Internet persona and ethics...

[Donovan]

Here's a thought that occured to me, and I figured this would be the place to put it into words.

On the subject of internet personas and ethical behavior: it is a common practice for people online to adopt personas that are rude, crude, and deliberately antagonisitc in order to "vent" or "get rid of frustrations." People who practice this trait fall into two categories:

1. The person who "isn't like this IRL:" this person swears, usually with backup, that in 'real life' he or she is a saint without equal, and that online antics do not really reflect the true personality.

2. The "Take me as I am" asshole is the person who proudly claims he or she is just that evil on or off the boards, and makes no effort to hide it.

Now we've had the argument whether or not online behavior counts as "real life" but my question is this: Is the person who claims a different personality offline more or less ethical than the person who claims constant antisocial behavior?

On the one hand, the person who claims offline assholery is more directly obnoxious (if he is being honest) to people he meets in real life settings. His actions have a direct impact on people he meets and interacts with.

However,

The "venter" asshole who sees online assholery as a harmless way to blow off steam is a more subtle yet insidious presence, much like the smiling, charming racist whose nature is more difficult to identify and therefore avoid than the slogan-shouting nazi skinhead. If a person confronted with a completely anonymous and consequence-free forum in which to behave any way he or she desires can only think to act like a complete asshole, what does that say about the person's baser nature in real life?


Does it reflect a more thorough corruption of the soul than the proud asshole, who knows and is comfortable with his own shortcomings, and admits them in advance as a sort of "caveat emptor" for people he interacts with?


Thoughts?

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

OK I ADMIT IT MY DICK ISN"T 10 INCHES LONG! NOW LEAVE ME ALONE!

"Online venters", being grounded in different RL values, are able to change, and often do change their online ways, once they realize the true consuquences of their supposedly harmless behavior. Also, online venters are more prone to apologize for their actions out of remorse, which shows they aren't truly disconnected to their RL values while online.

But assholes are assholes are assholes. And so they shall be till they die with deep deep frown lines.

 

[Donovan]

True. But what if the reverse happens, and the "venter" persona begins to be the dominant one? Does the "venter" then become victim of his or her own desire to act as an asshole with impunity? And does that negate the argument that online behavior has no real world consequences?

PS. Start your measuring tape at the base, stretch it up one side of the penis and then down the other side. You'll get ten inches easy.

 

[The Question]

Then again, there are also folks who are psychologically flexible enough to exhibit entirely different behavior sets online as compared to offline. People who really aren't assholes, but have studied a sufficient number of them to play one on TV. But that's not really what you're getting at, as far as I can tell -- what you're really getting at seems to be, doesn't just the desire to behave like an asshole -- in any context -- make a person an asshole in actuality? To some degree, of course it does. But it is, in fact, a question of degree. Trolling is replete with rape jokes, but I doubt that means that the people who tell them are rapists. The line between idle entertainment and serious action tends to get thicker in relation to the outrageousness of the subject of entertainment.

 

[keekeen]

I think people take things way too seriously. People take on personalities online which are 180 degrees diametrically out of sync with their IRL personality. Why? Because it's fun to watch the reaction from others who are too clueless to get it. This is the reason characters like saint loocifer thrive on most sites (including this one). People give him and his antics way too much attention. He gets banned on other sites, daycared here, talked about constantly by other members. All this time of course the most effective way to change his abrasive behavior is to completely ignore him.

For some unknown reason, it appears that it is incredibly difficult to ignore someone whose conduct we abhor. Why? I'm not so sure I know why. But I'll give it a try. The problem is most people aren't used to existing in an unmoderated/lawless environment. We are used to laws and rules. That's the reason sites like this one exist (message boards owned by a person and regulated by mods). For instance, a few years ago, we would be having this discussion on Usenet, which is now almost depleted of intelligent dialogs not because of disrupers like loocy but because of the overreaction by "serious" members to the antics of the loocies of this world, and the inability/unwillingness of news admin to stop people like loocy. As a result, we've seen a large exodus from Usenet to individually-owned web message boards where it is easier to control who can post where and when.

In short, we don't know how to ignore the things we don't like. We love controls. We wish to control the behavior of others, hence we appoint mods and admins to do our dirty work for us. We have a lot of social evolving to do, if you ask me.

