore such behaviour, giving such behaviour undue attention or recognition only reinforces such behaviour as being acceptable, it's a weird physiological thing, like when your training a pet you only reward good behaviour with a treat and/or attention. Hence the "Don't feed the trolls" meme.

Yeah, but when training a pet you don't ignore the bad behavior either. Problem is it's hard to bring about immediate consequences for bad behavior on the Internet. Even if a site has rules, breaking them doesn't carry an immediate consequence as it takes time for the moderators to notice the violation and take action.

Except here, since modship can be a little TOO FAST at times.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

What grinds my gears is when you draw attention to such dickheaded behavior and people shug it off saying "It's the Internet" as if it being the internet makes it acceptable. I know it's the internet, but it's still wrong!

The Internet is inherent anonymous and there are few regional restrictions, you can quite literately be talking to anyone or anything from anywhere, so most people don't think it's worth their energy getting worked up over it. i.e. For all you know I could be a spambot posting random things and it's just a coincidence that what I've posted can be perceived as relevant to your conversation.

It's still bugs me that being an asshole on the internet has become acceptable instead of an issue that should be addressed. Also I don't think anonymity has anything to do with it. It's more the lack of immediate consequences for being an asshole.

Typically is best to ignore such behaviour, giving such behaviour undue attention or recognition only reinforces such behaviour as being acceptable, it's a weird physiological thing, like when your training a pet you only reward good behaviour with a treat and/or attention. Hence the "Don't feed the trolls" meme.

Yeah, but when training a pet you don't ignore the bad behavior either. Problem is it's hard to bring about immediate consequences for bad behavior on the Internet. Even if a site has rules, breaking them doesn't carry an immediate consequence as it takes time for the moderators to notice the violation and take action.

Except here, since modship can be a little TOO FAST at times.

Some of the Escapists rules are a bit asinine, but you can never be to fast when handing out consequences for bad behavior.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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

Interesting analogy, as media reports on crime have risen sharply whilst actual incidents of same have fallen off. I suspect the same is probably true here.

Of course, I do believe you overlooked the thrust of the argument. If you are constantly angry at "social justice warriors" and view their hypothetical behaviors as one of the ills of society, you are one of the people you are complaining about.

 

[TKretts3]

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.

Social justice warrior is a term to describe the people who are outspoken about social justice online, but don't really care enough to do anything about it outside arguing in forums. Social justice warrior is a term intended to be an insult to these people.

However, you say this is a load of bollocks. Do you often encounter gay couples who tell people to go kill themselves? Personally I haven't really seen this myself, but based on what you see and what I have encountered on various forums this is quite common and based on what you said people don't act differently on the internet than they do in real life.

It is quite possible you misunderstood something here and that's fine, we all do at times.

What do gay couples who tell people to go kill themselves have to do with anything? That has notthing to do with social justice or even being gay, it's just somebody being rude. I have, however, encountered many individuals, gay, straight, and bi, who advocate for social justice initiatives such as marriage equality, preventing workplace discrimination, and adoption rights, among others, on the internet who also do so in real life. In fact I would say that the vast majority of them do.

And I didn't say that people never act differently in real life as compared to the internet, I said that somebody doesn't stop caring about their or other people's rights, liberties, and well-being the second they hop off the internet. People don't automatically lost interest in social justice the second they turn away from their monitors.

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

Forgive me if I don't use 'Urban Dictionary' as a definitive and expert source for vocabulary. There are 35 million people in my country, 528.7 million people in North America, and ~7 billion people in the world, so I don't think 2170 votes makes it 'well defined'. If it did then those Tumblr posts you all rag against would probably be considered the definitive and expert sources for social etiquette.

and that's not even to mention the definition/example, which seems more like it was written by somebody who just got out of a flame war and had a lot of friends/subscribers/followers.

EDIT: And, as thaluikhain said earlier in the thread, which I happen to agree with:

More seriously, the term is very often used to insult and dismiss anyone and everyone talking about social justice.