Carry on!

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

I think people take things way too seriously.

This may well be the mantra of a third category, the sociotroll. A sociotroll orchestrates elaborate trolls, gets the desired result from his target(s), and then has the balls to chastise the victims for feeling antagonized. "You guys take things way too seriously!" As if it's society's fault for bring initially trusting of people, rather than being of the same trollish mindest of the troll.

I've always found this type to be the most disturbing, because in RL that kind of behavior would be considered mentally deficient, and the person posssibly diagnosed as a sociopath. But on places like here, such a person can be glorified, although sometimes the admiration is understandably cautious and filled with caveats by trolls of lesser initensity (or, if you will, the other 2 categories).

 

[keekeen]

I've always found this type to be the most disturbing, because in RL that kind of behavior would be considered mentally deficient, and the person posssibly diagnosed as a sociopath.

But this is NOT real life. In real life, somebody who insists their name is "Eggs Mayonnaise" would be committed to a mental asylum.

 

[Donovan]

Then again, there are also folks who are psychologically flexible enough to exhibit entirely different behavior sets online as compared to offline. People who really aren't assholes, but have studied a sufficient number of them to play one on TV.

Agreed. These are the real "trolls," the people who deliberately act a certain way strictly to observe the response or indeed guide the response they want to see. I'd have to argue the idea this doesn't make them assholes, however; deliberate manipulation of other people, especially those less intelligent or more "clueless" would be assholery at its finest.

But that's not really what you're getting at, as far as I can tell -- what you're really getting at seems to be, doesn't just the desire to behave like an asshole -- in any context -- make a person an asshole in actuality? To some degree, of course it does. But it is, in fact, a question of degree. Trolling is replete with rape jokes, but I doubt that means that the people who tell them are rapists. The line between idle entertainment and serious action tends to get thicker in relation to the outrageousness of the subject of entertainment.

Again, agreed. Although my question was not so much one of extreme degrees like rape jokes or Nigger references, etc. I have found that people who set out to shock do so with that which is taboo in their own RL experience, essentially what they think would shock them or people they know IRL. Hence the variations on scat humor, rape jokes or racism. Three of the big ones. If you study the history of popular expletives you'll find the same trend, as society's mores and values changed, so to did the most popular epithets and curses.

Actually my thought is that if a person is faced with real world consequences, such as the loss of a job or spouse, or public respect, he or she tailors his behavior accordingly, "suppressing" the desire to speak his or her true feelings or negative attitudes. However, when freed from that potential consequence, as in online, the person becomes a foulmouthed, bitchy prick whose behavior would be abhorrent IRL.

Which then, is the default personality? The public persona shown for Real world situations, or the unfettered version displayed when there is no consequence for misbehavior?

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

But this is NOT real life. In real life, somebody who insists their name is "Eggs Mayonnaise" would be committed to a mental asylum.

No, not if they had it changed legally. They'd just be eccentric.

Message boards were not invented to be trolled. People start them with good intentions to build communities around the theme or topic of interest. Career trolls like the ones I described think they are entitled to antagonize the groups and individuals they do, it doesn't occur to them (or they merely rationalize away like you are in your argument) that they are doing something wrong to other people. They feel justifed because they see heirarchies or authority figures that they don't like (due to whatever mental/emotional problems they have with authority in the first place), and think it's their job to tear down what others have built up, to rid communities of what they perceive as "tyranny". Which is where the troll's emotional problems are pinpointed. For someone who chides others for taking his sandbox-peeing too seriously, his motivations for doing it are more often that not more deep-rooted than he would admit.

Troll victims have a right to be legitamately angry for having their online activity disrupted. Trolls are often too deluded in their own self-righteousness to acknowledge this.

 

[Donovan]

I think people take things way too seriously. People take on personalities online which are 180 degrees diametrically out of sync with their IRL personality. Why? Because it's fun to watch the reaction from others who are too clueless to get it. This is the reason characters like saint loocifer thrive on most sites (including this one). People give him and his antics way too much attention. He gets banned on other sites, daycared here, talked about constantly by other members. All this time of course the most effective way to change his abrasive behavior is to completely ignore him.

For some unknown reason, it appears that it is incredibly difficult to ignore someone whose conduct we abhor. Why? I'm not so sure I know why. But I'll give it a try. The problem is most people aren't used to existing in an unmoderated/lawless environment. We are used to laws and rules. That's the reason sites like this one exist (message boards owned by a person and regulated by mods). For instance, a few years ago, we would be having this discussion on Usenet, which is now almost depleted of intelligent dialogs not because of disrupers like loocy but because of the overreaction by "serious" members to the antics of the loocies of this world, and the inability/unwillingness of news admin to stop people like loocy. As a result, we've seen a large exodus from Usenet to individually-owned web message boards where it is easier to control who can post where and when.

In short, we don't know how to ignore the things we don't like. We love controls. We wish to control the behavior of others, hence we appoint mods and admins to do our dirty work for us. We have a lot of social evolving to do, if you ask me.

Carry on!

This is an interesting take and is the basis for a whole other topic, behavior modification. In my field I see plenty of cases where a person has opted to act out for attention, simply because that is the most effective way to gat it. As you say, it is impossible to ignore a person acting contrary to acceptable behavior, and there are those who don't distinguish between positive and negative attention. Like Lucy, they don't care how people talk about them as long as people talk about them.

Another question: would it be preferable to post thoughtful, intelligent posts you knew would be ignored like on Usenet, or suppress your own intelligence to post poop jokes in order to be accepted by the majority?

 

[Hambil]

No, not if they had it changed legally. They'd just be eccentric.

Message boards were not invented to be trolled. People start them with good intentions to build communities around the theme or topic of interest. Career trolls like the ones I described think they are entitled to antagonize the groups and individuals they do, it doesn't occur to them (or they merely rationalize away like you are in your argument) that they are doing something wrong to other people. They feel justifed because they see heirarchies or authority figures that they don't like (due to whatever mental/emotional problems they have with authority in the first place), and think it's their job to tear down what others have built up, to rid communities of what they perceive as "tyranny". Which is where the troll's emotional problems are pinpointed. For someone who chides others for taking his sandbox-peeing too seriously, his motivations for doing it are more often that not more deep-rooted than he would admit.

Troll victims have a right to be legitamately angry for having their online activity disrupted. Trolls are often too deluded in their own self-righteousness to acknowledge this.

I think they are wannabe joiners no different than the mean kids in grade-school. You get one bully, a true sociopath - and then you get a bunch of wannabe trolls clinging to them. It's really all pretty pathetic. They have no greater social agenda other than to try and 'be cool and fit it' somewhere. They use a social agenda as an excuse, a rationalization.

 

[The Question]

Which then, is the default personality? The public persona shown for Real world situations, or the unfettered version displayed when there is no consequence for misbehavior?

I'm gonna buck the obvious if/then type of answer and say... both. We could obviously get into the question of, "What really constitutes 'asshole'" -- but for simplicity's sake, let's not.

IMO, everybody is some kind of asshole or another. It's the obviousness from individual to individual, though, that causes us to look at one person and see an asshole and see the one next to them as a saint -- the saint just has more to lose by being demonstrative, that's all, whether the loss is an external one (getting fired from a really good job) or internal (getting a nagging conscience.) But in the end, everybody is some kind of asshole, and more than likely everybody tries to find that special circumstance in which the negative consequences of being true to their inner asshole are reduced or eliminated. Online media, message boards in particular, are perfect for that.

But again, as to which side of people is the real one? I still say both -- because although "asshole" is just society's definition of a person's genuine qualities of which society disapproves, people only suppress those qualities in order to function more successfully within society -- which itself is a pretty asshole-ish thing to do.

 

[Donovan]

This may well be the mantra of a third category, the sociotroll. A sociotroll orchestrates elaborate trolls, gets the desired result from his target(s), and then has the balls to chastise the victims for feeling antagonized. "You guys take things way too seriously!" As if it's society's fault for bring initially trusting of people, rather than being of the same trollish mindest of the troll.

I've always found this type to be the most disturbing, because in RL that kind of behavior would be considered mentally deficient, and the person posssibly diagnosed as a sociopath. But on places like here, such a person can be glorified, although sometimes the admiration is understandably cautious and filled with caveats by trolls of lesser initensity (or, if you will, the other 2 categories).

You might actually be talking about two distinct types here, but I see your point. You have the first type, the overzealous prankster, the one who sets up hurtful elaborate pranks and then acts surprised when people get angry. "What, can't you take a joke?" These are guys like the college fratboys who practice sadistic humiliation rituals and then wonder why everyone got so pissed off.

But then you have the "hall monitor" type, who may or may not be directly involved in a situation but who will loudly complain that people are not acting in accordance with the way he or she perceives things ought to be. Whether defending rude behavior or condemning it, the Hall monitor is actually trying to impose his or her own personal views on the situation and create unity through domination.

Reading over your post again I see the first is more what you're mentioning, but the other is worth leaving in for discussion as well. Both fall well within the asshole banner...

 

[Donovan]

I'm gonna buck the obvious if/then type of answer and say... both. We could obviously get into the question of, "What really constitutes 'asshole'" -- but for simplicity's sake, let's not.

IMO, everybody is some kind of asshole or another. It's the obviousness from individual to individual, though, that causes us to look at one person and see an asshole and see the one next to them as a saint -- the saint just has more to lose by being demonstrative, that's all, whether the loss is an external one (getting fired from a really good job) or internal (getting a nagging conscience.) But in the end, everybody is some kind of asshole, and more than likely everybody tries to find that special circumstance in which the negative consequences of being true to their inner asshole are reduced or eliminated. Online media, message boards in particular, are perfect for that.

But again, as to which side of people is the real one? I still say both -- because although "asshole" is just society's definition of a person's genuine qualities of which society disapproves, people only suppress those qualities in order to function more successfully within society -- which itself is a pretty asshole-ish thing to do.

I think we may have just hit on the true secret of success in the world: "How to win Friends and Suppress Your Inner Asshole" :laugh:

So essentially every single person is a closet asshole, and our standing is determined by how well we mask that basic impulse to hit the other guy over the head with the nearest available rock? I think I'll buy that. I guess we could get into the whole "Altruism vs. Egotism" question, but we'd need a bigger thread and I can pretty well see where you place mankind's basic default persona.

 

[Caitriona]

Another question: would it be preferable to post thoughtful, intelligent posts you knew would be ignored like on Usenet, or suppress your own intelligence to post poop jokes in order to be accepted by the majority?

That would depend on the needs of the individual, their maturity level, and ability to gain enough attention to meet their needs.

Some people don't need to belong to any group in order to get their attention needs met. They function in ways people probably find 'acceptable'

Some people do need to belong to a group in order to 'feel' part of the attention the group receives. These people function as a part of the whole, gaining their attention through all the attention given to any member of the group.

Some people don't know how to acquire the attention they require and so 'act out' either as individuals or in groups. The Hollywood saying "Any press is good press applies here.

What is valid is the fact that we all need some form of attention. In the US we have a compete culture based on 'attention' in Celebrities and fandom. The route any individual takes in meeting his/her attention needs depends on his/her maturity and somewhat their learned behavior. If acting out got them attention as a child or if they saw others get attention by doing so, then it is going to be one viable choice.

As much as we might hate to admit it, most of us don't want to be a lone wolf. Humans are just too gregarious. People want to belong to groups. This is why we form communities.

I'd venture a guess and say a higher percentage will claim they want an intelligent conversation with a few lone people, but most actually will join the more populated groups and "bitch" about the lack of intelligent conversation.

 

[Friday]

TQ, with all due respect...bullshit. All people are not inherently assholes. Yeah, some are. Like Donovan, I've seen students act out for attention, or because they are angry, or frustrated, or sad.

But I've known some very decent people, also, without an ounce of assholery in them.

As for trolls. I admit, the reason I used to troll was to be part of a group. I exhibited behaviors that never sat right with who I genuinely was, and regretted it. As you know, the fallout from that period was harsh, and unforgiving.

But I no longer want to give people a hard time, and fail to understand those who never grow beyond the troll phase. It just seems like a negative form of therapy. Your life sucks? Make someone else's suck worse, and you'll feel better. There's a board whose administration you disagree with? Interfere with the operating of that board, and the freedom of the members to enjoy said board...because you think things should be different.

How egocentric can one get?

I don't know. I think those who will claim that it's just a game, it's just a way to blow off steam, are just rationalizing their behaviors to convince themselves it's okay to participate in hurting people.

 

[Donovan]

TQ, with all due respect...bullshit. All people are not inherently assholes. Yeah, some are. Like Donovan, I've seen students act out for attention, or because they are angry, or frustrated, or sad.

But I've known some very decent people, also, without an ounce of assholery in them.

As for trolls. I admit, the reason I used to troll was to be part of a group. I exhibited behaviors that never sat right with who I genuinely was, and regretted it. As you know, the fallout from that period was harsh, and unforgiving.

But I no longer want to give people a hard time, and fail to understand those who never grow beyond the troll phase. It just seems like a negative form of therapy. Your life sucks? Make someone else's suck worse, and you'll feel better. There's a board whose administration you disagree with? Interfere with the operating of that board, and the freedom of the members to enjoy said board...because you think things should be different.

How egocentric can one get?

I don't know. I think those who will claim that it's just a game, it's just a way to blow off steam, are just rationalizing their behaviors to convince themselves it's okay to participate in hurting people.

So we can place you squarely in the "altruism" camp of those who believe people are inherently good but for various reasons can be induced to behave badly, such as "mob mentality" situations.

What would you say about the people who claim a certain amount of negative aggression is actually necessary for survival, and that those who display NO asshole tendencies are actually the ones who are the most deviant in their behavior? For example, undiagnosed schizophrenics who maintain such a tight control over their emotions that they one day snap and head for the bell tower with a high-powered rifle?

 

[The Question]

^^Good point, there. I hold to Stephen King's line of thought -- everyone has "gators in the basement", so to speak, and if we don't feed our inner gators (or our inner asshole, if you prefer) eventually it just breaks loose. Sometimes with disastrous and permanent results.

And yeah, I'm not one in the altruism camp, because people always -- always -- operate with expectations of results, be those positive or negative, be they external or internal. Even the purest, most saintly-seeming person does good because there's something in it for them, even if all that's in it for them is the warm and fuzzy feeling they get out of it.

Now, that's not to say that performing good deeds out of self-interest is a bad thing. It's not, not by any stretch. It's a good thing, because it drives people to do good things. But it is a dynamic that's in play, and it seems silly to ignore that dynamic purely in the interest of maintaining for oneself the illusion of human beings as angels. We're just not.

 

[Laker_Girl]

I feel like you're speaking to me Donovan and I have to tell you, I am who I am. How I am online is how I am in real life but it's not ALL that I am in real life. I could go on and on about any good that I may have done that might counter what people on TK really think about me but the fact is, I have walked up to a mother of a screaming child at Target and said to her face, "Shut your damn kid up." I am quite rude when I feel violated. On the other hand if a child is extremely well behaved I compliment the child and the parent(s). Basically with me, you get what you give, Friday knows that about me.

 

[Donovan]

I feel like you're speaking to me Donovan and I have to tell you, I am who I am. How I am online is how I am in real life but it's not ALL that I am in real life. I could go on and on about any good that I may have done that might counter what people on TK really think about me but the fact is, I have walked up to a mother of a screaming child at Target and said to her face, "Shut your damn kid up." I am quite rude when I feel violated. On the other hand if a child is extremely well behaved I compliment the child and the parent(s). Basically with me, you get what you give, Friday knows that about me.

In the immortal words of Narcissus' older brother Joe Cissus: "It's not always about you, you know."

My topic du jour had very little to do with your inflated opinion of your own importance to me and the world at large, and in fact had more to do with Jack's recent meltdown and departure as well as the issues raised in the recent Trollwars wars.

That you feel personally affected when I speak in a general sense about online assholes is telling, and a matter of concern for you and those who know you. And while I am certain that most parents appreciate your unsolicited opinions on their children's behavior patterns, I can't help but wonder at your reaction should one of them react strongly at the violations YOU represent to them. If "feeling violated" is all the reason one needs to set aside civil behavior and adopt an asshole persona, then is one required to accept the idea that others may feel similarly violated by that intrusion and react in kind?

How DO you react when the parent of an unruly or upset child tells you to mind your fucking business? Do you accept their right to express their feelings of being violated as you yourself did, or do you escalate the altercation into louder and perhaps more physical territory? And do you feel at all responsible for any subsequent damages both physical and emotional, or does the blame lie with the original unruly child?